Final Report Annexes

SAIL-Deliv7-1a ANNEXES

S A I L Semitrailers in Advanced Intermodal Logistics

Project SAIL 10277

Deliverable 7 - Annexes

“SAIL Final Report”

Issue 1a/2002-07-25 Document: SAIL-Deliv7-1a



Document history

Version 1.0a

Status Final draft Deliverable type Strictly confidential Author(s) IMA/ICM

IMA/ICM Incl. Revision and consolidation

Reviewer(s) Prof.Dr.-Ing K. Henning, HDZ/IMA Dr. E. Declercq, ICM Dipl.-Ing F. Stumpe

Submission date 25/07/2002



Content

1. EARLIER PROJECTS AND FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS............................................................................8 1.1 IMPREND ......................................................................................................................................................................8

1.1.1 Description.........................................................................................................................................................8 1.1.2 Conclusions for SAIL........................................................................................................................................8

1.2 TERMINET ....................................................................................................................................................................9 1.2.1 Description.........................................................................................................................................................9 1.2.2 Conclusions for SAIL..................................................................................................................................... 10

1.3 FREIA ...........................................................................................................................................................................10 1.3.1 Description...................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Conclusions for SAIL..................................................................................................................................... 11

1.4 IQ....................................................................................................................................................................................12 1.4.1 Description...................................................................................................................................................... 12 1.4.2 Conclusions for SAIL..................................................................................................................................... 12

2. DETAILED MARKET STATISTICS ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 DOMESTIC ROAD TRANSPORT.....................................................................................................................................14 2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF CROSS-BORDER EXPORTS BY ROAD ..........................................................................................17 2.3 NUMBERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS.....................................................................................................................................19

2.3.1 Sweden............................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.3.2 Germany .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.3.3 Denmark .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.4 Switzerland...................................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.5 Austria.............................................................................................................................................................. 24 2.3.6 The Netherlands............................................................................................................................................. 25

2.4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF SEMI-TRAILERS .......................................................................................................................26 2.5 TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE OF SEMI-TRAILERS.......................................................................................................28

2.5.1 Road tons lifted by semi-trailers in selected countries............................................................................ 28 2.5.2 Development of the average length of haul of semi-trailers................................................................... 29 2.5.3 Tonne-kilometres produced by semi-trailers in selected countries....................................................... 30

3. ROAD/COMBINED TRANSPORT COMPARISON IN PAIRS ..................................................................... 32 4. SYSTEMATISATION OF COMBINED TRANSPORT ENGINEERING ................................................... 33

4.1 ROLLING ROAD (A.1.1.1)............................................................................................................................................33 4.2 THE KANGAROO PROCEDURE (A.1.2.1) ....................................................................................................................33 4.3 2-AXLES „AACHEN« SYSTEM LOW -LEVEL WAGONS (A.1.2.2) ..............................................................................34 4.4 LOW LEVEL WAGONS WITH SUPPORT BEAMS (A.1.2.3)..........................................................................................35 4.5 AUTOMATIC LOADING SYSTEM (A.1.2.4) ................................................................................................................36 4.6 SWINGING WAGON BRIDGE .........................................................................................................................................37

4.6.1 Lohr System (A.1.2.5.1)................................................................................................................................. 37 4.6.2 Tiphock System (A.1.2.5.2)........................................................................................................................... 38 4.6.3 Walda System (A.1.2.5.3).............................................................................................................................. 39 4.6.4 BMFT study (A.1.2.6).................................................................................................................................... 40

4.7 ROAD-RAILER SYSTEM (A.1.3.1) ..............................................................................................................................41 4.7.1 Combirail System (A.1.3.2) .......................................................................................................................... 41 4.7.2 Road-Railer System (A.1.3.3)....................................................................................................................... 42

4.8 POCKET WAGON T2000 (A.2.1.4) ..............................................................................................................................43 4.9 T-MEGA POCKET WAGON (A.2.1.5) .........................................................................................................................44 4.10 BASKET WAGON (A.2.1.6)...................................................................................................................................45 4.11 EURO-SPINE-CARE WAGON (A.2.1.7) ................................................................................................................46 4.12 SEMI-TRAILER WITH HANDLING RECESSES (A.2.1.8)........................................................................................48 4.13 NOVATRANS TECHNICS (A.2.1.9)........................................................................................................................48 4.14 CEMAT / TRW TECHNICS (A.2.1.10)...............................................................................................................50 4.15 ALPENTRAILER TECHNICS (A.2.1.11) .................................................................................................................50



4.16 SEMI-TRAILERS FOR EURO-SPINE-CARE (A.2.1.12) .........................................................................................50 4.17 WOHLFARTH SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.1) .......................................................................................................................51 4.18 RINNEN SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.2)................................................................................................................................53 4.19 AMBROGIO SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.3) ..........................................................................................................................53 4.20 ARCUS-100 SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.4)..........................................................................................................................53 4.21 SWAP BODIES DIN EN 452/EN 12410 (A.3.1.2.1) ...........................................................................................54 4.22 EWALS SYSTEM......................................................................................................................................................55

5. COST ANALYSIS OF TERMINALS (SOURCE: ICM) .................................................................................... 56 5.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................56 5.2 THE TERMINALS OF TOMORROW................................................................................................................................57

5.2.1 Function........................................................................................................................................................... 57 5.2.2 Terminal Technology of the Future............................................................................................................. 57 5.2.3 Benchmark Terminal ..................................................................................................................................... 58

5.3 CONVENTIONAL TERMINAL........................................................................................................................................59 5.3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 59 5.3.2 Description of the "Typical Conventional Terminal".............................................................................. 60 5.3.3 Terminal Functions........................................................................................................................................ 60

5.4 COMPETITIVE ABILITY OF THE UNACCOMPANIED INTERMODAL TRANSPORT .....................................................62 5.5 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT : OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES...........................................................................63

5.5.1 Opportunities and challenges for Intermodal........................................................................................... 63 5.5.2 Intermodal transport tomorrow................................................................................................................... 63 5.5.3 The Terminal of the future............................................................................................................................ 64

5.6 COMPACTTERMINAL............................................................................................................................................65 5.6.1 Tuchschmid Compactterminal Rail-Rail / Rail-Road.............................................................................. 65 5.6.2 Compact construction, minimal handling.................................................................................................. 66 5.6.3 Compactterminal - its components.............................................................................................................. 67 5.6.4 Various sizes satisfy differing requirements.............................................................................................. 68 5.6.5 Flexibility is a priority................................................................................................................................... 69

5.7 ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF THE STANDARD TERMINAL AND THE COMPACTTERMINAL.................................70 5.7.1 Comparison of the Standard Terminal to the Compactterminal............................................................ 70 5.7.2 Comparisons: Compactterminal and conventional terminals................................................................ 72 5.7.3 Cost Analysis (Economic Comparison of the Conventional Terminal and the Compactterminal) . 73

5.8 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES (COMPACTTERMINAL AND T HE TYPICAL CONVENTIONAL TERMINAL) 77

5.8.1 Compactterminal............................................................................................................................................ 77 5.8.2 Typical conventional terminal..................................................................................................................... 79

5.9 REPORT ON A VISIT TO THE TERMINAL OF THE HGK IN COLOGNE-BRAUNSFELD..............................................81 6. SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF SAIL ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 84

6.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................84 6.2 IDENTIFICATION OF KEY SYSTEM COMPONENTS......................................................................................................85 6.3 CRITERIA MATRIX........................................................................................................................................................86 6.4 THE IMPACT MATRIX...................................................................................................................................................87 6.5 THE EFFECT SYSTEM ...................................................................................................................................................89 6.6 THE SYSTEMIC ROLE...................................................................................................................................................90 6.7 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION TABLES.........................................................................................................................94

6.7.1 The set of 113 variables grouped in six sub-systems ............................................................................... 94 6.7.2 The set of 28 aggregated variables for the total system........................................................................100 6.7.3 Table of the 28 variables displaying their P- and Q-values .................................................................104 6.7.4 Value benefits supplier (calculation)........................................................................................................105

6.8 FURTHER DETAILS ON THE MODEL...........................................................................................................................109 7. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAIL SOLUTIONS ..................................................................112

7.1 GENERAL TESTING RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................112 7.2 TESTING SOLUTION 1.................................................................................................................................................112



7.2.1 Description of Solution 1............................................................................................................................112 7.2.2 Testing results solution 2............................................................................................................................122 7.2.3 Solution 3.......................................................................................................................................................137 7.2.4 Test report on solution 2 and 3..................................................................................................................143

7.3 BUILDING THE SEMI TRAILER AND SWAP BODY P ROTOTYPE................................................................................148 7.3.1 The different approaches............................................................................................................................148 7.3.2 Construction of the prototypes...................................................................................................................148 7.3.3 Testing results...............................................................................................................................................154 7.3.4 Approach 3....................................................................................................................................................158 7.3.5 Detailed photos.............................................................................................................................................161 7.3.6 Testing results...............................................................................................................................................164

7.4 BUILDING THE WAGON PROTOTYPE.........................................................................................................................183 7.4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................183 7.4.2 Actual state of affairs of the EU project ...................................................................................................183 7.4.3 Details of the wagon....................................................................................................................................191

8. SIMULATING AND ANIMATING THE TERMINAL PROCESS ..............................................................192 8.1 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................................192 8.2 DEVELOPING OF THE SAIL-TOOL (SAIL2L).............................................................................................................194

8.2.1 The Coders’ Point Of View.........................................................................................................................194 8.2.2 Development steps........................................................................................................................................194 8.2.3 Decisions.......................................................................................................................................................194 8.2.4 Environment for the development of Sail21.............................................................................................195 8.2.5 Function.........................................................................................................................................................195

8.3 OUTLOOK OF SAIL21 .................................................................................................................................................199 8.3.1 Tests................................................................................................................................................................199 8.3.2 Documentation..............................................................................................................................................199 8.3.3 Configurability..............................................................................................................................................199

8.4 DEVELOPING THE ANIMATION..................................................................................................................................199 8.4.1 General information....................................................................................................................................199 8.4.2 Function.........................................................................................................................................................200

List of figures

Figure 2-1: Domestic transports in 1000 tonnes 1990-1998 _________________________________________14 Figure 2-2: Development of the average length of haul in domestic transports 1990-1998 __________________15 Figure 2-3: Development of domestic transports in million tonne-kilometres 1990-1998____________________16 Figure 2-4: Cross-border exports in 1000 tonnes 1990-1998 ________________________________________17 Figure 2-5: Development of the average length of haul in cross border exports 1990-1998__________________17 Figure 2-6: Cross-border exports in million tonne-kilometres 1990-1998_______________________________18 Figure 2-7: Number of semi-trailers registered 1990-1999 (in 1000) __________________________________19 Figure 2-8: Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Sweden 1990-1999 ______________________20 Figure 2-9: Number of trucks, trailers and semi trailers in Germany 1990-1998 (in 1000) __________________21 Figure 2-10: Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Denmark 1990-1997____________________22 Figure 2-11: Number of heavy trucks, trailers and semi-trailers in Switzerland 1990-1999__________________23 Figure 2-12: Development of the number of trailers and semi-trailers in Austria 1994-1999_________________24 Figure 2-13: Development of new registrations of trailers and semi-trailers in the Netherlands 1990-1999 _____25 Figure 2-14: Development of the share of semi -trailers with a loading capacity over 20 tonnes ______________26 Figure 2-15: Development of three different types of semi-trailers ____________________________________27 Figure 2-16: Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom_______________________________28 Figure 2-17 Development of the average length of haul of semi-trailer transports 1995-1999 ________________29 Figure 2-18: Performance of semi-trailer in % of all road transports measured in tonnes___________________30 Figure 2-19: Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom_______________________________31 Figure 3-1 : Road/Combined Transport Comparison in Pairs________________________________________32 Figure 5-1: Situation of conventional Terminal today______________________________________________56



Figure 5-2: Situation of Compactterminal tomorrow.______________________________________________59 Figure 5-3: The Compactterminal ____________________________________________________________65 Figure 5-4: Modular conception of the Compactterminal ___________________________________________66 Figure 5-5: Individual modules ______________________________________________________________69 Figure 5-6: Efficiency indicators _____________________________________________________________71 Figure 5-7: Example of Cost per lift comparison _________________________________________________72 Figure 5-8: Cost comparison diagram _________________________________________________________76 Figure 5-9: Bogie with pimped trailer (source: BTZ) ______________________________________________82 Figure 5-10: Loading technique (source: BTZ) ___________________________________________________83 Figure 6-1 : A part of the Impact Matrix of the system „Intermodal transport“ displaying the first 16 variables, only. AS stands for “active sum”, PS for “passive sum”, P represents the product AS x PS and Q represents the quotient AS / PS.__________________________________________________________________________88 Figure 6-2 : The complete Impact Matrix of the system „Intermodal transport“. All 28 variables are displayed. For visual reasons, the numbers are not displayed in this overview display mode.____________________________89 Figure 6-3 : The Effect System of the system „Intermodal transport“ __________________________________90 Figure 6-4 : The Systemic Roles of the system „Intermodal transport“_________________________________92 Figure 6-5 : The streaddle-carrier transport a semitrailer onto the wagon _____________________________109 Figure 6-6: Loading-activities inside the conventional part of the terminal_____________________________110 Figure 6-7: Loading-activities with two streaddle-carriers inside the RoRo-part of the terminal_____________110 Figure 6-8: View inside the conventional part of the terminal _______________________________________111 Figure 7-1 Solution 1 _____________________________________________________________________113 Figure 7-2 : Solution 1 ____________________________________________________________________114 Figure 7-3: Loading platform geometry _______________________________________________________116 Figure 7-4: Cranable semitrailer ____________________________________________________________123 Figure 7-5: Pocket wagon for cranable semitrailer ______________________________________________124 Figure 7-6: Wheel support platform for pocket wagon ____________________________________________125 Figure 7-7: Loading plan for CT / pocket wagon ________________________________________________126 Figure 7-8: Cranable semitrailer loaded in the enveloping case _____________________________________127 Figure 7-9:Gantry crane with pendulum attenuation _____________________________________________128 Figure 7-10: Mobile crane _________________________________________________________________128 Figure 7-11: Pendulum attenuation __________________________________________________________129 Figure 7-12: Pocket wagon ________________________________________________________________130 Figure 7-13: Front Figure 7-14: Back ___________________130 Figure 7-15: Vertical measurement position____________________________________________________131 Figure 7-16: Loaded pocket wagon __________________________________________________________131 Figure 7-17: Measurement procedure ________________________________________________________132 Figure 7-18: Measurement points____________________________________________________________132 Figure 7-19: Test results/impact_____________________________________________________________133 Figure 7-20: Test results/impact_____________________________________________________________134 Figure 7-21: SSV according EG – RL 89/297/EWG ______________________________________________135 Figure 7-22: Restriction lamp white/red according EG - RL 76/756/EWG-97/28/EG _____________________135 Figure 7-23: UFE according EG - RL 70/221/EWG-97/19/EG ______________________________________135 Figure 7-24: „Spanngetriebe hinten zum horizontalen Spannen der Schiebeplanen“ _____________________136 Figure 7-25: No loading without directing! ____________________________________________________136 Figure 7-26: Cranable swap body and chassis __________________________________________________137 Figure 7-27: Part CT (double wagon) ________________________________________________________138 Figure 7-28: Combination CT/pocket wagon ___________________________________________________139 Figure 7-29: Transportation level over track ___________________________________________________140 Figure 7-30: Cranable swap body ___________________________________________________________141 Figure 7-31: Chassis for cranable swap body___________________________________________________142 Figure 7-32: Ferryboat ___________________________________________________________________143 Figure 7-33: Drive in _____________________________________________________________________144 Figure 7-34: Drive out ____________________________________________________________________144 Figure 7-35: Drive in problematic ___________________________________________________________145 Figure 7-36: Loading ramp drive in __________________________________________________________145 Figure 7-37: Support block_________________________________________________________________146 Figure 7-38: Ro-Ro-rings__________________________________________________________________146



Figures 7-39: Ro-Ro-transportation possibilities ________________________________________________147 Figure 8-1 Phases of a software development process_____________________________________________193 Figure 8-2 : data entry screen ______________________________________________________________196 Figure 8-3 : result graphs__________________________________________________________________198 Figure 8-4 : Developing screen _____________________________________________________________200 Figure 8-5 : Animation screen ______________________________________________________________201

List of tables

Table 5-1: Terminal data............................................................................................................................................................. 61 Table 5-2: Origin / Destination Matrix for Conventional Terminal................................................................................... 62 Table 5-3: Investment Cost.......................................................................................................................................................... 74 Table 5-4: Operating Costs, Conditions................................................................................................................................... 75 Table 5-5: Cost comparison calculation................................................................................................................................... 76 Table 5-6: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway.............................................................................. 78 Table 5-7: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway ........................................................................................... 80 Table 6-1: Criteria to support identification of variables...................................................................................................... 86 Table 6-2: Meaning of colours / numbers in the impact matrix............................................................................................ 87 Table 6-3: All 28 variables clustered in 7 systemic roles ...................................................................................................... 93 Table 7-1 : Contents of the project study................................................................................................................................115 Table 7-2 : Results gantry crane..............................................................................................................................................133 Table 7-3 : Results mobile crane..............................................................................................................................................134

List of Pictures

Picture 4-1: Kangaroo System.................................................................................................................................................... 33 Picture 4-2: Swivelling Pocket Wagon (RO-RO) .................................................................................................................... 34 Picture 4-3: Low level wagons with support beams ............................................................................................................... 35 Picture 4-4: ALS System .............................................................................................................................................................. 36 Picture 4-5: Lohr System............................................................................................................................................................. 37 Picture 4-6: Tiphock System....................................................................................................................................................... 38 Picture 4-7: Walda System.......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Picture 4-8: BMFT study............................................................................................................................................................. 40 Picture 4-9: SSW System.............................................................................................................................................................. 41 Picture 4-10: Combirail System................................................................................................................................................. 42 Picture 4-11: Road-Railer System.............................................................................................................................................. 42 Picture 4-12: Pocket wagon T 2000.......................................................................................................................................... 44 Picture 4-13: T-Mega Pocket Wagon........................................................................................................................................ 45 Picture 4-14: Basket Wagon ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Picture 4-15: Euro-Spine-Care Wagon..................................................................................................................................... 47 Picture 4-16: Semi-trailer with handling recesses.................................................................................................................. 48 Picture 4-17: Novatrans System................................................................................................................................................. 49 Picture 4-18: Alpentrailer System.............................................................................................................................................. 50 Picture 4-19: Semi-trailer for Euro-Spine-Care...................................................................................................................... 51 Picture 4-20: Wohlfarth System.................................................................................................................................................. 52 Picture 4-21: Arcus 100 System................................................................................................................................................. 53 Picture 4-22: Swap bodies DIN EN 452/ EN 12410............................................................................................................... 54 Picture 4-23: Ewals System......................................................................................................................................................... 55 Picture 7-1 : Wheel situation testing - 1 ...............................................................................................................................117 Picture 7-2 : Wheel situation testing - 2 .................................................................................................................................118 Picture 7-3 : Wheel situation testing - 3 .................................................................................................................................118



1. Earlier Projects and framework conditions

1.1 IMPREND

1.1.1 Description

The primary objective of IMPREND is the improvement of pre- and end haulage at terminals, achieved by defining and testing a number of formulas. The project consists of four phases. In the first phase, the present situation with regard to pre- and end haulage will be analysed. In the second, a number of formulas on how to improve pre- and end haulage will be defined and discussed in meetings with (potential) users of Intermodal transport. These formulas will be tested at a selected number of terminals. After identification of the most successful formulas, they will be made applicable for implementation at terminals throughout Europe.

