Project SAIL 10277: Deliverable 7 - Annexes

SAIL
Semitrailers in Advanced Intermodal Logistics
Project SAIL 10277

Deliverable 7 - Annexes SAIL Final Report
Issue 1a/2002-07-25 Document: SAIL-Deliv7-1a
SAIL-Deliv7-1a ANNEXES
SAIL
Document history
Version Status Deliverable type Author(s) 1.0a Final draft Strictly confidential IMA/ICM IMA/ICM Incl. Revision and consolidation Prof.Dr.-Ing K. Henning, HDZ/IMA Dr. E. Declercq, ICM Dipl.-Ing F. Stumpe 25/07/2002
Reviewer(s)
Submission date
SAIL
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. 4. ROAD/COMBINED TRANSPORT COMPARISON IN PAIRS ..................................................................... 32 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 A ACHEN SYSTEM LOW -LEVEL WAGONS (A.1.2.2) ..............................................................................34 4.4 LOW LEVEL WAGONS WITH SUPPORT BEAMS (A.1.2.3)..........................................................................................35 4.5 A UTOMATIC 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-M EGA POCKET W AGON (A.2.1.5) .........................................................................................................................44 4.10 BASKET WAGON (A.2.1.6)...................................................................................................................................45 4.11 EURO-SPINE -CARE W AGON (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 A LPENTRAILER TECHNICS (A.2.1.11) .................................................................................................................50
SAIL
4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 5. SEMI-TRAILERS FOR EURO-SPINE-CARE (A.2.1.12) .........................................................................................50 W OHLFARTH SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.1) .......................................................................................................................51 RINNEN SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.2)................................................................................................................................53 A MBROGIO SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.3) ..........................................................................................................................53 A RCUS-100 SYSTEM (A.3.1.1.4)..........................................................................................................................53 SWAP BODIES DIN EN 452/EN 12410 (A.3.1.2.1)...........................................................................................54 EWALS SYSTEM......................................................................................................................................................55
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 A DVANTAGES 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 7.2 GENERAL TESTING RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................112 TESTING SOLUTION 1.................................................................................................................................................112
SAIL
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 (SAIL 2L).............................................................................................................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
SAIL
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
SAIL
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
SAIL
1.
1.1 1.1.1
Earlier Projects and framework conditions

IMPREND
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.
SAIL
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 terminals 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 1.2.1
TERMINET
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 linkinternal 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.
SAIL
1.2.2
Conclusions for SAIL 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 1.3.1
FREIA
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.
SAIL
1.3.2
Conclusions for SAIL 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; pathfinding 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).
SAIL
1.4 1.4.1 IQ
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. Conclusions for SAIL
1.4.2
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
SAIL
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.
SAIL
2.
2.1
Detailed market statistics

Domestic road transport
Domestic transports in 1000 Tonnes 1990-1998

4000000
3500000
1990 (1)
3000000
1992 (2)
1994 (3)
1996
1998
2500000
1000 Tonnes
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
DK
Gr
Lux
NL
SF
UK
CH
(1) A: 1988; (2) A: 1993; (3) A: 1995
Figure 2-1: Domestic transports in 1000 tonnes 1990-1998 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.
SAIL
Development of the average length of haul in national transports 1990-1998

160,0
1990 (1)
140,0
120,0
1992 (2) 1994 (3) 1996 (4) 1998 (5)
100,0
Kilometres
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
0,0 B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P SF S UK N CH
(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
SAIL
Domestic transports in Mio Tkm 1990-1998

250000
1990 (1)
1992 (2)
1994 (3)
1996
1998
200000
Million Tkm
150000
100000
50000
DK
Gr
Lux
NL
SF
UK
CH
(1) A: 1988; (2) A: 1993; (3) A: 1995
Figure 2-3: Development of domestic transports in million tonne-kilometres 1990-1998
SAIL
2.2 Development of cross-border exports by road
Cross-border exports in 1000 Tonnes 1990-1998

60000 1990 1996 (2) 50000 1992 1998 (3) 1994 (1)
40000 1000 Tonnes
30000
20000
10000
0 B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P UK SF S N CH
(1) D, A, S:1995; (2) D:1997; (3) B:1997
Figure 2-4: Cross-border exports in 1000 tonnes 1990-1998

Development of the average length of haul in cross border exports 1990-1998
1800 1600 1400 1200 Kilometres 1000 800 600 400 200 0 B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P UK SF S N CH
1990 1994 (1) 1998 (2)
1992 1996
Figure 2-5: Development of the average length of haul in cross border exports 1990-1998
SAIL
Cross-border export in Mio Tkm 1990-1998

25000 1990 1992 1994 (1) 1996 1998 (2)
20000
Million Tkm
15000
10000
5000
0 B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P UK SF S N CH
(1) D, S: 1995; (2) B: 1997;NL, UK: Qualified estimation
Figure 2-6: Cross-border exports in million tonne-kilometres 1990-1998
SAIL
2.3 Numbers of semi-trailers
Number of semi-trailers registered 1990-1999 (in 1000)

250,0 1990 (1) 1998 200,0 1992 1999 1994 (2) 1996 (3)
150,0
100,0
50,0
n.a. 0,0 B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P SF S UK (4) N CH
(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)
SAIL
2.3.1
Sweden
Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Sweden 1990-1999

25000
conventional trailers semi-trailers

20000
15000
10000
5000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 2-8: Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Sweden 1990-1999
SAIL
2.3.2
Germany
Number of rigid trucks, conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Germany 1990-1998

300000
250000
rigid trucks conventional trailers semi-trailers
200000
150000
100000
50000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Figure 2-9: Number of trucks, trailers and semi trailers in Germany 1990-1998 (in 1000)
SAIL
2.3.3
Denmark
Development of the number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Denmark 1990-1997

25000

20000
15000
10000
5000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Figure 2-10: Number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Denmark 1990-1997
SAIL
2.3.4
Switzerland
Number of rigid trucks, conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Switzerland 1990 1999
50000 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
rigid trucks
conventional trailers
semi-trailers
Figure 2-11: Number of heavy trucks, trailers and semi-trailers in Switzerland 1990-1999
SAIL
2.3.5
Austria
Development of the number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Austria 19941999
120000
conventional trailers
semi-trailers
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 2-12: Development of the number of trailers and semi-trailers in Austria 1994-1999
SAIL
2.3.6
The Netherlands
New registration of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in the Netherlands 19901999

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 2-13: Development of new registrations of trailers and semi-trailers in the Netherlands 1990-1999
SAIL
2.4 Different types of semi-trailers
Development of the share of semi-trailer with a loading capcity over 20 t

100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 Share in % 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 CH B DK F D UK S
1990 1994 1998
Figure 2-14: Development of the share of semi-trailers with a loading capacity over 20 tonnes
SAIL
Development of the share of three different types of semi-trailers new registered in the three years 1990, 1994 and 1997 in selected countries 90,0% 80,0% 70,0% 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 30,0% 20,0% 10,0% 0,0% DE FR IT NL CH
Blue = open and curtainsider semi-trailers red = closed semi-trailers green = temperature isolated semi-trailers
Figure 2-15: Development of three different types of semi-trailers
SAIL
2.5 2.5.1 Transport performance of semi-trailers
Road tons lifted by semi-trailers in selected countries
Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom (in % of all road transports measured in tonnes)
90,0%
85,0%
80,0%
75,0%
70,0%
65,0% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 2-16: Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom
SAIL
2.5.2
Development of the average length of haul of semi-trailers
Development of the average legth of haul of semi-trailer transports 1995-1999
250
1995 1997
200
1999
Kilometres
150
100
50
0 S SF CH
Figure 2-17 Development of the average length of haul of semi-trailer transports 1995-1999
SAIL
2.5.3
Tonne-kilometres produced by semi-trailers in selected countries
Performance of semi-trailers in % of all raod transports measured in tonneskilometres