1.1.2 Conclusions for SAIL

• Pre- and end haulage often is organised in a non-structured way, which leads to a loss of efficiency and high costs. This is one of the reasons for the high costs of the total Intermodal chain.

• Most projects emphasise the lack of and need for information between the various actors in the Intermodal chain.

• There is a big difference in the pre- and end haulage practices carried out at the terminals of the IMPREND project. For instance length and number of trips performed per truck per day vary significantly. The average number is 2 to 3 trips per day, often however only 1 trip is carried out per truck per day. Price systems vary as well: the price may be related to the distance, sometimes there is a zoning system or a fixed price must be paid.

• Compared to the entire transport chain, the costs of pre- and end haulage are relatively high due to cost components as terminal costs, haulage costs and waiting costs. This is mainly the result of excessive waiting times at the terminal and long transport lead times due to congestion on the road infrastructure to and from terminals. This inefficiency affects costs of pre- and end haulage operations as productivity levels of equipment and manpower decline.

• Another major problem is the restricted opening hours for pick-up and delivery of load units at shippers, forwarders, terminals and container depots. The differences in opening times used by the various parties in the transport chain impose serious constraints on the productivity of pre- and end haulage companies and leads to traffic peaks at terminals and excessive waiting times both at the terminal and shippers.

• Long waiting times, both at shippers and at the terminal gates are another big problem in pre- and end haulage. These are caused by different reasons like the above mentioned restrictions and differences in opening hours at the various parties and the unreliable train, barge and vessel schedules. For instance, the poor punctuality of trains, due to the often inefficient, inflexible and still nationally organised railway companies leads to huge inefficiencies at terminals.



• In some cases opening times vary even throughout the port or terminal region, and different opening times are used by the various parties in the transport chain. Long waiting times and varying opening times of shippers, forwarders, terminals and container depots add to the problem of congestion on the road infrastructure to and from terminals and therefore can lead to long transport lead times. Also the still nationally organised railway companies hinder a fast Intermodal transport.

• Poor punctuality of trains is an element, which affects the terminal’s efficiency enormously and leads to waiting times for pre- and end haul carriers. The attitude of the national railways in this respect is said to be inflexible, unwilling and not co-operative. Also the lack of competition for (semi-)monopolists, which hinders fair competition, leads to a poor service in terms of frequency, destinations and departure and arrival times.

• Not technological, but organisational solutions seem to be the important drivers for improvement.

1.2 TERMINET

1.2.1 Description

The central objective is to identify promising innovative directions for bundling networks, new generation terminals and terminal nodes for combined unimodal and Intermodal transport in Europe. The main aspect of innovation in this field is the automation and robotisation of processes providing better price-quality ratios for transhipment, other node activities, and link-internal transport modalities other than conventional road transport. The general expectation is that these changes will make new bundling concepts (with more bundling, or with frequently transported smaller freight volumes) feasible. This will allow more complex and flexible bundling concepts.

A major aspect of the project objective is the integrated approach: its identification activities always focus on combinations of bundling networks and new-generation terminals. This identification includes feasibility studies. Development and implementation paths will be discussed, and public and private measures to support and encourage new-generation operations will be formulated.

At its culmination, it should be possible to recommend certain terminal and terminal-node concepts for certain type of nodes in certain bundling concepts, or alternatively to specify bundling networks with node types and locations suited to certain terminal concepts, and to delineate the contours or a feasible development and implementation strategy. Identification conclusions will detail probable, promising and missing regions or transport corridors and the freight markets involved. The conclusions will be of special interest for actors in the field (such as transport operators or producers of transport equipment and infrastructure) in the medium and long term.




• High investment costs in the terminals, while most advantages are in the network.

• Technology should no longer be seen as the main problem. Most technology that is required is already available; the main problem is its implementation.

• Innovations like automatic pin setting and wagon identification, automatic train coupling and electronic brakes are an important condition for large scale innovations of Intermodal transport and implementation of future time operations, since otherwise the potential time benefits of innovation will largely be neutralised by time consuming activities such as manual pin setting and hydraulic brake tests.

• One of the main barriers for implementation of new-generation terminals remains the uncertainty of actors about their costs and benefits.

1.3 FREIA

1.3.1 Description

The FREIA project aims at facilitating the access of SMEs to Intermodal transport and focuses on the establishment of commercially viable relations with freight villages, their services, procedures and information systems. 4 user groups will assist the consortium, each covering a distinct European region: Mediterranean - Scandinavian - Central Europe - Benelux – UK.

The following tasks will be executed:

• Description of freight village procedures, facilities, value adding services, business practices notably in relation to information flows.

• Description of SME business practices, and their requirements for freight village facilities & services, notably in relation to information exchanges.

• Development of concepts for a virtual freight village information system.

• Development of a SME operators guide to Intermodal transport.




• The Intermodal transport market is not transparent. A classification system of freight village services, facilities and commercial options is needed.

• A classification system dealing with rankings from one star to five stars must be finalised. The FREIA classification system proposes the way towards a more transparent freight village environment.

• An "Intermodal council" should be founded to take care of classification, consulting, marketing, representation and standardisation.

• The most important requirements of SME are facilitated physical facilities like offices, warehousing and storage, followed by information services like EDI connections and reliable (electronic) freight exchange systems.

• Both the terminal network (32%) and the terminal control (32%) are equally important factors to improve, while terminal access (19%) and terminal operation (16%) both where rated a little bit more modest.

• The survey results stress the systemic nature of the Intermodal chain, best illustrated by the nearly equally high ratings of the three networking issues: operation (38%), access (34%), and control (28%).

• The expectations of the freight village representatives towards the future of the Intermodal transport market are optimistic. A total of 74% believes in a positive development of Intermodal transport in the future. Only 19% believe it will remain on the current level, and 6% that the market share of Intermodal transport will decrease.

• Freight villages can improve their market shares for Intermodal transport among transport SME by offering: Freight exchange systems (electronically), improve terminal services, implement city- logistic initiatives, offer other share cost services and by enlarging the total number of block trains.

• The information that the Freight Village Information System should provide: Timetables; Type and Weight of Cargo (Hazardous Goods Conditions); Tracking and Tracing of Cargo; Booking Information; Freight Village Services (Location of storage; parking spaces; path-finding inside freight village area; routes on urban network); Freight Village instructions (Loading/Unloading instructions); Customs and Documentation; Administrative tasks; Other Inter-urban Transport Modes (location of Info-kiosks; location of terminals; train/ships/air flight timetables); Trip Planning (information about costs/prices; information about timetables, etc. ; road conditions; weather conditions; environmental conditions; gas station locations; incident warnings).



1.4 IQ

1.4.1 Description

IQ is aimed at analysing the quality aspects influencing Intermodal transport. It will work on the improvement of the interoperability among terminals, interconnectivity and accessibility. The project deals with both the quality of terminals and the quality of network.

An Intermodal transport quality index, as well as an interactive simulation tool (SIMIQ) will be produced and tested in the market. The tool includes evaluations of:

• Quality of terminal: segmentation of the market, assessment of the impact of technological developments, prospective of terminal supply and description of market changes by comparing supply and demand.

• Quality of the network: description of the services per different sectors, comparison and evaluation of the improvements in the Intermodal transport network operations, prospective of new infrastructure investment and estimation of new capacity and description of market changes by comparing supply and demand.

• Interactions: evaluation of the advantages of a spatial integration of functions, create innovative ways to integrate the different Intermodal actors in order to create a professional Intermodal offer, determine the effects of technical progress on Intermodal quality and accessibility, determine the existing degree of integration of the Intermodal transport market.

• Development and test of an interactive simulation tool (SIMIQ) to analyse the effect of changes in the system on the performance criteria of Intermodal transport. The findings of the project, the solutions and the tools developed in the research will be demonstrated in full scale demonstration activities.

• Dissemination of the results of the project through interaction with the users and suppliers of Intermodal transport in order to reach market acceptance.

• Presentation of a framework for the implementation of the improvements in the Intermodal transport market and industry.


On the demand side the study found that although there is price competition between road and Intermodal transport the key difference is in the quality of services. Also quality requirements vary remarkably. Seven different market segments can be identified on the basis of distinctive price and quality profiles.

On the supply side the key finding is that the quality of Intermodal services depends heavily on the type of train operating system used. Shuttle and block trains provide fast, reliable and convenient services, especially when run frequently on attractive rail slots. But such train services require minimum threshold corridor volumes and haulage distances. Whereas such trains are viable to operate when flows are naturally concentrated, when traffic is naturally dispersed flows must be consolidated and integrated to make such trains viable. Therefore the



study finds that in order to offer high performance shuttle and block trains more generally, a network solution is needed that uses key terminals as gateway points to the network and as hubs for flow integration. The project identifies a political dimension, too. Isolated corridor services may be profitable for those who operate them, but can undermine the economic viability of network operators and they contribute little to socio-political objectives, such as enhancing European cohesion or reducing freight transport externalities.

Against this back-draft, three different scenarios are proposed for the future development of European Intermodal transport based upon different spatial, organisational and technological arrangements, different policies and different target market segments. These scenarios are evaluated using data resources and models developed during the study. Findings from the study emphasise the importance of a facilitating policy framework and of operational and managerial innovation rather than technological innovation. Contrary to earlier studies and to the direction of past policies, the IQ study reveals that reducing the number of terminals offering access to the network can actually improve Intermodal quality. In effect, the number of terminals must be balanced against the flow consolidation that can be achieved, which makes improving terminal location more important than increasing the number of terminals as a factor in improving Intermodal qua lity.



2. Detailed market statistics

2.1 Domestic road transport

Domestic transports in 1000 Tonnes 1990-1998

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P SF S UK N CH

1000

Ton

nes

1990 (1) 1992 (2) 1994 (3) 1996 1998

(1) A: 1988; (2) A: 1993; (3) A: 1995

Figure 2-1: Domestic transports in 1000 tonnes 1990-19981

1 It has to be pointed out that every national transport statistic only counts their own registered vehicles, which means that e.g. a decreasing trend of domestic transport in Germany is in fact a decreasing domestic transport of German registered vehicles in Germany. But what about the Dutch, Polish or Ukraine hauliers operating in Germany? They are not a part of German statistics. This narrowed view by the national statistical offices misses in every country the real transport carried out. This is a major obstacle in transport statistics today.



0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

140,0

160,0

Kilo

met

res


Development of the average length of haul in national transports 1990-1998

1990 (1)

1992 (2)1994 (3)1996 (4)1998 (5)

(1) A: 1988; (2) A: 1993; (3) A: 1995; (4) I: 1995; (5) I: 1997

Figure 2-2: Development of the average length of haul in domestic transports 1990-1998



Domestic transports in Mio Tkm 1990-1998

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000


Mill

ion

Tkm

1990 (1) 1992 (2) 1994 (3) 1996 1998

(1) A: 1988; (2) A: 1993; (3) A: 1995

Figure 2-3: Development of domestic transports in million tonne-kilometres 1990-1998



2.2 Development of cross-border exports by road

(1) D, A, S:1995; (2) D:1997; (3) B:1997

Figure 2-4: Cross-border exports in 1000 tonnes 1990-1998

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Kilo

met

res

B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P UK SF S N CH

Development of the average length of haul in cross border exports 1990-1998

1990 19921994 (1) 19961998 (2)

Figure 2-5: Development of the average length of haul in cross border exports 1990-1998

Cross-border exports in 1000 Tonnes 1990-1998

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000


1000

To

nn

es

1990 1992 1994 (1)

1996 (2) 1998 (3)



Cross-border export in Mio Tkm 1990-1998

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000


Mill

ion

Tkm

1990 1992 1994 (1) 1996 1998 (2)

(1) D, S: 1995; (2) B: 1997;NL, UK: Qualified estimation

Figure 2-6: Cross-border exports in million tonne-kilometres 1990-1998



2.3 Numbers of semi-trailers

Number of semi-trailers registered 1990-1999 (in 1000)

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P SF S UK (4) N CH

1990 (1) 1992 1994 (2) 1996 (3)1998 1999

n.a.

(1) B:1989; (2) B:1995; (3) B: 1997, I:1995; (4) Population of articulated heavy goods vehicles

Figure 2-7: Number of semi-trailers registered 1990-1999 (in 1000)



2.3.1 Sweden

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Sweden 1990-1999

conventional trailerssemi-trailers

Figure 2-8: Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Sweden 1990-1999



2.3.2 Germany

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Number of rigid trucks, conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Germany 1990-1998

rigid trucksconventional trailerssemi-trailers

Figure 2-9: Number of trucks, trailers and semi trailers in Germany 1990-1998 (in 1000)



2.3.3 Denmark

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Development of the number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Denmark 1990-1997


Figure 2-10: Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Denmark 1990-1997



2.3.4 Switzerland

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Number of rigid trucks, conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Switzerland 1990 - 1999

rigid trucks conventional trailers semi-trailers

Figure 2-11: Number of heavy trucks, trailers and semi-trailers in Switzerland 1990-1999



2.3.5 Austria

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Development of the number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Austria 1994-1999

conventional trailers semi-trailers

Figure 2-12: Development of the number of trailers and semi-trailers in Austria 1994-1999



2.3.6 The Netherlands

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

New registration of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in the Netherlands 1990-1999


Figure 2-13: Development of new registrations of trailers and semi-trailers in the Netherlands 1990-1999



2.4 Different types of semi-trailers

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

Sh

are

in %

CH B DK F D UK S

Development of the share of semi-trailer with a loading capcity over 20 t

199019941998

Figure 2-14: Development of the share of semi-trailers with a loading capacity over 20 tonnes



Development of the share of three different types of semi-trailers new registered in the three years 1990, 1994 and 1997 in selected countries

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

DE FR IT NL CH

Blue = open and curtainsider semi-trailersred = closed semi-trailersgreen = temperature isolated semi-trailers

Figure 2-15: Development of three different types of semi-trailers



2.5 Transport performance of semi-trailers

2.5.1 Road tons lifted by semi-trailers in selected countries

65,0%

70,0%

75,0%

80,0%

85,0%

90,0%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom (in % of all road transports measured in tonnes)

Figure 2-16: Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom



2.5.2 Development of the average length of haul of semi-trailers

0

50

100

150

200

250

Kilo

met

res

S SF CH

Development of the average legth of haul of semi-trailer transports 1995-1999

19951997

1999

Figure 2-17 Development of the average length of haul of semi-trailer transports 1995-1999



2.5.3 Tonne-kilometres produced by semi-trailers in selected countries

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

S SF CH

Performance of semi-trailers in % of all raod transports measured in tonnes-kilometres

1995

1997

1999

Figure 2-18: Performance of semi-trailer in % of all road transports measured in tonnes



68,0%

70,0%

72,0%

74,0%

76,0%

78,0%

80,0%

82,0%

84,0%

86,0%

88,0%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom (in % of all raod transports measured in tonne-kilometres)

Figure 2-19: Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom



3. Road/Combined Transport Comparison in Pairs

The Road/Combined Transport Comparison in Pairs approach is visualized in Figure 3-1 hereafter.

Supplier Customer

Unimodal Transport:3 semitrailers operate 220 working days a year and drive 800km/day

every 2 days a delivery is completed3 x 220days/year x 800 km/day = 3 x 176.000 km/year = 528.000 km/year

(3 transport units x 220 days/year) = 660 transport units/year

Intermodal Transport:2 articulated lorries and chassis operate on 220 working days 2 SB are brought to the rail transfer and 1 SB is delivered

or, 2 SB are delivered and one is transported to the rail transfer (1,5 deliveries per day)4 SB are either in storage or on the rails

every 4 days 6 SB are delivered1,5 deliveries/day x 220 days/year x 200 km/delivery = 66.000 km/year

(6 x 220 days/year x 1200 km) / 4 days = 396.000 km/year2 x 66.000 km + 396.000 km =528.000 km

(6 transport units x 220 days/year) / 2 days = 660 transport units/year

Supplier Terminal CustomerTerminal

100 km 600 km 100 km

800 km

Figure 3-1 : Road/Combined Transport Comparison in Pairs

It can only hereby be guaranteed that the costs and revenues are balanced against the respective investment. Three long-haul drivers operate 220 days a year and each cover 800 kilometres a day. Together they cover 528,000 kilometres a year and make 660 deliveries.

Two drivers in Intermodal transport have a pre- and post rail journey (German terms, Vorlauf, Nachlauf) of 100 kilometres, and manage 3 journeys, or one and a half transportations 220 days of the year. Each lorry has three swap bodies, of which one is either on its post or pre-rail journey, whilst the others are either in storage, on the rails. The rail journey is 600 kilometres.

The drivers cover 66,000 kilometres a year. The total rail journey of the six swap bodies is 396,000 kilometres a year, so in total 528,000 kilometres and 660 deliveries. These assumptions are based on the current performance of articulated lorries in unimodal and Intermodal transport. So that the developments from the project SAIL are taken into account, it is assumed that due to quicker processes, two entire delivery trips a day are possible in 2003, the lorry covers 88,000 km/year of the post- and pre-rail journey.



4. Systematisation of Combined Transport engineering

4.1 Rolling Road (A.1.1.1)

„Rolling Road” is widely known and is therefore not described in details.

4.2 The Kangaroo procedure (A.1.2.1)

That is the name of the railway wagon system with sinking rocker allowing the housing of the semitrailer wheel-set. Analogously to following swivelling- pocket wagon system “Aachen” the rocker has to be released so that the semitrailer can sink automatically into the loading pocket during backwards loading. The peculiarity of this system consists in the fact that semitrailers are equipped with metal flanges between the twin wheels corresponding exactly with the guiding devices on special wagons. At the beginning of the eighties this system was put out of operation since the transport of special semitrailers was living a downward movement by the forwarding agents.

Advantages: Rapid and centred loading as well as weight transfer of the lorry tires due to the taking-over of the function of the flanged wheels.

Disadvantages: Special loading tractors and semitrailers are necessary. Since 1964 a great number of traffic connections in France, Belgium and Holland have been established.

Picture 4-1: Kangaroo System



4.3 2-axles „Aachen« system low-level wagons (A.1.2.2)

In 1961 “Deutsche Bundesbahn” for the first time introduced the 2-axles low-level rocker wagons developed by the wagon factory TALBOT. These special wagons consisted in double-linked units with tight-coupled rocker wagons having a small wheel-set diameter. Each unit had two loading terminals. The wheel-set diameter was up to 730 mm when new and 680 mm when worn-out. Due to the railway load limit gauges semitrailers with 4 m corner height need a possibly low tread of tyres, which for this kind of special wagons is up to 400 mm on top of rail. That is the reason why these wagons have been equipped with a hanging rocker between the side sills sinking automatically during the parking of the semitrailers under the weight after prior unlocking. Nowadays statement is that these wagons with 400 mm tread of tyres are too high for the international Combined Transport. During the unloading procedure the rocker is pressed up again by means of prestressed springs and locks itself automatically in the rolling position. For the loading of rocker wagons the buffer ends are sinked hydraulically, so that the semitrailers can be driven horizontally over the access ramp thanks to the own or the terminal tractor in backwards movement. During railway transport the semitrailer rests with its kingpin on a hinged wheel support platform. Due to the 3-points support – axle unit and kingpin support – it is necessary to secure the semitrailers by means of a chain to avoid lateral overturning.

Picture 4-2: Swivelling Pocket Wagon (RO-RO)



4.4 Low level wagons with support beams (A.1.2.3)

The peculiarity of the loading techniques consists in a support beam for the support of the semitrailer kingpin on the low-level wagon. The standard low-build saddle coupler on the upper side and the kingpin on the lower side grant a perfect coupling of all system elements during the loading procedure and the transport. During the loading procedure the support beam is located between the saddle coupler of the terminal tractor and the semitrailer. The support beam supports itself with its support sockets on the external side sills of the wagon. During railway transport the semitrailers are secured in longitudinal direction only by means of wheel chokes. The semitrailers kingpin is connected over the saddle coupler of the support beam in a positive clamping. The lift-off security devices on the support socket prevent the overturning of the semitrailer from the wagon, but on the other hand allow a relative move in longitudinal sense between wagon and support beam. The wheel chokes have been conceived so that they can hold the loaded semitrailers against shocks up to 7 km/h speed. The driving of the semitrailer wheels against the wheel chokes and the gliding of the support beam on the external side sills of the wagon has a consuming effect on the overrunning shock, so that the effective acceleration on the semitrailer of 0,8 g was not exceeded.

After a two years operational trial it resulted that the 4 prototypes come up to the demanded expectations and in many aspects even exceed them. With this loading system the semitrailers need no particular railway specifications.

Picture 4-3: Low level wagons with support beams



4.5 Automatic Loading System (A.1.2.4)

The „Automatic Loading System“ (ALS) consists in a horizontal cross loading. This is a loading system with on-board transhipment robots. To that a special 4-axle low-loader wagon has been developed. Semi- trailers to be transported have necessarily to be equipped with additional devices. This system has not found any acceptance in the Combined Transport market up to now.

Picture 4-4: ALS System



4.6 Swinging wagon bridge

4.6.1 Lohr System (A.1.2.5.1)

Picture 4-5: Lohr System



4.6.2 Tiphock System (A.1.2.5.2)

Picture 4-6: Tiphock System



4.6.3 Walda System (A.1.2.5.3)

Picture 4-7: Walda System



4.6.4 BMFT study (A.1.2.6)

Picture 4-8: BMFT study



4.7 Road-Railer System (A.1.3.1)

Semi- trailer with 1 or 2 rail running gears. The axles are lifted by means of lifting devices depending on the chosen transporting way that is road or rail. In both cases the lorry structure is used as a carrying element.

Picture 4-9: SSW System

4.7.1 Combirail System (A.1.3.2)

The semitrailer is settled backwards on a bogie. The other semitrailers are lined-up with the bogies so that they can build in a train composition. Hence the tolerable longitudinal force of pressure. In this way the semitrailer chassis is charged with a considerable additional tare weight which gets lost from the payload, thus making it uneconomic for the carrier.



Picture 4-10: Combirail System

4.7.2 Road-Railer Sys tem (A.1.3.3)

Picture 4-11: Road-Railer System



4.8 Pocket wagon T2000 (A.2.1.4)

4-axle pocket wagons suit for vertical loading of following load units:

• semitrailers

• swap bodies

• ISO containers

• inland containers

The standardisation and the directions about tractor-trailer units are still very different within the European countries. The European Community is still hesitating about the application of standardised norms. At the beginning of the seventies limits for enveloping case and main measurements for vertical loading were laid down in UIC 571.

As to the combined transport the most economical solution are semitrailers equipped with handling recesses for crane transfer (corresponding to the swap body ones). The reasons for this are the following ones:

• Transfer speed

• Proportionally limited costs for the necessary pocket wagons

• Flexible suitability, vertical transfer both for semitrailers and swap bodies and CT

• Satisfactory payload-dead load ratio

Semi- trailers have to be designed for a 0,8-g longitudinal acceleration. Semi-trailers for the combined transport are technically tested and measured from the railway only once and this is the premise for the codification plate. UIC railways reciprocally recognise these international codification plates. When conceiving the different pocket wagon generations the enveloping cases for semitrailers had the advantage to limit to a warrantable extent the overhangs over the bogies as well as the total length of the pocket wagon. The always more volume-oriented semitrailers as to their length, width and height are defined by the “road” partner, so that a progressive adjustment of the Combined Transport carrier vehicles for the rail transport is necessary.



Picture 4-12: Pocket wagon T 2000

4.9 T-Mega Pocket Wagon (A.2.1.5)

The reduction of lorry tires thanks to low-section profile tire equipment and lower semitrailer tractors allow the increase of the semitrailers volume as to the MEGA / Jumbo semitrailers. That also meant that always more variants of standardised European volume-oriented semitrailers for the Combined Transport had to be taken into consideration.

8-axle MEGA Double Pocket Wagons have especially been conceived for the transport of 2 MEGA semitrailers. This kind of pocket wagon is also foreseen for the transport of swap bodies and ISO containers. They are equipped with bogies with smaller wheel diameters, thus allowing a loading base suiting also for very voluminous swap bodies and containers up to a 3,15 m height.



Picture 4-13: T-Mega Pocket Wagon

4.10 Basket Wagon (A.2.1.6)

Basket Wagons have especially been conceived by the Hungarian national railway (MAV) for the transport of semitrailers without any handling recesses. Semi-trailers are crane-transferred with a basket situated in the loading trap of the wagon. This requires a great deal of technical work for each wagon as well as a double handling during crane transfer. Compared to the traditional pocket wagon the wagon tare is about 5 t higher.



P

Picture 4-14: Basket Wagon

4.11 Euro-Spine-Care Wagon (A.2.1.7)

Euro-Spine Wagons have been developed and built as a four-unit for the „British Rail Gauge“. The restrictions due to the small load limit gauge necessarily require special constructions for semitrailers and railway vehicles. This system has been fully accepted by the Combined Transport operators within the European intercontinental Combined Transport.



Picture 4-15: Euro-Spine-Care Wagon



4.12 Semi-trailer with handling recesses (A.2.1.8)

Picture 4-16: Semi-trailer with handling recesses

4.13 Novatrans technics (A.2.1.9)

A semitrailer conception with “Corner Castings” in the front part of the semitrailer. The semitrailer fixation takes place thanks to the pocket wagon housing pivot. This system is mostly employed by French Combined Transport operators. Its advantage is a better exploitation of the railway gauges and consequently also of the UIC codification system.



Picture 4-17: Novatrans System



4.14 CEMAT / TRW technics (A.2.1.10)

With both techniques semitrailers are placed over 4 „Corner Castings” on 4 hinged locks with housing pivots.

4.15 Alpentrailer technics (A.2.1.11)

Thanks to this method voluminous semitrailers can be placed in the middle by means of centring devices on the semitrailer. Furthermore the wheel support platform on the pocket wagon is sunk and the air-spring axles on the semitrailer lifted up, thus releasing it. The target of this system was to transport very voluminous semitrailers with 4 m corner height also in the transalpine Combined Transport as well as in countries with small railway gauges.

Picture 4-18: Alpentrailer System

4.16 Semi-trailers for Euro-Spine -Care (A.2.1.12)



Picture 4-19: Semi-trailer for Euro-Spine-Care

4.17 Wohlfarth System (A.3.1.1.1)

This system works with a flat bogie on the upper part of the chassis.



Picture 4-20: Wohlfarth System



4.18 Rinnen System (A.3.1.1.2)

With this system bogie and container locks are fixed to the structure.

4.19 Ambrogio System (A.3.1.1.3)

This system works with a cranked bogie at the upper part of the chassis.

4.20 Arcus-100 System (A.3.1.1.4)

This method consists in a volume-optimised loading unit.

Picture 4-21: Arcus 100 System



4.21 Swap bodies DIN EN 452/EN 12410 (A.3.1.2.1)

Picture 4-22: Swap bodies DIN EN 452/ EN 12410



4.22 Ewals System

This method consists in a volume-optimised loading unit.

Picture 4-23: Ewals System



5. Cost analysis of Terminals (source: ICM)

5.1 Introduction

In Intermodal freight transport the terminal is the central unit in which transhipment from road to rail or from rail to rail takes place. Transhipment takes time and produces costs. In competition with road carriers mastering this process takes a central and crucial role.

Costs

Distance

(T 1)

(T 3)

Costs

Terminalcosts

2nd

driver

R a i lR o a d

Time

Time

Distance

TerminalTime

Figure 5-1: Situation of conventional Terminal today

In the past terminals were regarded as "Black boxes". An optimisation of the transhipment process as well as the costs was given little thought. One of the main reasons was that national organisations subsidised the building and operation of the terminals.

In the last years different organisations and enterprises have dealt with the processes, costs and transhipment times in terminals for Intermodal freight transport. The results were a new generation of concepts, capable of handling the demands placed by the competitive Intermodal freight transport market.



5.2 The Terminals of tomorrow

5.2.1 Function

To be competitive in the Intermodal freight transport market, terminals of the future must fulfil the following:

• Simple, fast transhipment.

• High flexibility concerning capacity, storage capacity, terminal functions.

• Economical transhipment performance.

• Integrated IT.

• Optimal land usage.

According to the request at the terminals these can be differentiated into the following operating modes:

• Hub – Terminal End – Terminal Road – Rail

• Gateway – Terminal End – Terminal Road – Rail,

• Transhipment –Terminal Rail – Rail

• Line – Terminal Transhipment –Terminal Road – Rail

Transhipment capacities as well as maximum transhipment performance further differentiate the terminals. In Europe transhipment capacity is grouped as follows:

• Small < approx. 20,000 transhipments/year

• Medium approx. 100,000 transhipments/year

• Large > approx. 250,000 transhipments/year

5.2.2 Terminal Technology of the Future

Several European companies have presented various terminal technologies, which, in direct competition to standard conventional technologies, can cover the demands of Intermodal traffic of tomorrow. The stage of development of these technologies varies.



• Small Terminals:

o Reach – Stacker (conventional) various

o Gantry – Crane (conventional) various

o Krupp Small Krupp / Germany

o CCT plus small Carcontrain /Sweden

o Compactterminal Tuchschmid / Switzerland

• Medium Terminals:

o Reach – Stacker (conventional) various


o Krupp Compact Krupp / Germany

o CCT plus Large Carcontrain /Sweden


o Noell SUT 400 Noell / Germany

o Transmann Siemens / Bosch

• Large Terminals:


o Commutor Technicatome / France

o Krupp Megahub Krupp / Germany


o Noell Megahub Noell / Germany

Some of the large terminals are conceived with a high degree of automation for very high handling capacity and very high transhipment performance.

5.2.3 Benchmark Terminal

In several international studies, a set of different technologies were examined based on the following criteria:

• Capital outlays

• Operating cost

• Envelope borders

• Handling capacities



In particular with handling capacities between 100'000 - 250'000 transhipments per year showed the COMPACTTERMINAL compared with conventional technologies, respectively competitors in the new technologies, promising results.

By cost reductions of the transhipment, the modular extension in transhipment performances and terminal quality as well as reduction of the waiting time in the terminal, new business opportunities open in competition with conventional rail and road transports.

Costs

Distance

(T 1)

(T 3)

Costs

Terminalcosts 2nd driver

R a i lR o a d

Time

Time

Distance

TerminalTime

Figure 5-2: Situation of Compactterminal tomorrow.

5.3 Conventional Terminal

5.3.1 Introduction

With the increasing privatisation of the Intermodal transport by liberalisation and by increasing partic ipation of integrators has the natural effect that planned regional-oriented processes must take a back seat. This is a natural demand by the private sector seeking a maximisation of profit. Thus, predominantly well paying, frequent freight goods over long distances are sought out and developed.

Most terminals are not integrated into a system, but are individual enterprises that attempt to accomplish the task of loading and unloading depending on load type with whatever way it takes. The train schedules are operated independently of the terminal.

To attempt to draw comparisons to new generation Intermodal Terminals, we have described the „Conventional Terminal“ as follows:



5.3.2 Description of the "Typical Conventional Terminal"

Some Intermodal operators have concentrated their efforts on shuttle train services. In place of taking apart the train (shunting), it is considered a production-unit that is unloaded, stored temporarily, loaded again, and driven out.

The system consists thus of:

• An integrated train schedule

• Composed of the necessary cars, which operate in fixed compositions and circulation

• From the information system

• From the terminal systems at both extremities

5.3.3 Terminal Functions

The terminal functions similar to a passenger train station. The operation of the terminal is integrated with the train schedule, which is determined by the track allocation and sequence of operations. This is laid out in such a way that the system can be optimised to take advantage of the shuttle services available in the market.

Any restrictions to the terminal are not only in the operational optimisation. Factors are also the competitive ability of Intermodal freight, and their effect on the operation. Here price and travel time are the determining factors.

5.3.3.1 Layout

The typical conventional terminal has been assumed to be a standard end terminal with gantry crane.

The terminal is built in 2 separate blocks, each with 2 gantry cranes. Both blocks together serves 5 rail tracks. The rail tracks have a length of 600-720 m. It is possible handle trains with a length of 700 m. The trains do not have to be separated for loading or unloading.

5.3.3.2 Operational Mode

The mode of operation is that the train compositions are stored outside of the crane area. These sidings are partially situated outside of the terminal area. The shunting movements lead to crossings and conflicts. The time delay is smaller than in terminals, where the train cars under the crane must be periodically reshunted, in order to find or release single cars or groups. The concept is simple; the train compositions is brought under the cranes, is unloaded, units stored and the area under the crane is cleared immediately for the next train. Important is that reservations and Train movement information via computer are planed, in order to determine and schedule the procedures. Then one disposes, which the train composition and in which order for



the exiting train. To a small extent trains could wait during the day under the crane. The full utilisation of the tracks at the peak times means that little flexibility is available.

Terminal Operator Block A Block B Number of cranes: 2 2 Crane load capacity: 40 tons 40 tons Crane span: 30 meter 30 meter Total rail track length: 2 x 720 meter 2 x 650 / 1 x 600 m Tracks under crane: 2 rail, 2 road, 3 storage 3 rail, 2 road, 2 storage Stacking height under crane 2 high 2 high Storage capacity: ca. 480 TEU Crane performance: 30 - 35 moves/h 30 - 35 moves/h Total performance: 140 moves/h Throughput capacity: 200'000 TEU Total terminal area: 100'000 m² Rail tracks terminal: 5 under crane,

5 arrival / departure, 3 siding terminal, 2 siding

Mobile equipment: forklifts, shunting locomotives.

Table 5-1: Terminal data

5.3.3.3 Process in Terminal

The typical steps on a Terminal are as follows:

The trains arrive into Arrival / Departure area and will be received there. After checking, the whole train will be transferred into the terminal. Under the crane the load units will be loaded off the train, if possible, new load units will sequentially be loaded on the train.

Due to the time schedule some trains will be shunted away from crane area to a railway yard, and will be shunted back when there is an open time window under crane for loading. All shunting activities are managed with diesel shunting locomotives, typ ically owned and operated by the terminal operator. When a train is loaded, the leaving train will be shunted once again to Arrival / Departure area to be dispatched.

The time schedule of the train operation is guaranteed through fixed time windows for loading and shunting process. The minimum stop on the Arrival / Departure area is around 45 minutes for checking papers, file data and prepare for the unloading process.



The unload / loading process needs at least about 1 hour. The train composition could be longer but it’s important to reduce all shunting activities.

Table 5-2: Origin / Destination Matrix for Conventional Terminal 5.4 Competitive ability of the unaccompanied Intermodal transport

The “break even point” of unaccompanied Intermodal transport is relatively high, trend increasing, and profitability for the Intermodal operators sinking. Experts suggest the average distance is approximately 500 km, with others saying 1'100 km is the „Break even point“. With rationalised transport such as shuttle services, fuller trains, appropriate cargo and balanced train schedules, shorter road service (< 25 km) and low terminal handling charges, it is possible to be competitive and bring quality to a market for distances under 500 km; but these prerequisites form a rare constellation.

With the increasing privatisation of the Intermodal transport by liberalisation and by increasing partic ipation of integrators has the natural effect that planned regional-oriented processes must take a back seat. This is a natural demand by the private sector seeking a maximisation of profit. Thus, predominantly well paying, frequent freight goods over long distances are sought out and developed.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2 2 2 1 2 9 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22 3 8 11 --

2 3 2 2 3 12 3 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 3 19 38 12 12 6 --

3 2 2 3 3 13 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 18 35 12 12 7 --

2 2 2 3 3 12 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 17 34 12 13 6.5 --

4 3 2 3 4 16 1 3 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 23 42 14 12 6.5 --

2 2 1 2 1 8 2 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 15 28 10 10 9 --

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 -- --

15 14 11 14 16 70 8 7 3 1 3 21 0 0 1 0 10 11 102 199 67 67

Han

dlin

g t

rain

sho

rtes

t ti

me

in

Ter

min

al

lon

ges

t ti

me

in

Ter

min

al

Block B

train in terminal (h)

Dep

artu

res

Arr

ival

s

To

tal N

r. o

f T

rain

s

Block A Block B To

tal

To

tal

Load

Block A Block B

direct Unload / Load Unload

Block ATo

tal

Mon.

Tues.

Wed.

Thur.

Fri.

Sat.

Sun.

Total



The last generation of conventional terminals, which cost approximately 30 - 50 million, built after a prototype, with two Gantry cranes, which bridge 6 rail tracks, as well as 6 lanes, two for roads traffic and 4 for stacking of loading units. The initial terminal handles approximately 150,000 load units per year. An increase to 300,000 load units per year requires a track extension to 700 m as well as a third crane. The stacking of overseas (ISO -) containers is to be expected in a general-purpose Terminal. WAB’s are not normally stackable, therefore are transhipped immediately to the truck or stored outside of the crane area. The 6 train tracks under the crane are 500 m long, i.e. a complete train cannot be serviced under the cranes. Rather, it is expected that the main line trains will be composed in the marshalling yard for departure.