25,0%
1995 1997
20,0%
1999
15,0%
10,0%
5,0%
0,0% S SF CH
Figure 2-18: Performance of semi-trailer in % of all road transports measured in tonnes
SAIL
Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom (in % of all raod transports measured in tonne-kilometres)
88,0% 86,0% 84,0% 82,0% 80,0% 78,0% 76,0% 74,0% 72,0% 70,0% 68,0% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 2-19: Performance of articulated vehicles in the United Kingdom
SAIL
3.
Road/Combined Transport Comparison in Pairs
The Road/Combined Transport Comparison in Pairs approach is visualized in Figure 3-1 hereafter.
Unimodal Transport: 3 semitrailers operate 220 working days a year and drive 800km/day every 2 days a delivery is completed 3 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
Supplier
Customer
800 km 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 delivered 1,5 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/year 2 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
Terminal
Customer
100 km
600 km
100 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.
SAIL
4.
4.1
Systematisation of Combined Transport engineering

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
SAIL
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 doublelinked 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)
SAIL
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 whe el 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
SAIL
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
SAIL
4.6 4.6.1 Swinging wagon bridge
Lohr System (A.1.2.5.1)
Picture 4-5: Lohr System
SAIL
4.6.2
Tiphock System (A.1.2.5.2)
Picture 4-6: Tiphock System
SAIL
4.6.3
Walda System (A.1.2.5.3)
Picture 4-7: Walda System
SAIL
4.6.4
BMFT study (A.1.2.6)
Picture 4-8: BMFT study
SAIL
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.
SAIL
Picture 4-10: Combirail System
4.7.2
Road-Railer Sys tem (A.1.3.3)
Picture 4-11: Road-Railer System
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
Picture 4-15: Euro-Spine-Care Wagon
SAIL
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.
SAIL
Picture 4-17: Novatrans System
SAIL
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 pla ced 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)
SAIL
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.
SAIL
Picture 4-20: Wohlfarth System
SAIL
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
SAIL
4.21 Swap bodies DIN EN 452/EN 12410 (A.3.1.2.1)
Picture 4-22: Swap bodies DIN EN 452/ EN 12410
SAIL
4.22 Ewals System
This method consists in a volume-optimised loading unit.
Picture 4-23: Ewals System
SAIL
5.
5.1
Cost analysis of Terminals (source: ICM)

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
Costs
Terminal costs
Time
(T 3)
Time
2
nd
Terminal Time
(T 1)
driver
Rail Road
Distance
Distance
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.
SAIL
5.2 5.2.1 The Terminals of tomorrow
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. Econo mical 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 Gateway Terminal Transhipment Terminal Line Terminal End Terminal End Terminal Rail Rail Transhipment Terminal Road Rail Road Rail Road Rail,
Transhipment capacities as well as maximum transhipment performance further differentiate the terminals. In Europe transhipment capacity is grouped as follows: Small Medium Large < approx. 20,000 transhipments/year approx. 100,000 transhipments/year > 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.
SAIL
Small Terminals: o Reach Stacker o Gantry Crane o Krupp Small o CCT plus small o Compactterminal Medium Terminals: o Reach Stacker o Gantry Crane o Krupp Compact o CCT plus Large o Compactterminal o Noell SUT 400 o Transmann Large Terminals: o Gantry Crane o Commutor o Krupp Megahub o Compactterminal o Noell Megahub (conventional) various Technicatome / France Krupp / Germany Tuchschmid / Switzerland Noell / Germany (conventional) (conventional) various various Krupp / Germany Carcontrain /Sweden Tuchschmid / Switzerland Noell / Germany Siemens / Bosch (conventional) (conventional) various various Krupp / Germany Carcontrain /Sweden Tuchschmid / Switzerland
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
SAIL
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
Costs (T 3)
Time
Time
(T 1)
Terminal costs
nd
driver
Rail Road
Terminal Time
Distance
Distance
Figure 5-2: Situation of Compactterminal tomorrow. 5.3 5.3.1 Conventional Terminal
Introduction
With the increasing privatisation of the Intermodal transport by liberalisation and by increasing participation 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:
SAIL
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
SAIL
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 Number of cranes: Crane load capacity: Crane span: Total rail track length: Tracks under crane: Stacking height under crane Storage capacity: Crane performance: Total performance: Throughput capacity: Total terminal area: Rail tracks terminal: Block A 2 40 tons 30 meter 2 x 720 meter 2 rail, 2 road, 3 storage 2 high ca. 480 TEU 30 - 35 moves/h 140 moves/h 200'000 TEU 100'000 m 5 under crane, 5 arrival / departure, 3 siding terminal, 2 siding forklifts, shunting locomotives. Block B 2 40 tons 30 meter 2 x 650 / 1 x 600 m 3 rail, 2 road, 2 storage 2 high 30 - 35 moves/h
Mobile equipment:
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.
SAIL
The unload / loading process needs at least about 1 hour. The train composition could be longer but its important to reduce all shunting activities.
Total Nr. of Trains
direct Unload / Load

1 2 3 4 5 Total 1 2
Unload
3 4 5 Total 1 2
Load
3 4 5 Total
Handling train
Departures
train in terminal (h) shortest time in Terminal longest time in Terminal
Block A
Block B
Block A
Block B
Block A
Block B
Mon.
2 3 2 2 3 2 0
2 2 2 2 2 1 0
1 2 3 3 3 2 0
1 0 2 1 3 0 0 7
0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 2 0
2 4 3 3 5 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 2 2 2 2 0
0 3 2 2 2 2 0
11 19 18 17 23 15 0
22
Arrivals
11 6 7 6.5 6.5 9 --
--------
Tues. 2 Wed.
3
3 12 3 3 13 1 3 12 1 4 16 1 1 0 8 0 2 0
38 12 12 35 12 12 34 12 13 42 14 12 28 10 10 0 4 0
Thur. 2 Fri. Sat. Sun.