5.5 Intermodal transport: Opportunities and Challenges

5.5.1 Opportunities and challenges for Intermodal

New transport capacity is not easy to find. New technologies can however make a difference. Intermodal makes it possible, bringing different transport modes together into integrated systems, where each mode is used optimally. Intermodal combined transport has a long history already. ISO and domestic containers, swap-bodies, road trailers on trains and ACTS (lateral roll-on/roll-off rail container system) operate in Europe successfully. New systems like Logisticbox and Bimodal trailers add to the range.

If Intermodal is to meet the challenges of industrial markets, policy matters and logistics integrators, it must do better. Today’s and tomorrow’s demands are for:

• Reliability and fast transits

• User-orientated service quality

• Availability and access

• Value for money

• Customer-responsive services and pricing

• Ecological acceptability

• Integrated information flow

5.5.2 Intermodal transport tomorrow

This means for Intermodal service operators

• Transit times

• Direct trains

• Frequent trains



• Simple, rapid terminal transhipment

• High terminal flexibility

• Peak requirements

• Storage capacity

• Low-cost transhipment

• Optimal trainloads, where possible with complete trains

• Simple, economical capacity adaptation

• Information flow (online)

• Position

• Quality

• Arrival time, access time

5.5.3 The Terminal of the future

Determining the concept for a new Intermodal terminal, or enlarging an existing installation, means making decisions based on preliminary studies, considerations on traffic flows, and other hypotheses. Making the right decisions means the difference between success or failure for an Intermodal terminal.

• Appropriate terminal operational functions for the location; line of route terminal, hub, gateway, single mode

• Optimal mix of capacity for the peaks, and operation in the marginal periods

• Scope for later enlargement of the terminal

• Degree of automation

• Network integration, road and rail

• Local position (regional site or central location)

Tuchschmid has developed a software tool, which delivers decision support for terminals and their layouts.

♦ Cost indications

All parameters for terminal concepts and local conditions can be introduced and evaluated. The resulting performance calculation permits a first evaluation of relevant technologies.



♦ Cost indications

Terminal technology, required performance levels, and local features can be integrated and evaluated in respect of investment and operating costs.

♦ Benchmarking

In order to verify selected technologies, Tuchschmid uses a subjective comparative methodology, which grades various terminal technologies according to the various operational functions required. This comparative methodology permits comparison of various technologies and operational requirements in relation to a given site.

5.6 COMPACTTERMINAL

5.6.1 Tuchschmid Compactterminal Rail-Rail / Rail-Road

Figure 5-3: The Compactterminal

The Tuchschmid Compactterminal makes possible Intermodal integration, at costs which reflect the realities of new, competitive markets. Road-rail and rail-rail transfer become part of an optimised, competitive Intermodal service to transport users. With these features, Compactterminal is an ideal answer to the demands for higher terminal efficiency, identified by users and by the European Commission as an urgent priority for future competitively.

Compactterminal is suitable for various kinds of road and rail operations. On the rail side shuttle trains, direct block trains and Intermodal loads on mixed freight trains can be served. Costs per unit lift remain low. The Compactterminal is built up of simple modular elements. This permits a wide flexibility in concepts and modifications at a later date.



Transhipmentmodule

AEI craneweight control

bufferzone catenary

Storage module

EDVcentre

storage

interchangepoint

storage loading docks

AGV offices

AEI

crane / weight control

AGV

Roadmodule

Distribution module

Figure 5-4: Modular conception of the Compactterminal

The Compactterminal achieves the objectives of competitive Intermodal service with:

• Modular construction

• Cost reduction in transhipment operations

• Minimal container handling during process

• High level of automation

• Optimal use of space

• Direct rail-rail/rail-road

• Integrated rail wagon/load unit identification system

• Damage elimination with vertical transfer in place of rail shunting

• High availability by use of proved and tested components

• Weatherproof operation at all hours with reduced noise leve ls

5.6.2 Compact construction, minimal handling

The objective in Compactterminal development was described as Lean Logistics. Simple processes, minimal container handling with short transfer moves, no modifications required to rail wagons or load units, using wherever possible existing or proved individual components and low operating costs were the most important conditions imposed on design. The production and operational systems of the user determine the productivity requirement set to the Compactterminal.



A break-through in costs and efficiency for Intermodal handling:

• The modular concept of the Tuchschmid Compactterminal means that economical and high-performance Intermodal handling can be realised in all situations, in all size ranges, from minimal installations for small throughputs to high performance freight distribution centres, depending on need and situation.

• The lowest transhipment costs for individual transhipment operations, with higher cycle speed and better performance.

• Using proved components and a limited number of moving mechanical parts ensures high reliability and availability.

• Rail track productivity in the terminal is substantially higher than with other layouts.

• Permits integration of new information technology applications for AEI/EDI, terminal management systems, accountancy and management data.

• Highly flexible in handling peak demand situations by road and rail.

• Cost effective container handling during low demand periods

5.6.3 Compactterminal - its components

The modular construction of the Compactterminal makes it possible to build exactly to the user’s needs. Size, logistic systems, volumes etc. can all be reflected flexibly and economically.

5.6.3.1 Transhipment module

The basis module integrates, depending on installation size, up to 3 loading and unloading tracks. Direct transfer between trains is therefore possible in such cases. The semi-automatic loading crane incorporates a spreader for containers, swap-bodies and trailers. It is fully compatible with contemporary practice and requires no adaptations to load units. Two buffer areas extend along the rail tracks to provide short term holding of load units. For just- in-time transfer the road unloading/loading line is directly alongside the rail track. A single transfer permits road-rail moves to be completed quickly and easily.

5.6.3.2 Intermediate storage module

Here load units can be held between road and rail moves. In the transhipment shed load units are taken by automatic guided vehicle (AGV) to the storage. Storage is usually on one level, but at customers’ request multi- level storage can be installed.

5.6.3.3 Road Module

Where this is installed, to interface to the storage module, a crane is installed similar to that used in the transhipment module on the rail side. Size and specification can be adapted to suit requirements.



Automatic guided vehicles (AGV) move load units automatically to the storage module or direct to the transhipment module.

5.6.3.4 Distribution Module

Within this area, adjoining the road module, loads can be re-sorted and load units made up or de-consolidated for storage, distribution and logistics services.

The Tuchschmid Compactterminal embraces, therefore, the concept of classical Freight Distribution Centre or Container Freight station CFS.

5.6.4 Various sizes satisfy differing requirements

Individual modules can be used to meet any local situation, or combined to form various types of terminal.

COMPACTTERMINAL 1

CT 1/20

Transshipmentmodule

Track 1

Direct transfer Rail-Road Buffer area load units

COMPACTTERMINAL 2

CT 2/100

Track 1 Track 2

P

Transhipment module

Direct transfer Rail-Road Direct transfer Rail-Rail Buffer area load units

Module transhipment: Terminal types : Rail terminal - regional shuttle trains Industrial concern: Dispatch centre

Module transhipment: Terminal types Rail terminal Shuttle trains/regional trains Transhipment installation for forwarder Enlargement of existing terminals



COMPACTTERMINAL 3

CT 3/600

Track 3 Track 2 Track 1

Transhipment module

Storagemodule

Roadmodule

P P

Direct transfer Rail-Road/Rail-Rail Buffer area load unit Fully automatic storage area

COMPACTTERMINAL 4

GVZC T 4 / 1 0 0 0

Track 3 T rack 2 T rack 1

S t o r a g em o d u l e

R o a dModule

F o r w a r d i n gm o d u l e

T ransh ipmen t modu le

PP

Unload of cargo, storage, forwarding Direct transfer Rail-Road/Rail-Rail Buffer area load unit Fully automatic storage area

Figure 5-5: Individual modules

5.6.5 Flexibility is a priority

The COMPACTTERMINAL permits, with its modular concept, a highly flexible operation to accommodate the uncoordinated peak demands of the different modes.

5.6.5.1 Normal operations:

♦ Transhipment module: Mixed operation, rail - road/just-in-time road delivery and collection/ rail - storage module

♦ Road module: Road operation only, to or from storage area (to or from rail transport)

Module transshipment/Storage/Road: Terminal types : Rail terminal Transhipment Depot for forwarders Enlargement of existing terminal

Module-transhipent/Storage/Road/Forwarding: Terminal types: City-Rail terminal Freight Distribution Centre International forwarding terminal



5.6.5.2 Peak load, rail:

♦ Transhipment module: Rail - rail/ rail - storage; module closed for road

♦ Road module: Road operation only, for all road collections and deliveries

5.6.5.3 Peak load, road:

♦ Transhipment module: Mixed operation, rail - road/ storage area

♦ Road module: Road operation only, rail transfers only via storage module

5.6.5.4 Low demand periods:

♦ Transhipment module.: Mixed operation, rail - rail/road – rail Road module: closed down

5.7 Economic Comparison of the Standard Terminal and the Compactterminal

5.7.1 Comparison of the Standard Terminal to the Compactterminal

With a few common figures and numbers, the different terminal technologies can easily be compared. By optimising the main process, the transhipment of load-unit between rail- road and rail-rail (in place of shunting), one can reduce the costs substantially. The figures in 5.3 below clearly show this

5.7.1.1 A break-through in costs and efficiency for Intermodal handling

• The modular concept of the Tuchschmid Compactterminal means that economical and high-performance Intermodal handling can be realized in all situations, in all size ranges, from minimal installations for small throughputs to high performance freight distribution centres, depending on need and situation.

• The lowest transshipment costs for individual transshipment operations, with higher cycle speed and better performance.

• Using proved components and a limited number of moving mechanical parts ensures high reliability and availability.

• Rail track productivity in the terminal is substantially higher than with other layouts. • Permits integration of new information technology applications for AEI/EDI, terminal

management systems, accountancy and management data. • Highly flexible in handling peak demand situations by road and rail. • Cost effective container handling during low demand periods



5.7.1.2 Efficiency Indicators

Compactterminal Conventional Terminal ♦ Ratio Land use / terminal output

♦ Ratio Crane area / terminal output

♦ Ratio Investment / terminal output

♦ Ratio Crane weight / max. load rating

♦ Ratio Energy use / daily output

♦ Train time in terminal

Figure 5-6: Efficiency indicators



5.7.2 Comparisons: Compactterminal and conventional terminals

From the start the Compactterminal was conceived to ensure that, while required performance levels are attained, transhipment costs are kept low. The daily output of the Terminal does not significantly modify the cost per transhipment. This also underlines the relevance of the modular concept.

5.7.2.1 Example of cost per lift comparison

Figure 5-7: Example of Cost per lift comparison

Compa

ct. CT 2

/100

Compac

t.CT 3

/350

Compa

ctt.CT 3

/650

Reach

Stacke

r 20'0

00

Gantry

Crane 1

00'00

0

Gantry C

rane 2

00'000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Amortization Land

Interests costs

Depriciation InformationsystemsDepriciation Infrastructure

Depriciation Mechanical

Total Operations

Service / Maintenance

Salaries

Cost per lift

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%

EURO

CT 2/100

CT 3/350

CT 3/1000

CT 3/600



Key indicators show that the Compactterminal compares most favourably with conventional terminals. The compact constructional form, the economical individual components (taken from existing standard elements) and the high output also result in substantial productivity and cost benefits over conventional thinking.

5.7.3 Cost Analysis (Economic Comparison of the Conventional Terminal and the Compactterminal)

5.7.3.1 General

In general it is difficult to compare the costs between new-generation terminals and conventional terminals or shunting yards. It requires detailed information, which in the case of conventional terminals or shunting yards, is considered confidential or is not available for other reasons or, in the case of new-generation terminals non-existent.

In the following tables attempt to show, by using known as well as assumed costs, an economic comparison between conventional terminals / shunting yards and new-generation terminals.

Investment costs have been calculated as 100% self- financed. These have been included in amortisation and capital costs. These costs have been further divided into technics, infrastructure, land and rail components (tracks and switches). Land as well as personal costs can vary greatly from country to country, region to region.

5.7.3.2 Investment Costs

Currency : Euro COMPACTTERMINAL Conventional Terminal

6.2 Investment CT 2/100 CT 3/350 CT 3/650 Reach Stacker Gantry Crane Gantry Crane Lifts / Year 20'000 100'000 200'000 20'000 100'000 200'000

6.2.1 Technics costs N costs N costs N costs N costs N costs N Crane Transhipment 1'190'000. - 1 1'190'000. - 1 3'440'000. - 3 800’000.- 2 4'000'000. - 2 7'000'000. - 4 Electric supply 60'000.- 160'000.- 350'000.- 0.- 0 300'000.- 550'000.- Train electric 0.- 0 690'000.- 260 690'000.- 260 0.- 0 0.- 0 0.- 0 Identification system 20'000.- 100'000.- 140'000.- 100'000.- 140'000.- 220'000.- Automation 60'000.- 90'000.- Crane Transhipment ( reserve )

0.- 0 870'000.- 1 870'000.- 1 0.- 0 0.- 0 0.- 0

AGV / FTS 0.- 0 1'000'000. - 3/120 1'500'000. - 4/200 0.- 0 0.- 0 0.- 0 Crane Road 0.- 0 0.- 0 0.- 0 0.- 0 0.- 0 0.- 0 Operation system (Informatic)

40'000.- 270'000.- 330'000.- 60'000.- 300'000.- 400'000.-

Terminal vehicles 50'000.- 1 50'000.- 2 145'000.- 3 145'000.- 3 185'000.- 4 270'000.- 6 Total costs technic phase I / II

0.- 0.- 0.- 0.- 0.- 0.-

Total technics 1'360'000. - 4'330'000. - 7'465'000. - 1’105'000.- 4'985'000. - 8'530'000. -



6.2.2 Infrastructure Steel construction crane road/rail

200'000.- 200 690'000.- 260 690'000.- 260 0.- 0 260'000.- 700 260'000.- 1400

Foundation Crane 50'000.- 100'000.- 250'000.- 80 0.- 0 600'000.- 700 900'000.- 1400 Ground, surface preparation 200'000.- 50/300 400'000.- 600'000.- Mechanics 0.- 0.- 0.- 0 0.- 0.- Building 300’000.- 450’000.- 500’000.- 0 300'000.- 500’000.- 500'000.- Terminal lighting 80’000.- 125’000.- 125’000.- 90’000.- 165’000.- 165’000.- Foundation building 0.- 0.- 0.- 0 0.- 0.- 0 0.- 0

Total Infrastructure 630'000.- 1’365'000.- 1’565'000.- 590'000.- 1’925'000.- 2'425'000. - Total Infra. phase I / II 0.- 0.- 0.- 0.- 0.-

Investments tech./ infra.

1'990'000. - 5'695'000. - 9'030'000. - 1'695'000. - 6’910'000.- 10'955'000. -

6.2.3 Land Land requirements, incl. Railyards

12000 24000 24000 15000 35000 50000

Land requirements total ( * )

1.5 18000 36000 36000 22500 52500 75000

Purchase land ( .- / m )

22.- 198'000.- 50% 554'400.- 70% 792'000.- 100% 495'000.- 100% 1'155'000. - 100% 1'650'000. - 100%

Preparation of land ( .- / m)

45.- 243'000.- 30% 972'000.- 60% 1'134'000. - 70% 1'012'500. - 100% 1'653'750. - 70% 2'362'500. - 70%

TOTAL 441'000.- 1'526'400. - 1'926'000. - 1'507'500.- 2'808'750. - 4'012'500. -

Investments Tech./infra./land

2'431'000. - 7'221'400. - 10'956'000. - 3'202'500. - 9’718'750.- 14'967'500. -

Track length 3'600 30% 4800 30% 4800 30% 2000 30% 4800 40% 6900 40% Numbers of switch 8 10 10 4 10 12 Cost per meter / gravel

380.- 957'600.- 1'276'800. - 1'276'800. - 532'000.- 1'094'400. - 1'573'200. -

Cost per meter / Concrete

620.- 669'600.- 892'800.- 892'800.- 372'000.- 1'190'400. - 1'711'200. -

Cost per switch 50'000.- 400'000.- 500'000.- 500'000.- 200'000.- 500'000.- 600'000.-

Total track 2'027'200. - 2'669'600. - 2'669'600. - 1'104'000. - 2'784'800. - 3'884'400. -

Table 5-3: Investment Cost



5.7.3.3 Operating Costs, conditions

6.3 Operational Data COMPACTTERMINAL Conventional Terminal CT 2/100 CT 3/350 CT 3/650 Reach Stacker Gantry Crane Gantry Crane Lifts/year 20'000 100'000 200'000 20'000 100'000 200'000 6.3.1 Operating costs Technics

5% 68'000.- 216'500.- 373'250.- 110.500.- 10% 348'950.- 7% 597'100.- 7%

6.3.2 Operating costs infrastructure

2% 12'600.- 27'300.- 31'300.- 11'800.- 38'500.- 48'500.-

6.3.3 Operating costs train handling

1

70'000.- 4 180'000.- 10 360'000.- 20 140'000.- 8 270'000.- 15 450'000.- 25

Total operating costs 150'600.- 423'800.- 764'550.- 262'300.- 657'450.- 1’095'600.- 6.3.4 Service/ maintenance Technics

5% 65'000.- 195'000.- 328'250.- 94'500.- 10% 318'150.- 7% 553'700.- 7%

6.3.5 Service/ maintenance infrastructure

2% 12'600.- 27'300.- 31'300.- 11'800.- 38'500.- 48'500.-

6.3.6 Service/maintenance computer system

10% 6'000.- 37'000.- 47'000.- 16'000.- 44'000.- 62'000.-

Total Service / maintenance 83'600.- 259'300.- 406'550.- 122'300.- 400'650.- 664'200.- 6.3.7 Personal 8 h 16 h 8 h 16 h 8 h 16 h 8 h 16 h 8 h 16 h 8 h 16 h Module transhipment 2 0 3 5 4 7 3 0 3 6 4 7 - Module road 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Operations 1 0 2 3 2 4 2 0 2 4 3 6 - Gate 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 - Management 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 - Administration 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 - Maintenance 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 - Yard personal 1 0 2 3 2 4 3 0 4 8 6 12 - TOTAL Personal 7 0 12 17 13 22 12 0 13 24 17 31 Basic capacity 55% 55% 60% 50% 60% 60% Capacity 1 50% 90% 50% 90% 50% 90% 50% 90% 50% 90% 50% 90%Capacity 2 60% 110% 60% 110% 60% 110% 60% 110% 60% 110% 60% 110% 6.3.8 General conditions Terminal

6.3.9 Peak Capacity / h 35 70 100 24 60 120

6.3.10 Transhipments/day 100 350 650 100 350 650

6.3.11 Transhipments/year 29'000 101'500 188'500 29'000 101'500 188'500

6.3.12 Number of working days 290 days ( incl. Saturday morning ) 6.3.13 Depreciation mechanical 15 years 6.3.14 Depreciation building 20 y ears 6.3.15 Depreciation Information systems 6 years 6.3.16 Amortisation of land 50 years 1 Operating costs train handling

.. number of loco's 2 personal 2.00 E/Team/loco Operat. Cost locos 640.- Euro / liter

.. working hours 8h / shift 4.00 E/shift Salaries Team 1‘545.- Euro / liter

.. diesel fuel 40 l / h no. of shift 2.00 Cost diesel fuel 1.- Euro / liter

Table 5-4: Operating Costs, Conditions



5.7.3.4 Cost comparison calculation

6.4 Cost comparison calculation COMPACTTERMINAL Conventional Terminal Currency : Euro CT 2/100 CT 3/350 CT 3/650 Reach Stacker Gantry Crane Gantry Crane 20'000 100'000 200'000 20'000 100'000 200'000 Operating costs 626'200.- 1'635'100. - 2'403'100. - 954'100.- 2'402'100. - 3'495'800. - + Capital costs 239'622.- 846'700.- 1'134'973. - 226'829.- 785'172.- 1'223'214. - Total costs 865'822.- 2'481'800. - 3'538'073. - 1'180'929. - 3'187'272. - 4'719'014. - Operating costs - Salaries 56'000.- 392'000.- 952'000.- 1'232'000. - 672'000.- 1'344'000. - 1'736'000. - - Total operating costs 150'600.- 423'800.- 764'550.- 262'300.- 657'450.- 1’095'600.- - Service/ maintenance 83'600.- 259'300.- 406'550.- 122'300.- 400'650.- 664’200.- Total operating costs 626'200.- 1'635'100. - 2'403'100. - 1’056'600.- 2'402'100. - 3’495'800.- Capital costs - Calc. depreciation mechanical 86'667.- 264'000.- 466'333.- 63'000.- 303'000.- 527'333.- - Calc. depreciation infrastructure 31'500.- 99'750.- 178'000.- 29'500.- 96'250.- 121’250.- - Calc. depreciation information systems 10'000.- 71'667.- 150'000.- 26'667.- 73'333.- 103'333.- - Interest costs % * Investment 5% 111'455.- 247'275.- 340'640.- 107'663.- 312'589.- 471'298.- (phase2 incl. all) 2 Total capital costs 239'622.- 682'692.- 1'134'973. - 226'829.- 785'172.- 1'223'214. -

- Calc. amortisation of land 8'820.- 30'528.- 38'520.- 30'150.- 56'175.- 80'250.- - Calc. amortisation of track 101'360.- 133'480.- 133'480.- 55'200.- 139'240.- 194'220.- Total capital costs incl. land 349'802.- 846'700.- 1'306'973. - 312'179.- 980'587.- 1'497'684.-

Table 5-5: Cost comparison calculation

5.7.3.5 Cost comparison diagram

Compa

ct. CT 2

/100

Compa

ct.CT 3

/350

Compa

ctt.CT 3

/650

Reach

Stac

ker 2

0'000

Gantry

Crane 1

00'00

0

Gantry

Crane 2

00'00

0

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

40,00

45,00

50,00

Amortization Land

Interests costs

Depriciation InformationsystemsDepriciation Infrastructure

Depriciation Mechanical

Total Operations

Service / Maintenance

Salaries

Figure 5-8: Cost comparison diagram



5.8 Advantages and Disadvantages (Compactterminal and the typical conventional terminal)

5.8.1 Compactterminal

5.8.1.1 Advantages of the Compactterminal

• The short term storage • Can be doubled up beside the train tracks • 24 h operation • Terminal can be closed in creating a proper working environment • Lighting, protection from the elements • The maximum throughput and daily capacity is extremely flexible with the transhipment

road-rail. • Spatial use • Flexibility of throughput at peak times because of its compactness and short term storage

capabilities • Short loading times between different modes • Low initial Investment. The modular system allows for expansion when capacities

demands increase

5.8.1.2 Disadvantages of the Compactterminal

• The long term storage due to lack of space • Building infrasructure



5.8.1.3 COMPACTTERMINAL: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway

COMPACTTERMINAL CT 3 / 350

Quality z x k x F = Total

Rail - Rail (unload) 0,8 0,8 4 2,56

Rail - Road (unload) 0,7 0,8 4 2,24

Short term storage rail 0,9 0,9 3 2,43

Short term storage road 0,9 0,9 2 1,62

Long term storage 0,6 0,3 1 0,18

Loading time < 90 sec

Rail - Rail 0,9 0,8 3 2,16

Rail - Road 0,8 0,7 3 1,68

Short access time TEU 0,6 0,7 2 0,84

Latest delivery time 0,8 0,8 4 2,56

24 - h operation 0,9 0,6 1 0,54

Flexibility of capacity 0,8 0,6 2 0,96

Flexibility of troughput 0,9 0,8 3 2,16

Personal expenses 0,8 0,6 1 0,48

max. throughput 50 LE/h 50 LE/h 0,9 0,9 4 3,24

100 LE/h 100 LE/h 0,7 0,6 2 0,84

200 LE/h 200 LE/h 0,2 0,1 0 0,00

Daily capacity < 100 LE < 100 LE 0,8 0,6 0 0,00

+/- 200 LE +/- 200 LE 0,8 0,8 3 1,92

+/- 500 LE +/- 500 LE 0,8 0,8 4 2,56

> 1000 LE > 1000 LE 0,2 0,1 0 0,00

Short delivery time rail 0,8 0,8 3 1,92

Short delivery time road 0,6 0,6 2 0,72

Spatial use 0,8 0,7 1 0,56

Flexibility of troughput (peakes) 0,9 0,9 4 3,24

Operation in border time 0,8 0,7 2 1,12

ISO / swap body operation 0,9 0,9 1 0,81

Semi- automatic 0,9 0,9 4 3,24

Full- Automatic 0,3 0,3 1 0,09

Total 40,67

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 0,00,20,40,60,81,0

time cost

Table 5-6: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway



5.8.2 Typical conventional terminal

5.8.2.1 Advantages of the conventional terminal

♦ Long term storage under the cranes because of its large layout

♦ Large yearly capacities i.e. 800'000Units/year and larger again because of size

5.8.2.2 Disadvantages of the conventional terminal

♦ 24 h operation because concept is based on peak time performance. The operation is to large to supply with adequate lighting or a proper working environment

♦ Operating costs

♦ High personal costs

♦ Land investment



5.8.2.3 Conventional terminal: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway

Quality z x k x F =Total

Rail - Rail (unload) 0,9 0,9 4 3,24

Rail - Road (unload) 0,8 0,8 4 2,56

Short term storage rail 0,6 0,8 3 1,44

Short term storage road 0,8 0,8 4 2,56

Long term storage 0,8 0,8 1 0,64

Loading time < 90 sec

Rail - Rail 0,8 0,6 1 0,48

Rail - Road 0,8 0,4 2 0,64

Short access time TEU 0,7 0,5 3 1,05

Latest delivery time 0,6 0,7 4 1,68

24 - h operation 0,2 0,2 1 0,04

Flexibility of capacity 0,8 0,4 2 0,64

Flexibility of troughput 0,7 0,4 1 0,28

Personal expenses 0,5 0,4 2 0,40

max. throughput 50 LE/h 50 LE/h 0,4 0,5 3 0,60

100 LE/h 100 LE/h 0,3 0,4 2 0,24

200 LE/h 200 LE/h 0,1 0,1 0 0,00

Daily capacity < 100 LE < 100 LE 0,1 0,1 0 0,00

+/- 200 LE +/- 200 LE 0,4 0,4 3 0,48

+/- 500 LE +/- 500 LE 0,7 0,7 4 1,96

> 1000 LE > 1000 LE 0,7 0,3 2 0,42

Short delivery time rail 0,8 0,8 3 1,92

Short delivery time road 0,6 0,5 3 0,90

Spatial use 0,1 0,1 0 0,00

Flexibility of troughput (peakes) 0,6 0,3 1 0,18

Operation in border time 0,1 0,4 2 0,08

ISO / swap body operation 0,9 0,9 4 3,24

Semi- automatic 0,8 0,8 4 2,56

Full- Automatic 0,4 0,3 1 0,12

Total 28,35

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 0,00,20,40,60,81,0

time cost

Table 5-7: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway



5.9 Report on a visit to the terminal of the HGK in Cologne-Braunsfeld

Aim: Observation of the transhipment of a semitrailer (bimodal system)

Date of visit: 26.09.00

Contact person at the terminal: Herr Olschowski

The terminal of the HGK is situated in a mixed region in Braunsfeld, a suburb of Cologne. There, bimodal semitrailers of the BTZ are transshipped in Intermodal transport.

Braunsfeld possesses a gate for the registration and instruction of incoming, resp. departing trucks. The transshipment is single tracked. On account of the surrounding residential areas, the transshipment is bound to a limited time slot, i.e. the loading and shunting processes must be completed by 22 p.m.. The capacity of transshipment of the terminal amounts at present approx. 35 units, of which 30 are transshipped every day. Due to local data, (single track and time limit, resp. restrictions of noise prevention) the augmentation of the capacity is restricted. A significant augmentation of the capacities could only be achieved by implementing an additional morning shift, i.e. a second train.

The semitrailers of the BTZ used in bimodal system are custom-built. They possess a boosted chassis, because the semitrailer, as it were, also functions as a train and has to incorporate the total force of the combined transport. Additionally, they are equipped with a pneumatic contrivance to run in the chassis and the corresponding interlock mechanism. They also possess a trailer coupling, which consists of a tongue at the front and a mouth at the back of the chassis.



Figure 5-9: Bogie with pimped trailer (source: BTZ)

Both the traction and the compressive forces affect the coupling via chassis. The ultimate loads of the unsupported forepart of the trailer are transmitted via coupling to the rear of the preceding trailer and, together with the occurring forces there, via adapter to the bogie.

This coupling system allows a trailer spacing of less than 400 millimetres and, in effect, advantages like short traction, low air drag and noise emission and the protection against theft, because the doors cannot be opened in joint condition.

At present, four different types of trailers are offered:

1. Plan/Spriegel

2. Schiebegardine (curtain-slider)

3. Koffer

4. Kühlkoffer



The actual process of loading takes place as follows:

Figure 5-10: Loading technique (source: BTZ)

At least two persons are necessary for the process of loading, resp. unloading, one tractor driver and a workman for the inter- and unlocking of the trailer couplings as well as for the extension, resp. the running in of the support eyes. However, there are four workers per shift at HGK. After the loading procedure, the whole trailer has to be taken down by a motorman of the DB (German railway).



6. Selection and evaluation of SAIL alternatives

6.1 Introduction

Before starting the development of possible alternatives, all results collected during the previous stages of the project need to be integrated into a coherent evaluation framework. The aim was to bring these results together and to find the relations and interdependencies between the different parts of the system. This is vital to determine the priorities for the future development. As was described in Chapter 3 of the Final Report, the Research Team applied both an analytical - technical and a qualitative - practical approach.

The analytical accuracy of the results was tested using the sensitivity model of Frederic Vester. The sensitivity model allows determining the key factors for the behaviour of complex systems with only few central data and the quality and direction of relations and interdependencies between these factors. It combines numerous details of the observed system to predictable variables, whose interplay is shown in terms of a cybernetic model. Thus, the aim of the sensitivity analysis is to show the "sensitivity" of a complex system through data reduction and data networking and to make its behaviour more amenable. The sensitivity analysis supports to answer the questions, which effects will be provoked if the system is modified or if efforts to modify one factor will be worthwhile.

Describing a complex system the following should be taken into account:

• Future-oriented planning • Participation of all parties involved • Iterative processing on different problem levels • Identification of supporting and inhibiting factors

This sensitivity analysis was done using a software tool for documentation, visualisation and the categorisation of factors. The paragraphs hereafter reflect the steps iteratively followed in intense co-operation between the project partners. Paragraph 2 deals with the generation of a system picture and the collection of data. Paragraph 3 describes how the gathered data was evaluated to be sufficient. The next step was to quantify the relations within the different factors, which is described in paragraph 4. Finally, paragraphs 5 and 6 illustrate and interpret the results.



6.2 Identification of key system components

The first step was dividing the system into six sub-systems (i.e. “market and service”, “road freight transport”, “railway freight transport”, “semitrailer technology”, “wagon technology” and “terminal processing”). As a result of internal discussions, altogether 113 variables describing the sub-systems were found. This was the basis for the start-up workshop, supported by means of several brainstorming sessions (see Chapter 3). The objective was to develop the total “system picture”.

Key factors for Intermodal transport are road as well as rail infrastructure. For road infrastructure this means specifically the density of the road network for freight transport and its average utilisation as far as country roads and motorways are concerned. The length of the railway network, its expansion or reduction, the traffic density and the number of relations define the railway infrastructure. The access to the railway network is determined by the situation of the terminals. In addition to infrastructure the decision for the transport method is influenced by transport costs on road, on railway and in the terminal as well as by the political and legal regulations and restrictions. Disposition, in turn, is affected by the transport time and distance.

Terminal processing is determined by the loading method and the interface between wagon and semitrailer. Important factors for the serviceability of terminals are terminal capacity, ratio of loading between containers, swap bodies and semitrailers, loading time and workers needed for loading dependent on the loading method.

Further, the project partners identified energy consumption, general environmental impacts, security or risk of accidents, competitiveness of railway, workload of the staff and the type of freight as equally important factors for the system.

During the workshop, a discussion about the 113 collected variables aimed at removing redundant variables and to find more precise definitions or to add missing variables.



6.3 Criteria Matrix

In order to describe and simulate the system model the 113 variables were reduced to a manageable number of 28 variables, which should describe the entire system. The respective name of the variable is always just a short term of the system component. For this reason each variable needed a description by means of indicators that specify it and that should always be kept in mind during the analysis. All collected influences and relations between the components had also to be classified and structured in this way.

The final set of variables covered all essential factors of a system (Table 6-1). The criteria were next divided into seven sectors of life, three physical categories, four dynamic categories and four kinds of system relations. Therefore, the criteria can support to identify missing variables or to identify criteria, which are over-represented. The variables were discussed with the partners in several interactions and checked with the criteria. Further adaptations were made while generating the impact matrix.

Criteria group Criteria Sectors of life - Economy

- Population - Land utilisation - Human ecology - Natural balance - Infrastructure - Communal life

Physical categories - Matter - Energy - Information

Dynamic categories - Flow quantity - Structural quantity - Temporal dynamics - Spatial dynamics

System relations - Opens system to input - Opens system to output - Influenced internally - Influenced externally

Table 6-1 : Criteria to support identification of variables



6.4 The Impact Matrix

Within the impact matrix the influences between all variables can be quantified. The strength of the influences between variables is rated with numbers between 0 and 3. As a result, the completed impact matrix allows a classification of variables according to active, reactive, critical and buffering properties. These properties show if the variables are suitable as control instruments within the whole system.

The effects of a variable A on a variable B are entered in lines within the impact matrix. For example: With only few political interventions, e.g. regulations of the EC, prohibition for driving at weekend or overnight driving for trucks (variable 12 “political regulations”) strong effects concerning the road infrastructure, e.g. density of road network for freight traffic (variable 9 “infrastructure road”), can be achieved. The table hereafter explains the numbers in detail.

• • White • No or a very small effect • • Yellow (or light grey) • Small (or after a longer while) effect • • Orange (or dark grey) • Medium effect (proportional) • • Red (or black) • Strong effect (disproportionate)

Table 6-2: Meaning of colours / numbers in the impact matrix

The filled out impact matrix helps to find active, passive, buffering and critical variables. For this purpose active sums AS (sum of all values in a row) and passive sums PS (sum of all va lues in a column) are calculated. Variables that feature a high active sum have a strong effect on other variables, whereas variables with a high passive sum are, in turn, strongly influence by other variables. Calculating the product P = AS x PS and the quotient Q = AS / PS the variables can be categorised as demonstrated in Figure 6-1.

• •



Figure 6-1 : A part of the Impact Matrix of the system „Intermodal transport“ displaying the first 16 variables, only. AS stands for “active sum”, PS for “passive sum”, P represents the product AS x PS and

Q represents the quotient AS / PS.

• Active variables highly affect other variables and are weakly influenced by other variables

(high Q-value). • Reactive variables weakly affect other variables and are highly influenced by others (low

Q-value). • Critical variables highly affect other variables and are highly influenced by others

(high P-value). • Buffering variables weakly affect other variables and are weakly influenced by others

(low P-value).



Figure 6-2 : The complete Impact Matrix of the system „Intermodal transport“. All 28 variables are displayed. For visual reasons, the numbers are not displayed in this overview display mode.

The first version of the impact matrix was generated by IMA and then iteratively checked by the project partners.

6.5 The Effect System

The effect system is the visual representation of the impact matrix, i.e. the influence between the variables. It helps to recognise direct and indirect influences as well as feedback between variables.



Figure 6-3 : The Effect System of the system „Intermodal transport“

The effect system displays all medium (2) and strong effects (3) of the impact matrix in figure 40. Obviously, the effect system is very complex so can mainly be used as a basis for generating partial scenarios. The systemic role turned out to be more helpful for evaluation purpose than the effect system.

6.6 The Systemic Role

The diagram “systemic role” displays the variables of the impact matrix according to their active and passive sums. According to the situation in the co-ordinate system the cybernetic role of the variables can be seen.

The different roles reflect how efficient variables can be used as control instruments within the system. Active variables are efficient levers that strongly affect the system. As they are almost independent from influences of other variables the system stabilises after the intervention of the active lever. As reactive variables have only weak effect on the rest of the system an intervention is sort of taking care of symptoms, only. However, reactive variables can be used as indicators to detect the effect of the intervention of active variables.



Critical variables should only be used with care, because feedback effects may be generated. In some cases it might be helpful to initialise interventions with critical variables. Buffering variables are unimportant for system control as they are independent from developments in the rest of the system. Finally, neutral variables do not allow efficient intervention into the system but they are suitable components for self-control of the system.

The variables can be arranged in the following clusters:

Cluster „slightly critical“:

• Associated variable: 17 security/risk o.accide Interventions in components of this section often cause pendulum movements which may compensate rather soon corrections in the system. A control of this self-dynamics (which may stop a wanted development) will be better carried out from outside the system.

Cluster „Active“:

• Associated variables: 3 internat. co operation 4 technical instructions 12 political regulations 20 flex interf wagon/semi 21 loading method Weakly buffering and more active than reactive, this components are a good lever to undertake interior corrections. It might be necessary to operate it repeatedly.

Cluster „Slightly Active“:

• Associated variables: 9 infrastructure road 13 length of transp. way 23 capacity of terminal Weak switch lever which first may have little effect on the system because of its inertia. However, when activated repeatedly or on a specific target variable it can initiate a new development. Recommendable if drastic effects are to be avoided.