4 2 0
Total 15 14 11 14 16 70 8
3 21 0
0 10 11 102 199 67 67
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 participation 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.
SAIL
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. WABs 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 5.5.1
Intermodal transport: Opportunities and Challenges
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. Todays and tomorrows 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
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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 5.6.1 COMPACTTERMINAL
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.
SAIL
Transhipment module
AEI
bufferzone crane weight control catenary EDV centre
Storage module
storage interchange point
AGV
Road module
AEI
crane / weight control
Distribution module
storage loading docks offices
AGV
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.
SAIL
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 users 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.
SAIL
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 deconsolidated for storage, distribution and logistics services. The Tuchschmid Compactterminal embraces, therefore, the concept of classical Freight Distrib ution 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
Track 1 CT 1/20
Module transhipment: Terminal types :
Transshipment module
Rail terminal - regional shuttle trains Industrial concern: Dispatch centre
Direct transfer Rail- Road Buffer area load units
COMPACTTERMINAL 2
Track 1 Track 2 CT 2/100
Module transhipment: Terminal types Rail terminal Shuttle trains/regional trains Transhipment installation for forwarder Enlargement of existing terminals
Transhipment module
Direct transfer Rail- Road Direct transfer Rail- Rail Buffer area load units
SAIL
COMPACTTERMINAL 3
Track 3 Track 2 Track 1 CT 3/600
Module transshipment/Storage/Road: Terminal types :
Storage module
Road module
Transhipment module
Rail terminal Transhipment Depot for forwarders Enlargement of existing terminal
Direct transfer Rail- Road/Rail- Rail Buffer area load unit Fully automatic storage area
COMPACTTERMINAL 4
Track 3 Track 2 Track 1 GVZ CT 4/1000
P P
Module-transhipent/Storage/Road/Forwarding: Terminal types:
Storage Road m o d u l e Module
Forwarding module
Transhipment module
City-Rail terminal Freight Distribution Centre International forwarding terminal
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 C OMPACTTERMINAL 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)
SAIL
5.6.5.2 Peak load, rail: Transhipment module: Road module: 5.6.5.3 Peak load, road: Transhipment module: Road module: Mixed operation, rail - road/ storage area Road operation only, rail transfers only via storage module Rail - rail/ rail - storage; module closed for road Road operation only, for all road collections and deliveries
5.6.5.4 Low demand periods: Transhipment module.: 5.7 5.7.1 Mixed operation, rail - rail/road rail Road module: closed down
Economic Comparison of the Standard Terminal and the Compactterminal
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 trans shipment 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
SAIL
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
SAIL
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
40 35 30 25 Interests costs 20 15 10 5 0 Total Operations
Co m pa ct. CT Co 2/1 mp 00 ac t.C T3 Co /35 m pa 0 ctt Re .C T ac 3/6 hS 50 tac ke Ga r2 ntr 0'0 yC 00 ran e1 Ga 00 ntr '00 yC 0 ran e2 00 '00 0
Amortization Land
Depriciation Information systems Depriciation Infrastructure Depriciation Mechanical
Service / Maintenance Salaries
EURO 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%
Cost per lift
CT 2/100 CT 3/350 CT 3/1000 CT 3/600
Figure 5-7: Example of Cost per lift comparison
SAIL
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-generatio n 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
CT 2/100
20'000 costs 1'190'000. 60'000. 0.20'000. 0.0 N
CT 3/650
200'000
6.2 Investment
Lifts / Year
CT 3/350
100'000 costs 1 1'190'000. 160'000. 0 690'000. 100'000. 870'000. 1 N 1 260
Reach Stacker
20'000 N 3 260 costs 800000. 0.0.100'000. 1 0.0 N
Gantry Crane
100'000 costs 2 4'000'000. 0 300'000.0 0.140'000. 60'000. 0.N 2 0
Gantry Crane
200'000 costs 7'000'000. 550'000. 0.220'000. 90'000. 0.N 4 0
6.2.1 Technics
Crane Transhipment Electric supply Train electric Identification system Automation Crane Transhipment ( reserve ) AGV / FTS Crane Road Operation system (Informatic) Terminal vehicles Total costs technic phase I / II
costs 3'440'000. 350'000. 690'000. 140'000. 870'000. -
0.0.40'000.-
0 1'000'000. - 3/120 0 0.270'000. 0
1'500'000. - 4/200 0.330'000. 0
0.0.60'000. -
0 0
0.0.300'000. -
0 0
0.0.400'000. -
0 0
50'000. 0.-
50'000. 0.-
145'000. 0.-
145'000. 0.-
185'000. 0.-
270'000. 0.-
Total technics
1'360'000. -
4'330'000. -
7'465'000. -
1105'000. -
4'985'000. -
8'530'000. -
SAIL
6.2.2 Infrastructure
Steel construction crane road/rail Foundation Crane Ground, surface preparation Mechanics Building Terminal lighting Foundation building Total Infrastructure Total Infra. phase I / II 200'000. 200 690'000. 260 690'000. 260 0.0 260'000. 700 260'000. - 1400
50'000. 0.300000. 80000. 0.630'000. -
100'000. 0.450000. 125000. 0.1365'000. 0.5'695'000. -
250'000. 0.500000. 125000. 0.1565'000. 0.9'030'000. -
80 0 0 0
0.0 200'000. - 50/300
600'000. 400'000. 0.500000. 165000. 0.1925'000. 0.6910'000. -
700
900'000. - 1400 600'000. 0.500'000. 165000. 0.2'425'000. 0.10'955'000. -
300'000. 90000. 0.590'000. 0.1'695'000. -
Investments tech./ infra. 6.2.3 Land

Land requirements, Railyards Land requirements total ( * ) Purchase land ( .- / m ) Preparation of land ( .- / m) TOTAL incl. 1.5 22.45.-
1'990'000. -
12000 18000 198'000. - 50% 243'000. - 30% 441'000. -
24000 36000 554'400.972'000. 1'526'400. 70% 60%
24000 36000 792'000. - 100% 1'134'000. 1'926'000. 70%
15000 22500 495'000. 1'012'500. 1'507'500.-
35000 52500 100% 1'155'000. - 100% 100% 1'653'750. 2'808'750. 70%
50000 75000 1'650'000. - 100% 2'362'500. 4'012'500. 70%
Investments Tech./infra./land
Track length Numbers of switch Cost per meter / 380.gravel Cost per meter / 620.Concrete Cost per switch 50'000.Total track
2'431'000. -
7'221'400. -
10'956'000. -
3'202'500. -
9718'750. -
14'967'500. -
3'600 30% 4800 30% 8 10 957'600. 1'276'800. 669'600. 400'000. 2'027'200. 892'800. 500'000. 2'669'600. -
4800 10 1'276'800. 892'800. 500'000. 2'669'600. -
30%
2000 4 532'000. 372'000. 200'000. 1'104'000. -
30%
4800 10 1'094'400. 1'190'400. 500'000. 2'784'800. -
40%
6900 12 1'573'200. 1'711'200. 600'000. 3'884'400. -
40%
Table 5-3: Investment Cost
SAIL
5.7.3.3
Operating Costs, conditions
6.3 Operational Data

Lifts/year
COMPACTTERMINAL
CT 2/100
20'000 5% 2% 68'000. 12'600. 70'000. - 4
CT 3/650
200'000 373'250. 31'300. 360'000. - 20
CT 3/350
100'000 216'500. 27'300. 180'000. - 10
Reach Stacker
20'000 110.500. - 10% 11'800. 140'000. - 8
Gantry Crane
100'000 348'950. - 7% 38'500. 270'000. - 15
Gantry Crane
200'000 597'100. - 7% 48'500. 450'000. - 25
6.3.1 Operating costs

Technics 6.3.2 Operating costs infrastructure 6.3.3 Operating costs 1 train handling Total operating costs
150'600. 65'000. 12'600. 6'000. -
423'800. 195'000. 27'300. 37'000. -
764'550. 328'250. 31'300. 47'000. -
262'300. 94'500. - 10% 11'800. 16'000. -
657'450. 318'150. - 7% 38'500. 44'000. -
1095'600. 553'700. - 7% 48'500. 62'000. -
5% maintenance Technics 2% 6.3.5 Service/ maintenance infrastructure 6.3.6 Service/maintenance 10% computer system
6.3.4 Service/
Total Service / maintenance
83'600. 8h 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 16 h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
259'300. 8h 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 12 16 h 5 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 17
406'550. 8h 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 13 16 h 7 1 4 2 1 1 2 4 22
122'300. 8h 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 12 16 h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
400'650. 8h 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 4 13 16 h 6 0 4 2 1 1 2 8 24
664'200. 8h 4 0 3 1 1 1 1 6 17 16 h 7 0 6 2 1 1 2 12 31
6.3.7 Personal
Module transhipment - Module road - Operations - Gate - Management - Administration - Maintenance - Yard personal TOTAL Personal
Basic capacity Capacity 1 Capacity 2
55% 50% 90% 60% 110% 50% 60%
55% 90% 110%
60% 50% 90% 60% 110% 50% 60%
50% 90% 110% 50% 60%
60% 90% 110%
60% 50% 90% 60% 110%
6.3.8 General conditions

Terminal
6.3.9 Peak Capacity / h 6.3.10 Transhipments/day 6.3.11 Transh ipments/year 6.3.12 Number of working days 6.3.13 Depreciation mechanical 6.3.14 Depreciation building
35 100 29'000 290 15 20 6 50 101'500
70 350 days years y ears years years
100 650 188'500 29'000 ( incl. Saturday morning )
24 100 101'500
60 350 188'500
120 650
6.3.15 Depreciation Information systems 6.3.16 Amortisation of land