Figure 6-4 : The Systemic Roles of the system „Intermodal transport“

Cluster „Neutral“:

• Associated variables: 1 order processing 5 ratio pre/end-haulage 6 transport time 7 techn. dimension semi 14 infrastructure railway 15 relations railway 26 spatial pos. terminal 27 type of goods

Component where interventions lead to slight movements which only pretend movability without changing much the constellation of the system. Integrated into feedback cycles, it can absorb disturbances. It is also suitable for soft corrections.

7 15

10



Cluster „slightly passive“:

• Associated variables: 10 road costs per tkm 11 environment damage 25 work load personnel 28 time for handling Weakly acting slightly reactive component absorbing and neutralising effects. Adds to the stabilisation of the system without being an indicator for its status.

Cluster „passive“:

• Associated variables: 2 input disposition effo 16 rail costs 18 competitiveness railw

Here you find components reflecting changes of the system (indicator). Because easily to handle, they tempt to interfere directly, thus blurring the situation and creating unexpected side effects.

slightly critical 17 security/risk o.accide

Active 3 internat. co operation 4 technical instructions 12 political regulations 20 flex interf wagon/semi 21 loading method

Slightly Active 9 infrastructure road 13 length of transp. way 23 capacity of terminal

Neutral 1 order processing 5 ratio pre/end-haulage 6 transport time 7 techn. dimension semi 14 infrastructure railway 15 relations railway 26 spatial pos. terminal 27 type of goods

Slightly passive 10 road costs per tkm 11 environment damage 25 work load personnel 28 time for handling

Passiv 2 input disposition effo 16 rail costs 18 competitiveness railw.

Buffering 8 energy consumption 19 techn. dimension wagon 22 ratio cont/semi 24 pers.requirement/handl

Table 6-3: All 28 variables clustered in 7 systemic roles



Cluster „buffering“:

• Associated variables: 8 energy consumption 19 techn. dimension wagon 22 ratio cont/semi 24 pers.requirement/handl

Strongly buffering components. Sometimes important benchmarks of the system but are not recognised as such because of their inertia. React weakly to modifications of the system. Do not have much influence but are able to absorb disturbances for a long time.

6.7 Overview of evaluation tables

6.7.1 The set of 113 variables grouped in six sub-systems

Set of variables of the sub-system „Market and Service“

Variable Definition

Short-term disposing of transport capacities Customers can receive more transport capacity in short-term than originally contracted

Long-term disposing of transport capacities Long-term transport contracts allow service providers of rail to optimise their resources; part of the benefit is passed over to the customer

Professional order processing E.g. order input, accounting

Liability

Processing of complaints

Response times to transport requests of hauliers

Transparency of market E.g. the hauliers know all offerings

Number of agencies of the sale companies

Persecution of shipment by customer Possibility for customer to inform himself about the actual whereabout of his shipment

Persecution of shipment Computers- Integration of road- and railway- transport

Communication between hauliers & sale companies

Requirements and requests of shippers

International co-operation (European Union) Simple calculation of route prices for trans-national traffic, trans-national connection of relations, simplified transaction at frontiers

International co-operation (apart from the European Union)

Simple calculation of route prices for trans-national traffic, trans-national connection of relations, simplified transaction at frontiers

Different country specific total weights of



semitrailers

Reliability of Intermodal traffic transport

Security of transport goods

Possibility of renting/leasing of Intermodal receptacles

Hauliers at target place for post-carriage

Set of variables of the sub-system „Railway transport of goods“

Variable Definition

Permitted rail load Permitted force per length to take effect on rail

Costs for environmental damage Monetary settlement of environmental damage resulting from the railway transport of goods to the transportation costs, emissions of noises, oil etc.

Overall transport of goods Overall transport of goods in tkm

Empty transports of wagons Quota of number of transports without any goods to number of total rides

Height of overhead line

Energy consumption Energy consumption per tkm of rail

Number of relations Quantity of possible connections, which can be served by railway transport of goods

Degree of utilisation Variable to describe the utilisation of the railway system

Average transport speed Average speed to transport goods on rail

Difference of wheel gauge Different width of rails in member countries of the EU

Customer costs (hauliers) Prices the railway companies charge for transport of goods costs per tkm or unit

Operator costs Transport costs arising for the railway companies, e. g. energy price (price of the energy which is used in this railway transport)

Harmonisation of technical guidelines Unification of regulations for railway transport of goods in Europe

Number of claims

Number of damage costs

Length of railway system Measure for density of system of railway transport of goods

Number of wagons Number of pocket wagons in Europe

Number of locomotives Number of locomotives in Europe

Number of chief guards Number of chief guards in Europe

Speed limit

Emission of harmful substances per tkm Emission of harmful substances per tkm

Maximum train weight



Maximum train length

Expansion of the railway network corresponding to the transport flow

Expansion of rail capacity on major traffic ways according to transport flow

Regularity of transport flow Constancy of transports on a relation regarding time and volume (t /m³)

Balance of transport flow Same quantity of goods in transit in both directions of a relation regarding time and volume (t /m³)

Cycle time between trains Shortest possible time between two consecutive trains

Competitiveness Attractiveness of railway transport of goods in price and quality

Timetable Quantity of relations, times of the journey, frequency of connection to a location

Different total weights of semitrailers for forerun and post- carriage

Consideration of different road infrastructure during transport planning

Length of transport way

Set of variables of the sub-system „Road transport of goods“

Variable Definition

Total road traffic of goods Total road traffic of goods in tkm

Traffic density as a factor for calculation Measure for jamming in traffic flow

Tolls Fixed (taxes) and flexible (E.g. LSVA i. CH) costs for use of road traffic ways

Harmonisation of technical guidelines Unification of regulations for road transport of goods in Europe

Average length of transport way

Average transport speed

Size of receptacle Volume of goods, that can theoretically be transported in an semitrailer

Number of semitrailers suitable for intermodal traffic

Fuel consumption Fuel consumption per tkm on the road

Energy price per tkm Price of energy consumed for road transport of goods

Degree of utilisation Variable to describe the utilisation of the road network

Length of road network

Costs per tkm

Costs for road maintenance

Emission of harmful substances Emission of harmful substances per tkm on road

Emissions of noises

Costs for environmental damage Monetary settlement of environmental damage resulting from the road transport of goods to the transportation costs



Road performance of semitraile r / truck Running performance and handling characteristics

Overnight driving prohibition for trucks Hypothetical restriction of driving time for road transport of goods

Prohibition of driving at weekend Temporal increase of prohibition of semitrailers driving at the weekend

Trade limitation Limitation of the number of trucks which are allowed to drive on a specific road

Standardisation of receptacle sizes Standardisation for each country of measurements of receptacles

Loading time for semitrailers / receptacles

Empty rides of semitrailers Quota of rides without any goods to number of totals rides

Set of variables of the sub-system „Semitrailer“

Variable Definition

Semitrailer payload Maximum permitted weight of the goods for trans-national transit in the EU

Superstructure length Length of the semitrailer, which can be calculated indirectly by semitrailer width, sway-trough-radius and wheel distance

Width of semitrailer Width of chassis and superstructure of the semitrailer

Total height of semitrailer

Outside measurements Length, width, height

Clear height Height of semitrailer superstructure without chassis

Semitrailer total weight Payload + dead load

Position of king pin Vertical and horizontal position of the coupling element of semitrailer and truck tractor

Volume of transport Length, width, height

Load of axle Maximum permitted force on one wheel axle of the semitrailer

Height of superstructure

Weigh of semitrailer

Grip-edges for crane handling Standardised apparatus for crane handling

Structurally strengthening for crane handling Required strengthening to prevent the semitrailer during vertical handling from damage by its own weight

Shunting wrench capability Acceleration, the semitrailer must be construed for to be accredited for rail transport

Axle distance Distance between different wheel axles of the semitrailer chassis

Semitrailer wheel base Distance between king pin and middle wheel axle

TIR-ability of semitrailer



Set of variables of the sub-system „Wagon“

Variable Definition

Load length of the wagon Maximum length of a receptacle, which can be transported on a wagon.

Ground clearance under wagon Distance between bottom of the wagon and the upper edge of rail

Loading gauge of wagon / semitrailer Wagon: profile resulting from top view of the wagon Semitrailer: profile resulting from view in driving direction

Pick-up elements for semitrailer fixation Flexible elements of equipment of the wagon fixing the king-pin and the wheel set of the semitrailer

Size of receptacle Volume of goods, that can theoretically be transported on the wagon

Wheel set load Force of wagon on one axle of the bogie

Size / form of pocket Width and course of the depth of the loading bag over its length

Wheel distance in bogie / wagon bridge Distance between wheel axles in bogie / distance between pins of bogies

Depth of loading area Depth of the notch in floor of the wagon to hold the wheel set of the semitrailer

Diameter of the wagon wheel

Permitted payload Maximum transportation load, the wagon is constructed for

Demand of Transport Longitudinal acceleration of structure/ semitrailer max 1g

Adapting the intermodal transport-technology to the further development of the road- semitrailer

Selective access

Loading technology without many damages

Usage of actual terminal structure

Availability A small probability of failures

Set of variables of the sub-system „Terminal“

Variable Definition

Number of semitrailer loading Number of semitrailers loaded per time unit, if only on semitrailers are loaded

Number of container loading Number of containers loaded per time unit, if only on containers are loaded

Number of swap-body loading Number of swap bodies per time -unit, if only on swap bodies are loaded

Average time for mixed loading



Shunting-/ siding length

Capacity and length of the loading tracks

Number of loading tracks

Number of cranes in the terminal

Capacity of terminal Theoretical number of loading processes in the terminal per day

Time of waiting for truck drivers

Personal expenditure for loading

Administrative expenditure

Character of loading Vertical or horizontal loading, different technologies

Seperation of loading of containers, swap bodies and semitrailers

With and without wheels

Costs for semitrailer loading

Costs for container loading

Costs for swap-body loading

One-man operating Numbers of workers which are involved in the loading process

Number of terminals Measure for accessibleness of the terminals for customers

Good spatial distribution of the terminals Terminals are near traffic junctions, centres of industry and conurbations

Intergration within the railway-system

Integration within the road network

Risk of damage of semitrailer while loading

Risk of damage of wagon while loading

Balanced load distribution within semitrailer Risk of lateral buckling while loading

Kind of goods Reefer cargo and dangerous goods

Park area for semintrailers

Park area for containers

Park areas for loading-boxes

Restrictions in harbour Which ships may run in?

Restrictions of the environment E.g. loading time



6.7.2 The set of 28 aggregated variables for the total system

Number Variable Indicator / description 1 order processing professional order processing (order input, settlement)

liability / processing of reclamation number of agencies of the sale companies response time of transport requests of forwarders and clients communication between forwarders and sale companies administrative effort at the terminal computers integration of road- railway transport reliability/precise order processing

2 input disposition effo short-dated disposing of transport capacities; clients can receive short-dated more transport capacity than contracted long-term disposing of transport capacities - contracts allow service provider of rail to utilise better their resources; a part of the profit is passed down to the clients quota of empty transports of wagons and semitrailers for intermodal traffic number of pocket wagons, other wagons, locomotives variety of wagon models

3 internat. co operation international co-operations in road and railway good transports in and out the EU simple calculation from route prices at the transnational traffic, transnational connection of relations simple processes at the country borders

4 technical instructions Harmonisation of the different technical standards in the different countries for intermodal traffic - road goods transport - railway goods transport - shipment permitted total weight / mass and measurement / loading gauge

5 ratio pre/end-haulage ratio between length from forerun and post- carriage proportional to main run share of rail goods traffic way on transport chain



6 transport time required time to transport goods from place A to B average transport speed

7 techn. dimension semi direction: heavier and bigger receptacle size: theoretical in receptacle packable transport volume respectively maximum weight semitrailer total weight: dead load + payload external dimensions semitrailer: width, height, length load of axle, weight of semitrailer, height of superstructure / position of king pin degree of synchronism and handling characteristic TIR- possibility structural strengthening for crane handling shunting- possibility

8 energy consumption energy consumption on road and rail: - diesel/km - electricity consumption - etc.

9 infrastructure road Density of road network for goods traffic/ especially highways and national roads Degree of capacity of infrastructure road Indicator for degree of disturbance in traffic flow (tailback) Important calculation- factor

10 road costs per tkm average sum of all costs resulting per tkm on road fixed and flexible taxes (vehicle -taxes, LSVA, toll, ...) energy costs material wear / vehicle maintenance (LCC) personal costs driver / disposition costs for road maintenance

11 environment damage damage to the environment produced of truck like noise emissions emissions of harmful substances

12 political regulations for road goods traffic, especially on bottlenecks like Alps (A, CH) EU-regulations - driving bans related to the weight - prohibitions of driving at weekend or overnight



driving for trucks - restriction of time for the terminal (-> noise)

13 length of transp. way average length of transport way 14 infrastructure railway length of goods transport rail network

expansion/reduction of network traffic density rail / degree of utilisation country specific or section specific: - permitted rail load: permitted force per length to take effect on rail, - maximum train length, - height of overhead line, - difference of wheel gauge

15 relations railway possible/ offered connections in rail goods traffic timetable/ constancy of transports on a relation regarding volume and time cycle times balance of transport flow free disposable allocation depending of number of chief guards

16 rail costs operator costs: sum of all costs for railway resulting transport of goods consisting of: - energy price - vehicle maintenance and infrastructure (LCC) - material usage - wears of hearings and wheels customers costs: prices the railway companies charge for transport of goods costs per tkm or unit

17 security/risk o.accide frequency of accidents ratio of probability of accidents road/rail damage costs arising during handling in terminal

18 competitiveness railw. competitiveness rail to road 19 techn. dimension wagon loading gauge



load length of the wagon ground clearance diameter of the wagon wheel wheel-/bogie- distance total weight wagon: dead load + payload measurement and shape of the cargo area

20 flex interf wagon/semi Flexibility of pick-up elements needed for fixation of the semitrailer at the box-wagon, RL Adaptability of technology to further development of semintrailers only for road transport

21 loading method horizontal or vertical loading selective access loading method which is poor in damages utilisation of existing terminal-structure

22 ratio cont/semi Number of container- and swap bodies proportional to semitrailer loading in the terminal comparison of costs

23 capacity of terminal Number of shippers in terminal number and length of loading tracks Shunting-/Sidings length Park areas for Containers, swap bodies and semitrailers In harbour: number of ships which are able to dock

24 pers.requirement/handl Number of workers while loading: - one-man-operating - asynchronous two-man-operating - temporal synchronous two-men-operating

25 work load personnel work loading of the truck driver: drive and loading time, rest period waiting period at the terminal

26 spatial pos. terminal spatial distribution of terminals number/ density accessibility of terminals/ integration in transport network

27 type of goods ratio of transported goods: reefer goods, hot and dangerous goods

28 Time for handling Averaged time per loading process of semitrailers in comparison to containers/ swap bodies



6.7.3 Table of the 28 variables displaying their P- and Q-values

Influence indices (Consensus matrix) in the system model KLV 3 engl. P ACTIVE...........PASSIVE Q-valu CRITICAL.......BUFFERIN P-valu HIGHLY ACTIVE HIGHLY CRITICAL 13 length of transportway 4.60 CRITICAL 12 political regulations 4.00 SLIGHTLY CRITICAL ACTIVE NEUTRAL 3 internat. Co-operation 2.40 17 security/risk o.accide 870 20 flex interf wagon/semi 2.38 4 technical instructions 714 9 infrastructure road 2.09 2 input disposition effo 630 SLIGHTLY ACTIVE 6 transport time 598 23 capacity of terminal 1.64 SLIGHTLY BUFFERING 4 technical instructions 1.62 5 ratio pre/end-haulage 575 21 loading method 1.58 21 loading method 570 22 ratio cont/semi 1.33 16 rail costs 559 NEUTRAL 3 internat. Cooperation 540 19 techn. dimension wagon 1.27 18 competitiveness railw 506 14 infrastructure railway 1.21 15 relations railway 462 26 spatial pos. Terminal 1.19 27 type of goods 441 7 techn. dimension semi 1.16 1 order processing 437 6 transport time 1.13 14 infrastructure railway 437 15 relations railway 1.05 7 techn. Dimension semi 418 17 security/risk o.accide 1.03 20 flex interf wagon/semi 403 27 type of goods 1.00 BUFFERING 5 ratio pre/end-haulage 0.92 25 work load personnel 364 1 order processing 0.83 12 political regulations 324 10 road costs per tkm 0.75 23 capacity of terminal 322 SLIGHTLY PASSIVE 26 spatial pos. terminal 304 11 environment damage 0.67 10 road costs per tkm 300 28 time for handliang 0.63 11 environment damage 294 24 pers.requirement/handl 0.62 9 infrastructure road 253 PASSIVE 28 time for handling 228 25 work load personnel 0.54 19 techn. Dimension wagon 154 HIGHLY PASSIVE 8 energy consumption 132 2 input disposition effo 0.36 HIGHLY BUFFERING 16 rail costs 0.30 13 length of transp. way 115 8 energy consumption 0.27 22 ratio cont/semi 108 18 competitiveness railw. 0.24 24 pers.requirement/handl 104



6.7.4 Value benefits supplier (calculation)

Betr. Gewich

tung Lösung

1 Lösung

2 Lösung

3 Lösung

4 Lösung

5 Lösung

6 Nr. Detail

1 Administrativer Aufwand im Terminal (niedrig)

1 9 45 45 45 45 45 45

2 Einfache Disponierbarkeit von Transportkapazitäten

1 8 72 64 48 72 56 8

3 Kunden können mehr Kapazitäten erhalten als vertraglich vereinbart wurde (hoch)

1 7 49 42 28 49 35 0

4 Anteil Leerfahrten der für den KLV-Waggons und SAnh (niedrig)

1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 Anzahl der TW, RL, Lokomotiven (hoch)

1 9 0 63 0 81 45 18

6 Variantenvielfalt der Waggons (niedrig)

1 8 72 72 72 72 72 72

7 Internationale Kooperation Schienengüterverkehr Straßengüterverkehr innerhalb und außerhalb der EU (hoch)

1 8 80 80 80 80 80 80

8 Grenzüberschreitende Anbindung von Relationen (hoch)

1 8 80 80 80 80 80 80

9 Vereinheitlichung der unterschiedlichen technischen Normen im KLV in den Ländern für den Straßenverkehr, Schienenverkehr, Wasserschifffahrt (hoch)

1 8 40 72 80 80 72 56

10 Zulässige Gesamtgewichte / Massen und Abmessungen / Lichtraumprofile (hoch)

1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Zeit, die zum Transport der Fracht von einem Ort A zu B benötigt wird (niedrig)

1 3 18 27 27 27 27 18

12 Durchschnittliche Transportgeschwindigkeit (hoch)

1 3 18 27 27 27 27 18

13 Richtung: mehr Nutzlast und größer; 100m³ und 28t Nutzlast(hoch)

1 3 24 24 24 0 24 0

14 Transportbehältergröße: theoretisch im Transportbehälter verstaubare Transportvolumen bzw. Maximalgewicht (hoch)

1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 SAnh-Eigengewicht (niedrig) 1 1 10 8 10 3 5 2 16 Außenabmessungen SAnh: Breite,

Höhe, Länge (hoch) 1 1 8 8 8 0 8 0

17 Achsaggregatlast, Sattellast (konstant) 1 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 18 Aufsattelhöhe(niedrig) 1 4 40 40 40 40 40 0 19 Laufgüte und Fahreigenschaften (hoch) 1 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 Diesel/km (niedrig) 1 1 8 5 5 8 8 5 21 Stromverbrauch/km (niedrig) 1 5 40 25 25 40 40 45 22 Fixe und flexible Steuern und Abgaben

(KFZ-Steuer, LSVA, Maut,...) (niedrig)

1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0



23 Materialverschleiß / Fahrzeuginstandhaltung (LCC) (niedrig)

1 1 8 8 8 9 9 5

24 EU-Regelungen (Fahrzeugausrüstungen)

1 1 10 9 10 10 10 9

25 Durchschnittliche Länge des Transportweges (hoch)

1 5 45 45 45 45 45 45

26 Länderspezifisch bzw. Streckenspezifisch: zulässige Schienenlast: zulässige Kraft pro Längeneinheit, die auf die Schiene wirken darf (hoch)

1 8 16 72 72 72 72 16

27 Max. Zuglänge (hoch) 1 8 80 80 80 80 80 80 28 Höhe der Oberleitung (hoch) 1 7 70 70 70 70 70 70 29 Spurweitenwechsel (niedrig) 1 2 2 10 10 10 10 2 30 Taktzeiten Fahrplan (hoch) 1 7 70 70 70 70 70 70 31 Paarigkeit der Transportströme (hoch) 1 7 0 56 56 56 0 0 32 Frei verfügbare Kontingente (hoch) 1 7 56 56 56 21 56 21 33 Energiepreis Unterhaltskosten für die

Fahrzeuge und die Infrastruktur (LCC) (niedrig)

1 9 27 72 72 72 72 27

34 Materialbeanspruchung (niedrig) 1 9 54 72 54 72 72 72 35 Verschleiß von Lagern und Rädern

(niedrig) 1 9 27 72 72 72 72 72

36 Kundenkosten: Preis, den die Bahn für den Transport von Gütern berechnet (niedrig)

1 8 56 64 56 64 64 48

37 Kosten/tkm; Kosten/Einheit (niedrig) 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Minimierung von Unfällen 1 8 48 40 40 56 56 56 39 Bei der Verladung am Terminal

anfallende Schadenskosten (niedrig) 1 8 64 48 48 48 48 64

40 Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Schiene gegenüber Straße (hoch)

1 8 24 24 24 80 80 24

41 Lichtraumprofil P400 (hoch) 1 7 56 56 56 56 56 56 42 Wagen-Ladelänge (niedrig) 1 8 64 40 40 64 64 72 43 Bodenfreiheit / Aufstandsebene

(niedrig) 1 8 64 72 64 80 80 72

44 Raddurchmesser (hoch) 1 7 35 63 63 63 63 63 45 Rad-/Drehgestell-Abstände (niedrig) 1 7 56 35 35 56 56 63 46 Eigengewicht Waggon (niedrig) 1 4 36 32 28 32 32 40 47 Nutzlast (hoch) 1 8 64 64 64 48 48 40 48 Größe / Form der

Aufnahmemöglichkeit (hoch) 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

49 Flexibilität der Aufnahmeelemente für SAnh-Fixierung (hoch)

1 8 80 40 72 0 0 8

50 Anpassungsfähigkeit der Technik an die Weiterentwicklung der Straßen-SAnh (hoch)

1 7 63 21 21 70 70 21

51 Horizontaler Umschlag 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 10 52 Selektiver Zugriff (hoch) 1 8 0 80 80 80 80 0 53 Schadensarme Umschlagtechnik

(hoch) 1 8 64 32 24 48 48 64

54 Nutzung bestehender Terminalstruktur (hoch)

1 8 0 80 80 80 80 0



55 Anzahl der im KLV befindlichen Einheiten im Verhältnis der Container und Wechselbrückenumschläge zu SAnh-Umschlägen im Terminal (hoch)

1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

56 Kostenvergleich (hoch) 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 Anzahl der Verlader (Maschinen) im

Terminal (niedrig) 1 4 40 36 36 36 36 36

58 Anzahl der Umschlaggleise / Umschlaggleislänge (niedrig)

1 6 48 36 36 36 36 48

59 Rangier- und Abstellgleislängen (niedrig)

1 6 48 36 36 36 36 54

60 Abstellfläche für Container/Wechselbrücken, SAnh, LKWs... (niedrig)

1 7 28 42 42 49 49 42

61 Im Hafen: Anzahl der Schiffe die anlegen können (hoch)

1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

62 Einmannbedienung bei Verladung 1 8 72 48 0 72 72 16 63 Zeitl. Synchrone Zweimann-

Bedienung 1 2 18 12 2 18 18 2

64 Arbeitsbelastung der LKW-Fahrer (niedrig)

1 4 24 24 24 24 24 24

65 Wartezeiten im Terminal (niedrig) 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 Verhältnis der transportierten

Güterarten: Kühl-, Heiß- und Gefahrgut (hoch)

1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

67 Durchschnittliche Zeit pro Umschlag von SAnh im Vergleich zu Container / Wechselbrücken (niedrig)

1 9 9 72 54 90 90 9

68 Vertikaler Umschlag 1 9 0 90 90 90 90 0 69 Polyvalente

Aufnahmemöglichkeit(hoch) 1 8 8 72 56 40 72 8

70 Systemgewicht (niedrig) 1 9 63 54 36 72 63 81 71 Rangiertauglichkeit (hoch) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 Energieverbrauch auf Straße und

Schiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

73 Durchfahrtkontingente für den Straßengüterverkehr, vor allem an Engpässen wie in den Alpen (A, CH)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

74 Haftung / Reklamationsverarbeitung 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Antwortzeiten auf Transportanfragen

von Spediteuren und Kunden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

76 Gute Dienstleistungen und Professionelle Auftragsabwicklung bei Ordereingang

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

77 Anzahl der Büros der Verkaufsgesellschaften

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

78 Kommunikation zwischen Spediteuren und Verkaufsgesellschaften

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

79 EDV-Integration von Straßen- und Schienentransport

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

80 Zuverlässigkeit / Auftragsgerechte Abwicklung

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



81 Langfristige Disponierbarkeit ermöglicht den Dienstleistern der Schiene, ihre Produktionsmittel besser einzusetzen; der resultierende Nutzen wird zum Teil an Kunden weitergegeben

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

82 Einfache Kalkulation von Trassenpreisen bei grenzüberschreitendem Verkehr

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

83 Vereinfachte Abwicklung an den Ländergrenzen

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

84 Verhältnis Vor- und Nachlauf zum Hauptlauf

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85 Anteil der Schienengüterverkehrsstrecke an der Transportkette

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

86 Etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 Dichte des Straßennetzes für den

Güterverkehr / insbesondere Autobahnen und überregionale Straßen

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

88 Auslastungsgrad der Infrastruktur Straße

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89 Indikator für das Maß der Störungen im Verkehrsfluß (Stau)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

90 Wichtiger Kalkulationsfaktor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 Durchschnittliche Summe aller Kosten,

die pro tkm auf der Straße entstehen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

92 Energiekosten 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 Personenkosten Fahrer / Disposition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 Straßeninstandhaltungskosten 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 Durch den LKW ausgelöste

Umweltbelastungen wie Lärmemission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

96 Schadstoffemission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 Streckenbezogene Fahrverbote

abhängig von Fahrzeuggewicht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

98 Zeitliche Fahrverbote für den Straßengüterverkehr (Nachtfahr- und Wochenendfahrverbot)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

99 Zeitliche Restriktion für das Terminal (z.B. Lärm)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 Länge des Güterverkehrsschienennetzes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 Erweiterung / Rückbau des Netzes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 Verkehrsdichte Schiene /

Auslastungsgrad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

103 Mögliche / Angebotene Verbindungen im Schienengüterverkehr

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

104 Fahrplan / Regelmäßigkeit der Transportströme hinsichtlich Volumen und Zeit

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

105 Abhängig von der Anzahl der Zugführer

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

106 Operatorkosten: Summe aller Kosten, die den Bahnbetreibern beim Transport von Gütern entstehen. Zusammengesetzt aus:

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



107 Verhältnis der Unfallwahrscheinlichkeit Straße / Schiene

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

108 Anzahl der Mitarbeiter während eines Umschlagvorgangs

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

109 Zeitl. Assynchrone Zweimann-Bedienung

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

110 Fahrtzeit, Ruhezeit, Ladezeit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 Räumliche Verteilung der Terminals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 Anzahl / Dichte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 Erreichbarkeit der Terminals /

Integation in das Verkehrsnetz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2231 2707 2501 2871 2833 1977

6.8 Further details on the model

Figure 6-5 : The streaddle-carrier transports a semitrailer onto the wagon



Figure 6-6: Loading-activities inside the conventional part of the terminal

Figure 6-7: Loading-activities with two streaddle -carriers inside the RoRo-part of the terminal



Figure 6-8: View inside the conventional part of the terminal



7. Design and construction of the SAIL solutions

7.1 General testing results

• Same geometry of trailers for the carriers • Same arrangements concerning bulk sizes as for road trailers • Same loading platform connection • Same loading and security technique (especially concerning safety truckload) • Trailers do not need special permission regarding EU-rules • Connection of the trailers to the wagon • Trailers are fixed by the „king pin“ only

7.2 Testing Solution 1

7.2.1 Description of Solution 1

Due to the European increase of lorry transports by means of semitrailers once more the Combined Transport is faced with following question: is today an economic railway transfer of new modern and efficient tractor-trailer units at the terminals possible? Will it actually be possible also in the future? Under what kind of restrictions?

These are the specifications:

• Volume-optimized • 4 m corner height • Less ground clearance • Small wheel diameters, specific for loading • Specific from driving point of view • Bigger truck gauges • High-performance cost intensive semitrailers • LCC specific

The 1st proposal of the SAIL group concerns a rational horizontal transfer of semitrailers, which do not need particular railway standards.

Furthermore this transhipment system does not make high demands on the terminal infrastructure. In this case we just need a levelled or partially levelled track, as well as a levelled storage surface for semitrailers and the access to the terminal with the so-called portal cranes for semitrailers loading.



As to the semitrailer transfer and transport by rail following components are needed:

• Completely or partially leve lled track with lateral running tracks for portal cranes • Storage surface for semitrailers • All necessary wagons • Movable cross beam to support the semitrailers and to place them onto the wagon • Portal crane for the semitrailers transfer • Access ramps

Figure 7-1 Solution 1



Figure 7-2 : Solution 1

- Procedure of horizontal semitrailer transhipment

The portal crane grasps the semitrailer supporting and placing beam from the cross support. To observe that for semitrailers with different heights (830-980-1130 mm) from running track differently coloured support beams are available.

Example: The portal crane grasps a green support beam from the cross beam and starts loading up the semitrailer with the green mark. After having driven over the access ramp till to the Low Level Wagon it settles the semitrailer with the support beams onto the side sill structure of the Low Level Wagon. The semitrailers have then to be loaded up in forward direction. After having placed the semitrailer onto the Low Level Wagon the portal crane moves forwards or backwards, depending on its shortest way and starts loading up the next semitrailer. For a quicker loading of long Low Level Wagon Trains with semitrailers we recommend to work contemporaneously with 2 or more portal cranes. The unloading of such trains takes place in the opposite order.

The SAIL partners handed over to the EU commission a feasibility study concerning the 1st proposal. The intent of this feasibility study was to be up-to-date and ready to carry out this system in Europe should there be a certain demand for the horizontal loading system for semitrailers without auxiliary rail equipment. The study should have following contents:



Contents 1 Introduction 2 4 km line for semitrailers on European Huckepack net and in particular on

transalpine Huckepack traffic 3 Technical specifications 4 Today’s Huckepack Low Level Wagons in Europe 5 New conceptual proposals for the transport of semitrailers in the European and

transalpine Huckepack traffic 6 Low Level Wagon bogies, respectively double axle running gears for the new Low

Level Wagon project 7 Decision for the SAIL Low Level Wagon project 8 Pre-dimensioning of worked out SAIL Low Level Wagon variant

Stability proof – dynamic and static working forces on the whole system of new SAIL Low Level Wagons

9 Technical description of new SAIL Low Level Wagons 10 Concept of access ramps at the terminal 11 Complete drawings for prototype construction of the new SAIL Low Level Wagon at

a scale of 1:32 12.1 Study of new SAIL Low Level Wagons with regard to the higher range of loading

gauges in the European and transalpine Huckepack traffic 12.2 Study of new SAIL Low Level Wagons with regard to the lower range of loading

gauge 13 Automated loading and unloading procedures at the terminal for the horizontal

loading of semitrailers 14 Global efficiency study of new SAIL Low Level Wagons 15 Acquisition and maintenance costs of mobile portal cranes 16 Terminal costs 17 Testing programme for the new SAIL Low Level Wagons and portal cranes 18 Costs determination for prototype construction of SAIL Low Level Wagons and

serial vehicles 19 Costs determination for prototype construction of mobile portal cranes and serial

executions 20 Recapitulation / outlook / suggestions 21 Annex / enclosures

Table 7-1 : Contents of the project study

Furthermore the SAIL partners developed a functional model of this loading system on a scale 1:32. Low Level Wagon Trains have been conceived for the transalpine transport of semitrailers with 4 m corner height. All tests carried out by Messrs. Kögel assure the complete success of our feasibility study.



- Test results for solution 1 (simulation of wheel crossover)

Date: March 22, 2001 Inspectors: Schall

Wiehler Gutmann Laib

Vehicle: P75 Standardfahrgestell

Fzg.-Nr.: 07-47078 Bereifung: 385/55 R 19,5 Achsabstand: 2 x 1310mm

Loaded with: 24.000 kg Axle weight Loading platform geometry:

Figure 7-3: Loading platform geometry

- Description of the experiment:

Driving over the above-described loading platform with step speed with a loaded P75 trailer. Driving up and down the loading platform measuring the actual wheel tonnage single sided as well as the static condition of the first wheel on the first scale.



- Results:

24.000 kg Total axle weight 27.000 kg Total axle weight

Wheel tonnage Axis tonnage Wheel tonnage Axis tonnage Up ramp:

1. Axis 5.200 10.400 5.850 11.700 2. Axis 4.600 9.200 5.175 10.350

3. Axis 4.100 8.200 4.613 9.225

Down ramp:

1. Axis 4.200 8.400 4.725 9.450 2. Axis 4.900 9.800 5.513 11.025

3. Axis 5.100 10.200 5.738 11.475

Inertia of the first axis up ramp:

1. Axis 5.000 10.000 5.625 11.250

- Enclosures regarding „simulation of wheel set crossover“

The following pictures demonstrate the actual wheel situation on the drive-up of the loading platform. Next picture shows the trailer after crossing the ramp.

Picture 7-1 : Wheel situation testing - 1







- BPW’s confirmation



- Kronprinz confirmation



- Michelin confirmation



7.2.2 Testing results solution 2

- General Description / Advantages

Enlarged possibility of semitrailer crane transfer on pocket wagons.

• Enlarged enveloping case for modern long semitrailers with fixed rear anti-collision protection

• Widened enveloping case for 2,60 m large semitrailers with fixed side anti-collision protection

• Vertically adjustable wheel support platform • High position for normal semitrailers • Low position for volume-optimized semitrailers • Fixed position of the wheel support platform for the optimal exploitation of the enveloping

case • Shock-proof semitrailer transport on railway system • Semitrailer longitudinal acceleration: 0,8g with V = 7 km/h • Renunciation of wheel chokes • Linked structured pocket wagons with three bogies • Combined linked structure execution for containers and pocket wagons • Double pocket wagon execution • Optimal length exploitation of articulated pocket wagons for the transport of semitrailers

and swap-bodies • Optimal own weight – payload / dead load comparison • The individual wagon execution is of course possible at customers request • Optimized acquisition costs



Cranable semitrailer (with Ro-Ro equipment)

Figure 7-4: Cranable semitrailer



Pocket wagon for cranable semitrailer

Figure 7-5: Pocket wagon for cranable semitrailer



Wheel support platform for pocket wagon

Figure 7-6: Wheel support platform for pocket wagon



Loading plan for CT / pocket wagon

Figure 7-7: Loading plan for CT / pocket wagon



Cranable semitrailer loaded in the enveloping case

Figure 7-8: Cranable semitrailer loaded in the enveloping case

- Test report on loading and unloading procedures

Loading of cranable semitrailer

Date: March 18, 2001 Place: HUPAC - Container-Terminal in Busto Arsizio Participants: H. Crivelli HUPAC H. Kaufmann HUPAC H. Fregni Ferriere Cattaneo H. Bebie ICM H. Schall KÖGEL Target: Understanding if a semitrailer as described above can be loaded onto a pocket wagon. Finding best solutions which technical equipment fulfils needs to load: a) Gantry crane with “pendulum attenuation” b) Mobile crane



Semitrailer: • Fix connection of UFE at the back, according EG - RL 70/221 EWG - 97/19/EG „standard

- design“ • Fix connection of UFE on the side, according EG - RL 89/297 EWG „standard - design“

Gantry crane (Hupac Terminal in Busto Arsizio)

Figure 7-9:Gantry crane with pendulum attenuation

Mobile Crane

Figure 7-10: Mobile crane



Figure 7-11: Pendulum attenuation

Measurements while loading with the following equipments:

• Gantry crane • Mobile crane

Following points where registered

? Deviation of the middle axis between semitrailer and pocket wagon

The pocket wagon shows a width of 2575 mm.

Pendulum attenuation



Figure 7-12: Pocket wagon

Semitrailer equipped with laser point measurement, front and at back installations.

Figure 7-13: Front Figure 7-14: Back



As vertical measurement position following points where defined:

a) Intersection under edge UFE / over edge Pocket wagon LT

Figure 7-15: Vertical measurement position

b) Loaded pocket wagon

Figure 7-16: Loaded pocket wagon



Tests using a gantry crane

Driving over the pocket wagon from 5 various positions. Measurements where taken from the outside boarder of the pocket wagon LT to the laser measuring point.

Figure 7-17: Measurement procedure Measurement results

Measurement points:

Figure 7-18: Measurement points

Point 1 Point 2

Touch-line pocket wagon LT

a / b a / b

Laser - point



Measurement results gantry crane:

Measurement point 1 Measurement point 2 Variance Test no.: A B a b S ± 1 220 195 210 215 10 5,0 2 240 190 215 195 25 12,5 3 235 185 200 175 35 17,5 4 265 185 200 215 65 32,5 5 220 195 200 200 20 10,0

Table 7-2 : Results gantry crane

Analysed were measurement point 1 against measurement point 2, unit a. Test results and their impact are shown in experimental drawing ID-no 579735.