1
Operating costs train handling .. number of loco's .. working hours .. diesel fuel
2 8h 40
personal / shift l/h no. of shift
2.00 4.00 2.00
E/Team/loco E/shift
Operat. Cost locos Salaries Team Cost diesel fuel
640.1545. 1.-
Euro / liter Euro / liter Euro / liter
Table 5-4: Operating Costs, Conditions
SAIL
5.7.3.4
Cost comparison calculation
6.4 Cost comparison calculation

Currency : Euro
COMPACTTERMINAL
CT 2/100 20'000 626'200. 239'622. 865'822. CT 3/350 100'000 1'635'100. 846'700. 2'481'800. CT 3/650 200'000 2'403'100. 1'134'973. 3'538'073. -
Reach Stacker 20'000 954'100. 226'829. 1'180'929. Gantry Crane 100'000 2'402'100. 785'172. 3'187'272. Gantry Crane 200'000 3'495'800. 1'223'214. 4'719'014. -
Operating costs + Capital costs Total costs Operating costs - Salaries - Total operating costs - Service/ maintenance 56'000. -
392'000. 150'600. 83'600. -
952'000. 423'800. 259'300. -
1'232'000. 764'550. 406'550. -
672'000. 262'300. 122'300. -
1'344'000. 657'450. 400'650. -
1'736'000. 1095'600. 664200. -
Total operating costs Capital costs - Calc. depreciation mechanical - Calc. depreciation infrastructure - Calc. depreciation information systems - Interest costs % * Investment 5% (phase2 incl. all) 2 Total capital costs - Calc. amortisation of land - Calc. amortisation of track Total capital costs incl. land
626'200. -
1'635'100. -
2'403'100. -
1056'600. -
2'402'100. -
3495'800. -
86'667. 31'500. 10'000. 111'455. -
264'000. 99'750. 71'667. 247'275.-
466'333. 178'000. 150'000. 340'640. -
63'000. 29'500. 26'667. 107'663. -
303'000. 96'250. 73'333. 312'589. -
527'333. 121250. 103'333. 471'298. -
239'622. 8'820. 101'360. 349'802. -
682'692. 30'528. 133'480. 846'700. -
1'134'973. 38'520. 133'480. 1'306'973. -
226'829. 30'150. 55'200. 312'179. -
785'172. 56'175. 139'240. 980'587. -
1'223'214. 80'250. 194'220. 1'497'684.-
Table 5-5: Cost comparison calculation 5.7.3.5
Cost comparison diagram

50,00 45,00 40,00 35,00 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00
Co m pa ct. CT 2/1 Co m 00 pa ct. CT 3/3 Co 50 m pa ctt .C Re T ac 3/6 h 50 St ac ke r2 Ga 0'0 ntr 00 yC ra ne 10 Ga 0'0 ntr 00 yC ra ne 20 0'0 00
Amortization Land Interests costs Depriciation Information systems Depriciation Infrastructure Depriciation Mechanical Total Operations Service / Maintenance Salaries
Figure 5-8: Cost comparison diagram

SAIL
5.8 5.8.1 Advantages and Disadvantages (Compactterminal and the typical conventional terminal)
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
SAIL
5.8.1.3
COMPACTTERMINAL: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway
COMPACTTERMINAL CT 3 / 350 Quality Rail - Rail (unload) Rail - Road (unload) Short term storage rail Short term storage road Long term storage Loading time < 90 sec Rail - Rail Rail - Road Short access time TEU Latest delivery time 24 - h operation Flexibility of capacity Flexibility of troughput Personal expenses max. throughput 50 LE/h 100 LE/h 200 LE/h Daily capacity < 100 LE +/- 200 LE +/- 500 LE > 1000 LE Short delivery time rail Short delivery time road Spatial use Flexibility of troughput (peakes) Operation in border time ISO / swap body operation Semi- automatic Full- Automatic 50 LE/h 100 LE/h 200 LE/h < 100 LE +/- 200 LE +/- 500 LE > 1000 LE
0,9 0,8 0,6 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,2 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,2 0,8 0,6 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,3 Total 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,6 0,8 0,6 0,9 0,6 0,1 0,6 0,8 0,8 0,1 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,3 3 3 2 4 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 0 3 4 0 3 2 1 4 2 1 4 1 2,16 1,68 0,84 2,56 0,54 0,96 2,16 0,48 3,24 0,84 0,00 0,00 1,92 2,56 0,00 1,92 0,72 0,56 3,24 1,12 0,81 3,24 0,09
time
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4
cost
0,2 0,0
z
0,8 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,6
xk
0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,3
x F = Total
4 4 3 2 1 2,56 2,24 2,43 1,62 0,18
40,67
Table 5-6: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway
SAIL
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
SAIL
5.8.2.3 Conventional terminal: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway
Quality Rail - Rail (unload) Rail - Road (unload) Short term storage rail Short term storage road Long term storage Loading time < 90 sec Rail - Rail Rail - Road Short access time TEU Latest delivery time 24 - h operation Flexibility of capacity Flexibility of troughput Personal expenses max. throughput 50 LE/h 100 LE/h 200 LE/h Daily capacity < 100 LE +/- 200 LE +/- 500 LE > 1000 LE Short delivery time rail Short delivery time road Spatial use Flexibility of troughput (peakes) Operation in border time ISO / swap body operation Semi- automatic Full- Automatic
time
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4
cost
0,2 0,0
z
0,9 0,8 0,6 0,8 0,8
xk
0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
x F =Total
4 4 3 4 1 3,24 2,56 1,44 2,56 0,64
0,8 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,2 0,8 0,7 0,5
0,6 0,4 0,5 0,7 0,2 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,7 0,3 0,8 0,5 0,1 0,3 0,4 0,9 0,8 0,3
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 2 0 0 3 4 2 3 3 0 1 2 4 4 1
0,48 0,64 1,05 1,68 0,04 0,64 0,28 0,40 0,60 0,24 0,00 0,00 0,48 1,96 0,42 1,92 0,90 0,00 0,18 0,08 3,24 2,56 0,12
50 LE/h 100 LE/h 200 LE/h < 100 LE +/- 200 LE +/- 500 LE > 1000 LE
0,4 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,1 0,6 0,1 0,9 0,8 0,4 Total
28,35
Table 5-7: Quality criteria of operating concept HUB / Line Gateway
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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. Khlkoffer
SAIL
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).
SAIL
6.
6.1
Selection and evaluation of SAIL alternatives

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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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 Sectors of life Criteria - Economy - Population - Land utilisation - Human ecology - Natural balance - Infrastructure - Communal life - Matter - Energy - Information - Flow quantity - Structural quantity - Temporal dynamics - Spatial dynamics - Opens system to input - Opens system to output - Influenced internally - Influenced externally
Physical categories
Dynamic categories
System relations
Table 6-1 : Criteria to support identification of variables
SAIL
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 Yellow (or light grey) Orange (or dark grey) Red (or black) No or a very small effect Small (or after a longer while) effect Medium effect (proportional) 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.
SAIL
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).
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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 interve ntion 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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
15
10
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.
SAIL
Cluster slightly passive:
10 11 25 28
Associated variables:
road costs per tkm environment damage work load personnel 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 va riables:
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 3 4 12 20 21 9 13 23 1 5 6 7 14 15 26 27 10 11 25 28 2 16 18 8 19 22 24 security/risk o.accide
Active
internat. co operation technical instructions political regulations flex interf wagon/semi loading method
Slightly Active
infrastructure road length of transp. way capacity of terminal
Neutral
order processing ratio pre/end-haulage transport time techn. dimension semi infrastructure railway relations railway spatial pos. terminal type of goods
Slightly passive
road costs per tkm environment damage work load personnel time for handling
Passiv
input disposition effo rail costs competitiveness railw.
Buffering
energy consumption techn. dimension wagon ratio cont/semi pers.requirement/handl
Table 6-3: All 28 variables clustered in 7 systemic roles
SAIL
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 6.7.1 Overview of evaluation tables
The set of 113 variables grouped in six sub-systems
Set of variables of the sub-system Market and Service Variable Short-term disposing of transport capacities Long-term disposing of transport capacities Definition Customers can receive more transport capacity in shortterm than originally contracted Long-term transport contracts allow service providers of rail to optimise their resources; part of the benefit is passed over to the customer E.g. order input, accounting
Professional order processing Liability Processing of complaints Response times to transport requests of hauliers Transparency of market Number of agencies of the sale companies Persecution of shipment by customer Persecution of shipment Communication between hauliers & sale comp anies Requirements and requests of shippers International co-operation (European Union)
E.g. the hauliers know all offerings
Possibility for customer to inform himself about the actual whereabout of his shipment Computers- Integration of road- and railway- transport
Simple calculation of route prices for trans-national traffic, trans-national connection of relations, simplified transaction at frontiers 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) Different country specific total weights of
SAIL
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 Permitted rail load Costs for environmental damage Definition Permitted force per length to take effect on rail 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 in tkm Quota of number of transports without any goods to number of total rides
Overall transport of goods Empty transports of wagons Height of overhead line Energy consumption Number of relations Degree of utilisation Average transport speed Difference of wheel gauge Customer costs (hauliers) Operator costs
Energy consumption per tkm of rail Quantity of possible connections, which can be served by railway transport of goods Variable to describe the utilisation of the railway system Average speed to transport goods on rail Different width of rails in member countries of the EU Prices the railway companies charge for transport of goods costs per tkm or unit Transport costs arising for the railway companies, e. g. energy price (price of the energy which is used in this railway transport) Unification of regulations for railway transport of goods in Europe
Harmonisation of technical guidelines Number of claims Number of damage costs Length of railway system Number of wagons Number of locomotives Number of chief guards Speed limit Emission of harmful substances per tkm Maximum train weight
Measure for density of system of railway transport of goods Number of pocket wagons in Europe Number of locomotives in Europe Number of chief guards in Europe
Emission of harmful substances per tkm
SAIL
Maximum train length Expansion of the railway network corresponding to the transport flow Regularity of transport flow Balance of transport flow Cycle time between trains Competitiveness Timetable Different total weights of semitrailers for forerun and post- carriage Length of transport way Expansion of rail capacity on major traffic ways according to transport flow Constancy of transports on a relation regarding time and volume (t /m) Same quantity of goods in transit in both directions of a relation regarding time and volume (t /m) Shortest possible time between two consecutive trains Attractiveness of railway transport of goods in price and quality Quantity of relations, times of the journey, frequency of connection to a location Consideration of different road infrastructure during transport planning
Set of variables of the sub-system Road transport of goods Variable Total road traffic of goods Traffic density as a factor for calculation Tolls Harmonisation of technical guidelines Average length of transport way Average transport speed Size of receptacle Number of semitrailers suitable for intermodal traffic Fuel consumption Energy price per tkm Degree of utilisation Length of road network Costs per tkm Costs for road maintenance Emission of harmful substances Emissions of noises Costs for environmental damage Monetary settlement of environmental damage resulting from the road transport of goods to the transportation costs Emission of harmful substances per tkm on road Fuel consumption per tkm on the road Price of energy consumed for road transport of goods Variable to describe the utilisation of the road network Volume of goods, that can theoretically be transported in an semitrailer Definition Total road traffic of goods in tkm Measure for jamming in traffic flow Fixed (taxes) and flexible (E.g. LSVA i. CH) costs for use of road traffic ways Unification of regulations for road transport of goods in Europe
SAIL
Road performance of semitraile r / truck Overnight driving prohibition for trucks Prohibition of driving at weekend Trade limitation Standardisation of receptacle sizes Loading time for semitrailers / receptacles Empty rides of semitrailers Quota of rides without any goods to number of totals rides Running performance and handling characteristics Hypothetical restriction of driving time for road transport of goods Temporal increase of prohibition of semitrailers driving at the weekend Limitation of the number of trucks which are allowed to drive on a specific road Standardisation for each country of measurements of receptacles
Set of variables of the sub-system Semitrailer Variable Semitrailer payload Superstructure length Definition Maximum permitted weight of the goods for transnational transit in the EU Length of the semitrailer, which can be calculated indirectly by semitrailer width, sway-trough-radius and wheel distance Width of chassis and superstructure of the semitrailer
Width of semitrailer Total height of semitrailer Outside measurements Clear height Semitrailer total weight Position of king pin Volume of transport Load of axle Height of superstructure Weigh of semitrailer Grip-edges for crane handling Structurally strengthening for crane handling Shunting wrench capability Axle distance Semitrailer wheel base TIR-ability of semitrailer
Length, width, height Height of semitrailer superstructure without chassis Payload + dead load Vertical and horizontal position of the coupling element of semitrailer and truck tractor Length, width, height Maximum permitted force on one wheel axle of the semitrailer
Standardised apparatus for crane handling Required strengthening to prevent the semitrailer during vertical handling from damage by its own weight Acceleration, the semitrailer must be construed for to be accredited for rail transport Distance between different wheel axles of the semitrailer chassis Distance between king pin and middle wheel axle
SAIL
Set of variables of the sub-system Wagon Variable Load length of the wagon Ground clearance under wagon Loading gauge of wagon / semitrailer Definition Maximum length of a receptacle, which can be transported on a wagon. Distance between bottom of the wagon and the upper edge of rail Wagon: profile resulting from top view of the wagon Semitrailer: profile resulting from view in driving direction Flexible elements of equipment of the wagon fixing the king-pin and the wheel set of the semitrailer Volume of goods, that can theoretically be transported on the wagon Force of wagon on one axle of the bogie Width and course of the depth of the loading bag over its length Distance between wheel axles in bogie / distance between pins of bogies Depth of the notch in floor of the wagon to hold the wheel set of the semitrailer
Pick-up elements for semitrailer fixation Size of receptacle Wheel set load Size / form of pocket Wheel distance in bogie / wagon bridge Depth of loading area Diameter of the wagon wheel Permitted payload Demand of Transport 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
Maximum transportation load, the wagon is constructed for Longitudinal acceleration of structure/ semitrailer max 1g
A small probability of failures
Set of variables of the sub-system Terminal Variable Number of semitrailer loading Number of container loading Number of swap-body loading Average time for mixed loading Definition Number of semitrailers loaded per time unit, if only on semitrailers are loaded Number of containers loaded per time unit, if only on containers are loaded Number of swap bodies per time -unit, if only on swap bodies are loaded
SAIL
Shunting-/ siding length Capacity and length of the loading tracks Number of loading tracks Number of cranes in the terminal Capacity of terminal Time of waiting for truck drivers Personal expenditure for loading Administrative expenditure Character of loading Seperation of loading of containers, swap bodies and semitrailers Costs for semitrailer loading Costs for container loading Costs for swap-body loading One-man operating Number of terminals Good spatial distribution of the terminals 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 Kind of goods Park area for semintrailers Park area for containers Park areas for loading-boxes Restrictions in harbour Restrictions of the environment Which ships may run in? E.g. loading time Risk of lateral buckling while loading Reefer cargo and dangerous goods Numbers of workers which are involved in the loading process Measure for accessibleness of the terminals for customers Terminals are near traffic junctions, centres of industry and conurbations Vertical or horizontal loading, different technologies With and without wheels Theoretical number of loading processes in the terminal per day
SAIL
6.7.2
The set of 28 aggregated variables for the total system