Figure 7-19: Test results/impact



Based on the new fixed pocket wagon size of =2660mm.

Tests using mobile crane :

Driving over the pocket wagon from 3 various positions, same procedure as with the gantry crane.

Measurement point 1 Measurement point 2 Variance Test no.:

A B a b S ± 1 390 195 180 220 210 105 2 55 190 150 220 95 47,5 3 260 195 220 220 40 20

Table 7-3 : Results mobile crane

Test results and impact are shown in the experimental drawing ID-no 579736. Evaluation is done under same conditions as for gantry crane and considering a pocket size of 2660 mm.

Figure 7-20: Test results/impact



Assessment/danger zones considering damages of semitrailers

Figure 7-21: SSV according EG – RL 89/297/EWG

Figure 7-22: Restriction lamp white/red according EG - RL 76/756/EWG-97/28/EG

Figure 7-23: UFE according EG - RL 70/221/EWG-97/19/EG



Figure 7-24: „Spanngetriebe hinten zum horizontalen Spannen der Schiebeplanen“

Figure 7-25: No loading without directing!

Results/summary

Test conditions:

? Good weather ? No wind ? Good visibility (day light)

Tests prove that cranable semitrailers, standard serial equipped as described above, need gantry cranes with pendulum attenuation to be loaded on pocket wagons. Handling using mobile units is not recommended, if not to be declined, considering damage danger of trailers as well as cost of time.



7.2.3 Solution 3

- Description

Also SAIL double wagons have been conceived for the transport of the so called supporting structure systems. For our SAIL double wagon prototype we have chosen the most convenient variant, this is the transport on the codified railway system C70 of newly developed supporting structures with over 3,15 m external height.

That means that wagons with standard bogies and nominal heights with 1155 mm on top of rail are possible. It has to be guaranteed, however, that the supporting structure chassis can get into under-frame structure of the container wagon for about 180 mm.

Should the railway transport of these high supporting structures concern the left Rhine area, this is France or the transalpine railway traffic, the railway codification C45 has to be observed and more specially equipped wagons are needed. That means wagons with smaller wheel diameters – about 840 mm. As we have already mentioned the presented proposals variants can be carried out both in double and single wagon execution. According to the customer’s demand the combination of proposals 2 and 3 is also possible. This combination is of course more expensive and therefore such a decision has to be taken by the competent railway companies operating within the Combined Transport.

Cranable swap body and chassis

Figure 7-26: Cranable swap body and chassis



Part CT (double wagon)

Figure 7-27: Part CT (double wagon)



Combination CT/pocket wagon (single wagon)

Figure 7-28: Combination CT/pocket wagon



Transportation level over track (codification C70, C45)

Figure 7-29: Transportation level over track



Cranable swap body (with Ro-Ro equipment)

Figure 7-30: Cranable swap body



Chassis for cranable swap body

Figure 7-31: Chassis for cranable swap body



7.2.4 Test report on solution 2 and 3

- Description

Loading semitrailer using Ro-Ro traffic Date: April 11 to 12, 2001 Place: Travemünde LHG, Skandinavienkai Port of Trelleborg Participants: H. Pennacchi HUPAC H. Altenau HUPAC H. Stumpe IMA H. Bebie ICM H. Müller DUSS H. Fiedler TFK H. Sennewald EWALS Cargo Care H. Schall KÖGEL Objective:

Find out if today’s semitrailer can be loaded, equipped with Ro-Ro according ISO9367-2DIN EN 29367-2 without folding UFE according EG-RL 70/221EWG-97/19/EG.

- Procedure

Loading and unloading by using a ferryboat of the TT-line.

Figure 7-32: Ferryboat



Figure 7-33: Drive in

Figure 7-34: Drive out

- Problem

The basic problem is the drive in angle of the loading ramp (see DIN EN 29367). TT-Line aims for an angle of max 5°.



Figure 7-35: Drive in problematic

- Possibilities for solution

Figure 7-36: Loading ramp drive in Support blocks need to be adjusted to lower “Aufsattelhöhen”, if semitrailers are loaded without SZgm (see ISO 1726: 2000).



Figure 7-37: Support block

Ro-Ro rings should be fitted to the trailer as “integral rings”, last ring and the semitrailer end (against DIN EN 29367-2).

Figure 7-38: Ro-Ro-rings

Following pictures show practised solutions to transport swap bodies using Ro-Ro-transportation.



Figures 7-39: Ro-Ro-transportation possibilities

- Results/Summary

To transport the new semitrailer, size 13620 x 2480 x 3000 on Ro-Ro-ships, solutions for road as well as ship transportation have been found.



7.3 Building the semitrailer and swap body prototype

7.3.1 The different approaches

• Approach 1 • Unaccompanied RO-RO-transport with supported beams on eight axle low level

wagon (horizontal loading) • Approach 2

• craneable semitrailer. – without extra concession regarding EU-regulations – „for pocket wagons“ (vertical loading)

• semitrailer P75 (craneable) • Approach 3

• craneable swap body with: • road chassis (forerun/hunting of IT) • „CT wagon“ (rail/road transport) (vertical loading)

For approach 2 the semitrailer needs to be additionally equipped with gripping edges and separable air springs but the semitrailer does not need extra concessions regarding EU regulations.

7.3.2 Construction of the prototypes

7.3.2.1 Framework front part



7.3.2.2 Manufacturing rump

7.3.2.3 Mounting of chassis support beams at front / toolbox / SSE



7.3.2.4 Mounting of chassis support beams at back / handling/diagnosis console

7.3.2.5 Surface mounting front wall with supply module / telematics device



7.3.2.6 Surface mounting sliding roof / door switch

7.3.2.7 Detailed photos of construction

Photo of all 3 road vehicles (semitrailer (SAIL), swap body (SAIL), swap body (ECC)



semitrailer P 75 craneable

Underride barrier at the back with fender and sensor for supported start up process at the ramp and RO-RO lashing ring



Handling/diagnosis console and rear supporting device

Supplies at the front



7.3.3 Testing results

7.3.3.1 Lifting check at the gripping edges





7.3.3.2 Strain of the roof



7.3.3.3 Density of the weather

Conclusions:

The tests were successfully finished.



7.3.4 Approach 3

Approach 3 consist of

• craneable swap body with:

• road chassis (forerun/hunting of IT)

• „CT wagon“ (rail/road transport) (vertical loading)

7.3.4.1 Craneable swap body with road chassis

This solution is necessary for the processing west-east traffic, measuring 13,6 x 2,48 x 3,0 m. On the routes between France / Spain / Portugal, the maximum route profile C 45 applies. For altimetry reasons, the chassis of the semitrailer cannot be transported on rail.

7.3.4.2 Construction of the prototype

- Framework of road chassis



- Framework of swap body



- Mounting of road chassis/swap body

- Road chassis and swap body



7.3.5 Detailed photos

7.3.5.1 Road chassis with swap body

7.3.5.2 Underride barrier at the back with fender and sensor for supported start up process at the ramp and RO-RO lashing ring



7.3.5.3 Handling/diagnosis console and rear supporting device

7.3.5.4 Swap body fixation with screw plug



7.3.5.5 Protecting plane over gripping edges

7.3.5.6 supplies at the front



7.3.6 Testing results

7.3.6.1 Road tests (fast and difficult routes)









7.3.6.2 Tests DIN / EN 283























7.3.6.3 RO-RO test = EN 29367-2







7.3.6.4 Loading test swap body to CT wagon

The tests were successfully completed.



7.4 Building the wagon prototype

7.4.1 Introduction

• Approach 1 (App. 1): Unaccompanied Ro-Ro transport with supported beams on eight-

axle low level wagon (horizontal loading) – efficient horizontal loading for semitrailers at an

automated terminal.

• Approach 2 (App. 2): Craneable semitrailer – without extra concession regarding EU

regulations for “pocket wagons“ (vertical loading) – automated transhipment technique with

safety concept for semitrailers.

• Approach 3 (App. 3): Craneable semitrailer-swap body with undercarriages on the road

(without undercarriages on rail).

7.4.2 Actual state of affairs of the EU project

7.4.2.1 Approach 1

The modelling, in the scale 1:32, for the automated horizontal transhipment with accompanying pre-investment study is in progress.

Creation of the model according to drafts:

• Attachment 1 terminal processing for horizontal loading

• Attachment 2 survey drawing of the vehicle

• Attachment 3 wagon profile with supporting beams

• Attachment 4 four-axes bogie

• Attachment 5 portal crane

7.4.2.2 State of the art of the pre- investment study

According to the index attachment 6, the investigations up to and including Pos. 9 – Technical description of the new low level wagon – were successfully completed. Additionally, draft versions of the model of the new low level wagon – in the scale 1:32 – were created (Pos. 11 of the pre- investment study). At the end of this EU project, the pre- investment study and the model will be presented.



7.4.2.3 Approach 2 and Approach 3

Between July 1st 2001 and October 31st 2001, the EU prototype was built, according to the draft versions, in linked style with three bogies for approach 2 and 3.

Pictures 1 and 2 show the construction phase of the carcass base frame for the wagon element for the transportation of swap bodies, ISO large container and platform wagons.



Next picture shows the transition to the lower frame of the pocket wagon element. The carcass base frame for the transportation of modern semitrailers, ISO container, and swap bodies was produced at the same time as the Ct wagon element 1.

Next pictures show the construction phase of the pocket wagon element.



The picture hereafter shows the linked connection of both wagon elements.

In November 2001, the official static UIC tests for the entire double unit with original bogies was performed by Ferriere Cattaneo. Before these static UIC tests, loading test were made with the platform wagons and modern jumbo semitrailers, developed and constructed by Kögel. For the pocket wagon element, the bogie Y27 was simultaneously modified and built. Also, for present and future semitrailers of different heights, a vertically adjustable support bracket with safety concept was developed and constructed.

Thus, all components were timely available for the UIC test.

Following picture visualize the Ct wagon part with pocket wagon element during the frame pressure test.



The next picture shows the pocket wagon part with Ct wagon element during the frame pressure test. Bogie with 840mm wheel diameter.



Next picture shows the vertically adjustable support bracket with safety concept (crash elements). The static tests were conducted according to the test program.

The test sequence for the complete wagon unit was performed as follows:

• Wagon unit empty • Wagon unit with empty semitrailer • Wagon unit with partially loaded semitrailer • Wagon unit with loaded semitrailer



For the dynamic tests, the entire wagon unit was delivered at the beginning of January 2002 to the research centre DB AG, Minden. For this reason, both the Federal Office for Traffic (FOT), Bern, and the Federal Railway Office (FRO), Bonn, as well as the participating railway companies provided the license for the transference on its own wheels.

Next, the dynamic tests - i.e. the safety concept of the support bracket - were conducted. This test shall ensure that the king pin of the semitrailer will on no account be damaged during the terminal process. In case of violent damage, the operators can see the overload from an automatic display. The dynamic tests in the research centre of the DB AG, Minden are visualized in next picture.



After the successful test phase, a certificate on the entire safety system for the concession procedure at the respective European departments was composed by Dr. Esderts, DB AG. Presumably, the dynamic test cycle was finished in the middle of April 2002. The double unit will then be delivered on its own wheels to Ferriere Cattaneo, where it will be completed. At present, the EU working group is discussing the test run of this vehicle.



7.4.3 Details of the wagon



8. Simulating and animating the terminal process

8.1 Software development

The process of software development consists of several phases: analysis, general outline, clear concept, implementation as well as tests on various levels. The transition from one phase to the next can only take place after the release by a review. The result of such a process is a software product which does not only comply with the settled criteria but is also clearly structured and easy to maintain. Besides the software, a detailed documentation also results, which is essential for both support and advancement.

The result of each of the first three phases (analysis, general outline, clear concept) are documents which, one the one hand, serve as a basis for the following phase and, on the other hand, contain regulations for the testing of the software after the implementation. Again, each document needs to be released for the next phase by a review. With the aid of the review it can be assured that only minor errors are transferred from one phase to the next, which is especially important in the very early phases. After the completion of the clear concept, the implementation can take place, which is only finished after the code review. The tests, which were elaborated in the first three phases, are finally processed in the subsequent testing phases. After each test, depending on the respective result, it is decided whether there may be a shift to the next phase or whether it is necessary to take a step back

While the planning is a Top-Down process, the following testing phases are a Bottom-Up process. As can be seen in next figure, for each of the three early phases there is a testing phase on the same level of abstraction. The return to an earlier phase takes place when the document of a phase was not released by the appropriate review. The ‘rule of thumb’ is that the result of each phase needs to be as clear and definite that a different team could theoretically step in and take over the work.

It should be clear that seemingly unproductive and both time consuming and costly testing phases and reviews are necessary and reasonable. On the one hand, the correction of a major error will be much more expensive, the later it is discovered. These costs do not rise linear but exponentially. On the other hand, this procedure allows the early identification of errors concerning the settled criteria of quality.



Figure 8-1 Phases of a software development process

In the analysis phase, the actual purpose of the software product is defined. The result is a document called technical concept, in which the question “how” is not yet considered. In the general outline, the functionality of the software product is divided and the implementation in the existing system is planned. The technical concept serves as a basis for this phase.

The result of the general outline is the DH-concept (data handling concept), which is also a document. In the clear phase, the aspects of implementation, developed in the DH-concept, are improved so far that the functionality of each program module is eventually described in detail and each interface is defined. The result is then called DH-clear concept.

In the implementation phase, the source code is programmed, strictly adhering to the regulations provided by the DH-clear concept. In the module test, the single components of the program are tested against the DH- clear concept. In the integration test, the co-operation of the classes and packages is tested across the interfaces against the general outline.

In the system test, the software is tested on the system and under the same conditions which will prevail in business later on. Often, the test involves the take-over by a customer. In this phase, errors of the analysis phase, that have been overlooked so far, are frequently discovered.

Analysis

General outline

Clear concept

implementation

Module test

Integrationstest

Systemtest

Betrieb

Creating tests for

Creating tests for

Creating tests for

Review

Review

Review

Review

Review

Review

Review

problems

problems

problems

problems

problems

problems

problems

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

result:Technical concept

result:DV-concept

Ergebnis:DV-Feinkonzept

result:code

result:Test report

result:Test report

result:Test report



8.2 Developing of the Sail-tool (Sail2l)

8.2.1 The Coders’ Point Of View

Compared to major software projects, the Sail- tool is a small and handy tool for the visualization of the calculations and their results, based on known formulas. Those formulas have been developed by the project supervisor, who scheduled the visual layout and the main drain of the 'Sail2l'.

8.2.2 Development steps

During the very first meeting, almost all main facts have been talked over and after a short query, all necessary tools and software libraries were found. In later discussions, the two-headed team made minor decisions about limitations, in order to meet the conditions concerning time and costs.

8.2.3 Decisions

The Sail- tool should provide the following features:

• Portability

• Performance

• Usability

• Smallness of the binary code

• Independence of 3rd party licenses

• Extendibility

To fulfil these conditions, the Sail- tool uses the C++ programming language, which provides performance and extendibility. It is linked to the fltk GUI library, which is licensed by the GNU lesser library license (LGPL), offering maximum license freedom for the application, and which provides portability to all Windows Versions, MacOS 8, 9 and MacOS X as well as Linux and most other un*xish operating systems like e.g. Solaris, BSD or BeOS. The fltk library is small enough to be statically linked. Depending on the compiler, it is possible to spread the Sail-tool as a single binary file without violating any license.

NOTE: If binary-only distribution is planned on Windows, fltk and the sail2l must be recompiled with either VisualC++ (untested, software not available) or the latest version of MinGW's GCC, which causes no problems. GCC is the recommended compiler. If any cygwin DLL's are used, the code must be licensed by the GPL.



8.2.4 Environment for the development of Sail21

To avoid unnecessary crashes and frustration, the whole software was developed using Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (Woody), FLTK 1.0.11 and 1.1.0 (beta versions), GCC 2.95 and the kdevelop IDE. The code is auto-documented by using doc++/javadoc/doxygen/kdoc style comments. An UML class diagram was built later for documentation issues. The tool is too small and its purpose and drain is too clear to allow expensive designing.

The Sail-tool is not an absolutely new invention. Formerly coded classes and libraries have been used extensively and only small parts of the code were originally written for the sail2l itself.

8.2.5 Function

The Sail- tool can be started like any other application on the used OS. On Windows, this usually means double clicking the respective icon. On Linux, the start-up procedure depends on the used window manager and the desktop environment. Starting it from the command line will work on all supported operating systems. Opening the tool, an information screen appears, which can be avoided by passing '--no-bother' at the command line. The linux version uses POSIX compliant command line switches, which can be shown by doing 'sail2l –help' on the console.

The information screen has to be closed to get to the data entry screen (Figure 8-2):



Figure 8-2 : data entry screen

In the picture above, the entry fields declare the values, which can be entered below. The formula data entry fields can be cleared by pressing the 'clear' button and 'cancel' closes the window and exits the software. Clicking on 'help' brings up a help text. The values are used for



calculations when the 'ok' button is pressed. This also closes the data entry window and brings up

the result graphs (

Figure 8-3):



Figure 8-3 : result graphs



The design of the data entry screen and the result screen has been exactly implemented as requested.

Unfortunately, no testers are available to verify usability and stability of the software. This is the reason why - by the time of writing this document – the Sail2l is still alpha software and might never leave this state of development. Nevertheless, it is useable.

8.3 Outlook of Sail21

8.3.1 Tests

As mentioned above, Sail2l is almost untested. Neither the drain, nor the usability or the stability have been professionally tested by a significant amount of reliable testers. Therefore, the testing phase cannot be considered as finished yet. More tests have to be performed in order to ensure that all relevant features, some of which might have been overlooked so far by the team, were taken into account.

8.3.2 Documentation

There is not enough user documentation on Linux and almost no documentation on Windows. This is a common issue but, due to its very particular purpose, the Sail2l may have only one or two users ever - the project supervisor and the programmer - who are well known to its usage. Nevertheless, the documentation is also a point on the To-Do-List.

8.3.3 Configurability

The program design allows the easy implementation of configure files and a graphical configuration user interface. However, configurability has not been requested, so that it will probably not be worked on.

8.4 Developing the animation

8.4.1 General information

Compared to the simulation, the animation is smaller software product. It is necessary for the visualisation of the loading principles. It can only used with a internet browser. Within a discussion with all partners all main steps of the loading procedure have been talked over and after a short query, all necessary steps are known. To fulfil the animation, the animation uses the promedia-flash program.



Figure 8-4 : Developing screen

8.4.2 Function

The animation can be implemented into standard web pages. Therefore, the html-code has to be adopted. Opening the webpage, the user has the possibility to stop or starts running the presentation by moving over the start button and pause button. By clicking the animation change button the horizontal transhipment can be seen.

The following figures show the two different pages horizontal and vertical.



Figure 8-5 : Animation screen

Date post:	26-Dec-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bogusw
View:	32 times
Download:	2 times

Final Report Annexes

Documents