Variable order processing Indicator / description professional order processing (order in put, 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 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
Number 1
input disposition effo
internat. co operation
variety of wagon models 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
technical instructions
simple processes at the country borders 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 ratio between length from forerun and post- carriage proportional to main run share of rail goods traffic way on transport chain
ratio pre/end-haulage
SAIL
6 7 transport time techn. dimension semi required time to transport goods from place A to B average transport speed 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 energy consumption on road and rail: - diesel/km - electricity consumption - etc. 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) 10 road costs per tkm Important calculation- factor 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 11 environment damage costs for road maintenance damage to the environment produced of truck like noise emissions emissions of harmful substances for road goods traffic, especially on bottlenecks like Alps (A, CH) EU-regulations - driving bans related to the weight - prohibitions of driving at weekend
energy consumption
infrastructure road
12
political regulations
or overnight
SAIL
driving for trucks - restriction of time for the terminal (-> noise) average length of transport way 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, 15 relations railway - difference of wheel gauge possible/ offered connections in rail goods traffic timetable/ constancy of transports o a relation regarding n volume and time cycle times balance of transport flow free disposable allocation 16 rail costs depending of number of chief guards 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 frequency of accidents ratio of probability of accidents road/rail damage costs arising during handling in terminal competitiveness rail to road loading gauge
13 14
length of transp. way infrastructure railway
17
security/risk o.accide
18 19
competitiveness railw. techn. dimension wagon
SAIL
load length of the wagon ground clearance diameter of the wagon wheel wheel-/bogie- distance total weight wagon: dead load + payload 20 flex interf wagon/semi measurement and shape of the cargo area 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 horizontal or vertical loading selective access loading method which is poor in damages 22 ratio cont/semi utilisation of existing terminal-structure Number of container- and swap bodies proportional to semitrailer loading in the terminal comparison of costs Number of shippers in terminal number and length of loading tracks Shunting-/Sidings length Park areas for Containers, swap bodies and semitrailers 24 pers.requirement/handl In harbour: number of ships which are able to dock Number of workers while loading: - one-man-operating - asynchronous two-man-operating - temporal synchronous two-men-operating work loading of the truck driver: drive and loading time, rest period waiting period at the terminal spatial distribution of terminals number/ density accessibility of terminals/ integration in transport network ratio of transported goods: reefer goods, hot and dangerous goods Averaged time per loading process of semitrailers in comparison to containers/ swap bodies
21
loading method
23
capacity of terminal
25
work load personnel
26
spatial pos. terminal
27 28
type of goods Time for handling
SAIL
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 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 20 flex interf wagon/semi 2.38 4 technical instructions 9 infrastructure road 2.09 2 input disposition effo SLIGHTLY ACTIVE 6 transport time 23 capacity of terminal 1.64 SLIGHTLY BUFFERING 4 technical instructions 1.62 5 ratio pre/end-haulage 21 loading method 1.58 21 loading method 22 ratio cont/semi 1.33 16 rail costs NEUTRAL 3 internat. Cooperation 19 techn. dimension wagon 1.27 18 competitiveness railw 14 infrastructure railway 1.21 15 relations railway 26 spatial pos. Terminal 1.19 27 type of goods 7 techn. dimension semi 1.16 1 order processing 6 transport time 1.13 14 infrastructure railway 15 relations railway 1.05 7 techn. Dimension semi 17 security/risk o.accide 1.03 20 flex interf wagon/semi 27 type of goods 1.00 BUFFERING 5 ratio pre/end-haulage 0.92 25 work load personnel 1 order processing 0.83 12 political regulations 10 road costs per tkm 0.75 23 capacity of terminal SLIGHTLY PASSIVE 26 spatial pos. terminal 11 environment damage 0.67 10 road costs per tkm 28 time for handliang 0.63 11 environment damage 24 pers.requirement/handl 0.62 9 infrastructure road PASSIVE 28 time for handling 25 work load personnel 0.54 19 techn. Dimension wagon HIGHLY PASSIVE 8 energy consumption 2 input disposition effo 0.36 HIGHLY BUFFERING 16 rail costs 0.30 13 length of transp. way 8 energy consumption 0.27 22 ratio cont/semi 18 competitiveness railw. 0.24 24 pers.requirement/handl
P-valu
870 714 630 598 575 570 559 540 506 462 441 437 437 418 403 364 324 322 304 300 294 253 228 154 132 115 108 104
SAIL
6.7.4
Value benefits supplier (calculation)

Betr. Gewich Lsung Lsung Lsung Lsung Lsung Lsung tung 1 2 3 4 5 6
Nr. 1 2 3
Detail Administrativer Aufwand im Terminal (niedrig) Einfache Disponierbarkeit von Transportkapazitten Kunden knnen mehr Kapazitten erhalten als vertraglich vereinbart wurde (hoch) Anteil Leerfahrten der fr den KLVWaggons und SAnh (niedrig) Anzahl der TW, RL, Lokomotiven (hoch) Variantenvielfalt der Waggons (niedrig) Internationale Kooperation Schienengterverkehr Straengterverkehr innerhalb und auerhalb der EU (hoch) Grenzberschreitende Anbindung von Relationen (hoch) Vereinheitlichung der unterschiedlichen technischen Normen im KLV in den Lndern fr den Straenverkehr, Schienenverkehr, Wasserschifffahrt (hoch) Zulssige Gesamtgewichte / Massen und Abmessungen / Lichtraumprofile (hoch) Zeit, die zum Transport der Fracht von einem Ort A zu B bentigt wird (niedrig) Durchschnittliche Transportgeschwindigkeit (hoch) Richtung: mehr Nutzlast und grer; 100m und 28t Nutzlast(hoch) Transportbehltergre: theoretisch im Transportbehlter verstaubare Transportvolumen bzw. Maximalgewicht (hoch) SAnh-Eigengewicht (niedrig) Auenabmessungen SAnh: Breite, Hhe, Lnge (hoch) Achsaggregatlast, Sattellast (konstant) Aufsattelhhe(niedrig) Laufgte und Fahreigenschaften (hoch) Diesel/km (niedrig) Stromverbrauch/km (niedrig) Fixe und flexible Steuern und Abgaben (KFZ-Steuer, LSVA, Maut,...) (niedrig) 1 1 1 9 8 7 45 72 49 45 64 42 45 48 28 45 72 49 45 56 35 45 8 0
4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1
8 9 8 8
0 0 72 80
0 63 72 80
0 0 72 80
0 81 72 80
0 45 72 80
0 18 72 80
8 9
1 1
8 8
80 40
80 72
80 80
80 80
80 72
80 56
10
11
18
27
27
27
27
18
12 13 14
1 1 1
3 3 3
18 24 0
27 24 0
27 24 0
27 0 0
27 24 0
18 0 0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 4 1 1 5 3
10 8 10 40 10 8 40 0
8 8 10 40 10 5 25 0
10 8 10 40 10 5 25 0
3 0 10 40 10 8 40 0
5 8 10 40 10 8 40 0
2 0 10 0 10 5 45 0
SAIL
23 Materialverschlei / Fahrzeuginstandhaltung (LCC) (niedrig) EU-Regelungen (Fahrzeugausrstungen) Durchschnittliche Lnge des Transportweges (hoch) Lnderspezifisch bzw. Streckenspezifisch: zulssige Schienenlast: zulssige Kraft pro Lngeneinheit, die auf die Schiene wirken darf (hoch) Max. Zuglnge (hoch) Hhe der Oberleitung (hoch) Spurweitenwechsel (niedrig) Taktzeiten Fahrplan (hoch) Paarigkeit der Transportstrme (hoch) Frei verfgbare Kontingente (hoch) Energiepreis Unterhaltskosten fr die Fahrzeuge und die Infrastruktur (LCC) (niedrig) Materialbeanspruchung (niedrig) Verschlei von Lagern und Rdern (niedrig) Kundenkosten: Preis, den die Bahn fr den Transport von Gtern berechnet (niedrig) Kosten/tkm; Kosten/Einheit (niedrig) Minimierung von Unfllen Bei der Verladung am Terminal anfallende Schadenskosten (niedrig) Wettbewerbsfhigkeit Schiene gegenber Strae (hoch) Lichtraumprofil P400 (hoch) Wagen-Ladelnge (niedrig) Bodenfreiheit / Aufstandsebene (niedrig) Raddurchmesser (hoch) Rad-/Drehgestell-Abstnde (niedrig) Eigengewicht Waggon (niedrig) Nutzlast (hoch) Gre / Form der Aufnahmemglichkeit (hoch) Flexibilitt der Aufnahmeelemente fr SAnh-Fixierung (hoch) Anpassungsfhigkeit der Technik an die Weiterentwicklung der StraenSAnh (hoch) Horizontaler Umschlag Selektiver Zugriff (hoch) Schadensarme Umschlagtechnik (hoch) Nutzung bestehender Terminalstruktur (hoch) 1 1 8 8 8 9 9 5
24 25 26
1 1 1
1 5 8
10 45 16
9 45 72
10 45 72
10 45 72
10 45 72
9 45 16
27 28 29 30 31 32 33
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 7 2 7 7 7 9
80 70 2 70 0 56 27
80 70 10 70 56 56 72
80 70 10 70 56 56 72
80 70 10 70 56 21 72
80 70 10 70 0 56 72
80 70 2 70 0 21 27
34 35 36
1 1 1
9 9 8
54 27 56
72 72 64
54 72 56
72 72 64
72 72 64
72 72 48
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
8 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 7 4 8 8 8 7
0 48 64 24 56 64 64 35 56 36 64 0 80 63
0 40 48 24 56 40 72 63 35 32 64 0 40 21
0 40 48 24 56 40 64 63 35 28 64 0 72 21
0 56 48 80 56 64 80 63 56 32 48 0 0 70
0 56 48 80 56 64 80 63 56 32 48 0 0 70
0 56 64 24 56 72 72 63 63 40 40 0 8 21
51 52 53 54
1 1 1 1
1 8 8 8
10 0 64 0
0 80 32 80
0 80 24 80
0 80 48 80
0 80 48 80
10 0 64 0
SAIL
55 Anzahl der im KLV befindlichen Einheiten im Verhltnis der Container und Wechselbrckenumschlge zu SAnh-Umschlgen im Terminal (hoch) Kostenvergleich (hoch) Anzahl der Verlader (Maschinen) im Terminal (niedrig) Anzahl der Umschlaggleise / Umschlaggleislnge (niedrig) Rangier- und Abstellgleislngen (niedrig) Abstellflche fr Container/Wechselbrcken, SAnh, LKWs... (niedrig) Im Hafen: Anzahl der Schiffe die anlegen knnen (hoch) Einmannbedienung bei Verladung Zeitl. Synchrone ZweimannBedienung Arbeitsbelastung der LKW-Fahrer (niedrig) Wartezeiten im Terminal (niedrig) Verhltnis der transportierten Gterarten: Khl-, Hei- und Gefahrgut (hoch) Durchschnittliche Zeit pro Umschlag von SAnh im Vergleich zu Container / Wechselbrcken (niedrig) Vertikaler Umschlag Polyvalente Aufnahmemglichkeit(hoch) Systemgewicht (niedrig) Rangiertauglichkeit (hoch) Energieverbrauch auf Strae und Schiene Durchfahrtkontingente fr den Straengterverkehr, vor allem an Engpssen wie in den Alpen (A, CH) Haftung / Reklamationsverarbeitung Antwortzeiten auf Transportanfragen von Spediteuren und Kunden Gute Dienstleistungen und Professionelle Auftragsabwicklung bei Ordereingang Anzahl der Bros der Verkaufsgesellschaften Kommunikation zwischen Spediteuren und Verkaufsgesellschaften EDV-Integration von Straen- und Schienentransport Zuverlssigkeit / Auftragsgerechte Abwicklung 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 57 58 59 60
1 1 1 1 1
3 4 6 6 7
0 40 48 48 28
0 36 36 36 42
0 36 36 36 42
0 36 36 36 49
0 36 36 36 49
0 36 48 54 42
61 62 63 64 65 66
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 8 2 4 4 7
0 72 18 24 0 0
0 48 12 24 0 0
0 0 2 24 0 0
0 72 18 24 0 0
0 72 18 24 0 0
0 16 2 24 0 0
67
72
54
90
90
68 69 70 71 72 73
1 1 1 0 0 0
9 8 9 0 0 0
0 8 63 0 0 0
90 72 54 0 0 0
90 56 36 0 0 0
90 40 72 0 0 0
90 72 63 0 0 0
0 8 81 0 0 0
74 75 76
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
77 78 79 80
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
SAIL
81 Langfristige Disponierbarkeit ermglicht den Dienstleistern der Schiene, ihre Produktionsmittel besser einzusetzen; der resultierende Nutzen wird zum Teil an Kunden weitergegeben Einfache Kalkulation von Trassenpreisen bei grenzberschreitendem Verkehr Vereinfachte Abwicklung an den Lndergrenzen Verhltnis Vor- und Nachlauf zum Hauptlauf Anteil der Schienengterverkehrsstrecke an der Transportkette Etc. Dichte des Straennetzes fr den Gterverkehr / insbesondere Autobahnen und berregionale Straen Auslastungsgrad der Infrastruktur Strae Indikator fr das Ma der Strungen im Verkehrsflu (Stau) Wichtiger Kalkulationsfaktor Durchschnittliche Summe aller Kosten, die pro tkm auf der Strae entstehen Energiekosten Personenkosten Fahrer / Disposition Straeninstandhaltungskosten Durch den LKW ausgelste Umweltbelastungen wie Lrmemission Schadstoffemission Streckenbezogene Fahrverbote abhngig von Fahrzeuggewicht Zeitliche Fahrverbote fr den Straengterverkehr (Nachtfahr- und Wochenendfahrverbot) Zeitliche Restriktion fr das Terminal (z.B. Lrm) Lnge des Gterverkehrsschienennetzes Erweiterung / Rckbau des Netzes Verkehrsdichte Schiene / Auslastungsgrad Mgliche / Angebotene Verbindungen im Schienengterverkehr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82
83 84 85
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
86 87
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 100 101 102 103
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
104 Fahrplan / Regelmigkeit der Transportstrme hinsichtlich Volumen und Zeit 105 Abhngig von der Anzahl der Zugfhrer 106 Operatorkosten: Summe aller Kosten, die den Bahnbetreibern beim Transport von Gtern entstehen. Zusammengesetzt aus:
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
SAIL
107 Verhltnis der Unfallwahrscheinlichkeit Strae / Schiene 108 Anzahl der Mitarbeiter whrend eines Umschlagvorgangs 109 Zeitl. Assynchrone ZweimannBedienung 110 Fahrtzeit, Ruhezeit, Ladezeit 111 Rumliche Verteilung der Terminals 112 Anzahl / Dichte 113 Erreichbarkeit der Terminals / Integation in das Verkehrsnetz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2231
0 0 0 0 0 0 2707
0 0 0 0 0 0 2501
0 0 0 0 0 0 2871
0 0 0 0 0 0 2833
0 0 0 0 0 0 1977
6.8
Further details on the mode l
Figure 6-5 : The streaddle -carrier transports a semitrailer onto the wagon
SAIL
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
SAIL
Figure 6-8: View inside the conventional part of the terminal
SAIL
7.
7.1
Design and construction of the SAIL solutions

General testing results

7.2 7.2.1
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
Testing Solution 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.
SAIL
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
SAIL
Figure 7-2 : Solution 1

-
Procedure of horizo ntal 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:
SAIL
Contents 1 Introduction 2 4 km line for semitrailers on European Huckepack net and in particular on transalpine Huckepack traffic 3 Technical specifications 4 Todays 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. Kgel assure the complete success of our feasibility study.
SAIL
-
Test results for solution 1 (simulation of wheel crossover)

Date: Inspectors: March 22, 2001 Schall Wiehler Gutmann Laib P75 Standardfahrgestell Fzg.-Nr.: 07-47078 Bereifung: 385/55 R 19,5 Achsabstand: 2 x 1310mm
Vehicle:
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.
SAIL
-
Results:
24.000 kg Total axle weight Wheel tonnage Axis tonnage 27.000 kg Total axle weight Wheel tonnage Axis tonnage
Up ramp:
1. Axis 2. Axis 3. Axis 5.200 4.600 4.100 10.400 9.200 8.200 5.850 5.175 4.613 11.700 10.350 9.225
Down ramp:
1. Axis 2. Axis 3. Axis 4.200 4.900 5.100 8.400 9.800 10.200 4.725 5.513 5.738 9.450 11.025 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
SAIL
SAIL
-
BPWs confirmation
SAIL
Kronprinz confirmation
SAIL
Michelin confirmation
SAIL
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
SAIL
Cranable semitrailer (with Ro-Ro equipment)
Figure 7-4: Cranable semitrailer
SAIL
Pocket wagon for cranable semitrailer
Figure 7-5: Pocket wagon for cranable semitrailer
SAIL
Wheel support platform for pocket wagon
Figure 7-6: Wheel support platform for pocket wagon
SAIL
Loading plan for CT / pocket wagon
Figure 7-7: Loading plan for CT / pocket wagon
SAIL
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 KGEL 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
SAIL
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
SAIL
Pendulum attenuation
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.
SAIL
Figure 7-12: Pocket wagon
Semitrailer equipped with laser point measurement, front and at back installations.
Figure 7-13: Front
Figure 7-14: Back
SAIL
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

SAIL
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.
Laser - point
Figure 7-17: Measurement procedure
Measurement results Measurement points:
a/b
a/b
Point 1
Point 2 Touch-line pocket wagon LT
Figure 7-18: Measurement points
SAIL
Measurement results gantry crane:
Test no.: 1 2 3 4 5
Measurement point 1 A B Measurement point 2 a b Variance S
220 240 235 265 220
195 190 185 185 195
210 215 200 200 200
215 195 175 215 200
10 25 35 65 20
5,0 12,5 17,5 32,5 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
SAIL
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.
Test no.:
1 2 3
Measurement A 390 55 260
point 1 B 195 190 195
Measurement a 180 150 220
point 2 b 220 220 220
Variance S 210 105 95 47,5 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
SAIL
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
SAIL
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 ga ntry 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.
SAIL
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 conve nient 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 customers 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
SAIL
Part CT (double wagon)
Figure 7-27: Part CT (double wagon)
SAIL
Combination CT/pocket wagon (single wagon)
Figure 7-28: Combination CT/pocket wagon
SAIL
Transportation level over track (codification C70, C45)
Figure 7-29: Transportation level over track
SAIL
Cranable swap body (with Ro-Ro equipment)
Figure 7-30: Cranable swap body
SAIL
Chassis for cranable swap body
Figure 7-31: Chassis for cranable swap body
SAIL
7.2.4
-
Test report on solution 2 and 3
Description
Loading semitrailer using Ro-Ro traffic Date: April 11 to 12, 2001 Place: Travemnde LHG, Skandinavienkai Port of Trelleborg Participants: H. Pennacchi HUPAC H. Altenau HUPAC H. Stumpe IMA H. Bebie ICM H. Mller DUSS H. Fiedler TFK H. Sennewald EWALS Cargo Care H. Schall KGEL Objective: Find out if todays 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
SAIL
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.
SAIL
Figure 7-35: Drive in problematic
Possibilities for solution
Figure 7-36: Loading ramp drive in
Support blocks need to be adjusted to lower Aufsattelhhen, if semitrailers are loaded without SZgm (see ISO 1726: 2000).
SAIL
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-Rotransportation.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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
SAIL
7.3.2.2 Manufacturing rump
7.3.2.3 Mounting of chassis support beams at front / toolbox / SSE
SAIL
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
SAIL
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)
SAIL
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
SAIL
Handling/diagnosis console and rear supporting device
Supplies at the front
SAIL
7.3.3 Testing results 7.3.3.1 Lifting check at the gripping edges
SAIL
SAIL
7.3.3.2 Strain of the roof
SAIL
7.3.3.3 Density of the weather
Conclusions: The tests were successfully finished.
SAIL
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
SAIL
Framework of swap body
SAIL
-
Mounting of road chassis/swap body
Road chassis and swap body
SAIL
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
SAIL
7.3.5.3 Handling/diagnosis console and rear supporting device
7.3.5.4 Swap body fixation with screw plug
SAIL
7.3.5.5 Protecting plane over gripping edges
7.3.5.6 supplies at the front
SAIL
7.3.6 Testing results 7.3.6.1 Road tests (fast and difficult routes)
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
7.3.6.2 Tests DIN / EN 283
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
7.3.6.3 RO-RO test = EN 29367-2
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
7.3.6.4 Loading test swap body to CT wagon
The tests were successfully completed.
SAIL
7.4 Building the wagon prototype
7.4.1 Introduction
Approach 1 (App. 1): Unaccompanied Ro-Ro transport with supported beams on eightaxle 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 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 terminal processing for horizontal loading survey drawing of the vehicle wagon profile with supporting beams four-axes bogie 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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
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 Kgel. 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.
SAIL
The next picture shows the pocket wagon part with Ct wagon element during the frame pressure test. Bogie with 840mm wheel diameter.
SAIL
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
SAIL
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 automa tic display. The dynamic tests in the research centre of the DB AG, Minden are visualized in next picture.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
7.4.3 Details of the wagon
SAIL
8.
8.1
Simulating and animating the terminal process

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.
SAIL
Betrieb
ok
problems
Review Creating tests for result: Test report
Analysis
problems
Systemtest
ok
Review ok
result: Technical concept
problems
Review result: Test report
General outline
Creating tests for
Integrationstest
ok Review
problems
Review ok
result: DV-concept
problems
Clear concept
problems
Creating tests for Ergebnis: DV-Feinkonzept
Module test
result: Test report
Review ok
ok
implementation
result: code
Review
problems
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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
8.2.4 Environment for the development of Sail21
To avoid unnecessary crashes and fr ustration, 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):
SAIL
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
SAIL
calculations when the 'ok' button is pressed. This also closes the data entry window and brings up
the result graphs (
Figure 8-3):
SAIL
Figure 8-3 : result graphs
SAIL
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 8.3.1 Outlook of Sail21
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.
SAIL
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.
SAIL
Figure 8-5 : Animation screen

Project SAIL 10277: Deliverable 7 - Annexes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project SAIL 10277: Deliverable 7 - Annexes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAIL

Semitrailers in Advanced Intermodal Logistics

Project SAIL 10277

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

Earlier Projects and framework conditions

Detailed market statistics

Domestic transports in 1000 Tonnes 1990-1998

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

Figure 2-1: Domestic transports in 1000 tonnes 1990-1998 1

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

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

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

Domestic transports in Mio Tkm 1990-1998

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

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

Cross-border exports in 1000 Tonnes 1990-1998

40000 1000 Tonnes

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

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

1990 1994 (1) 1998 (2)

Cross-border export in Mio Tkm 1990-1998

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

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

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

n.a. 0,0 B DK D Gr E F I Lux NL A P SF S UK (4) N CH

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

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

conventional trailers semi-trailers

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

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

rigid trucks conventional trailers semi-trailers

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

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

conventional trailers semi-trailers

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

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

Development of the number of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in Austria 19941999

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

New registration of conventional trailers and semi-trailers in the Netherlands 19901999

conventional trailers semi-trailers

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

1990 1994 1998

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

Road tons lifted by semi-trailers in selected countries

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

Development of the average length of haul of semi-trailers

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

Tonne-kilometres produced by semi-trailers in selected countries

Performance of semi-trailers in % of all raod transports measured in tonneskilometres

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

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

Road/Combined Transport Comparison in Pairs

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

Systematisation of Combined Transport engineering

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

Picture 4-1: Kangaroo System

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

Picture 4-3: Low level wagons with support beams

Picture 4-4: ALS System

Lohr System (A.1.2.5.1)

Picture 4-5: Lohr System

Tiphock System (A.1.2.5.2)