|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
Hub-and-spoke bundling networks in intermodal rail freight transport are suggested as a potential solution to help increase the intermodal rail market share. In Europe, three intermodal hub-and-spoke networks became operational in the 1990s. Trains are shunted or load units transshipped at the hubs in these networks. Shunting or transshipment is relatively time-consuming and cuts back on the advantages of hub-and-spoke networks.
A new type of terminal, specifically designed for hubs in hub-and-spoke networks, has been suggested for introduction. At these terminals, standardized load units are transshipped efficiently from one train to another, instead of shunting rail wagons. Explorative evaluation studies give rise to the expectation that these new-generation terminals-under certain conditions-might perform more efficiently than conventional shunting yards and road-rail terminals. We still know very little about exchange operations at new-generation terminals and the differences from conventional road-rail terminals and shunting yards. The goal of our research is to obtain a thorough understanding of the operations and to compare performances of different exchange facilities. To reach this objective, dynamic simulation models were built in ARENA. The typical features of and performance differences between, conventional road-rail terminals, shunting yards, and new-generation terminal operations are presented in this article.
**********
Intermodal freight transport can be defined as the movement of goods in one and the same load unit using several successive modes of transport without handling the goods themselves in the process of changing modes (European Conference of Ministers of Transport 1997). Since intermodal transport already has a strong position in the traditional markets (e.g. bulk), a growth of the market share in these market segments is not obvious (Wiegmans et al. 2007). The trend is for intermodal operators and railway companies to focus on these traditional markets by offering reliable and time- and cost-effective point-to-point network concepts. Especially, the traditional railways (e.g. Railion, SNCF Fret) follow this strategy. The growth potential for rail freight transport might lie in the markets for flows over medium distances (between 200km and 500kin), for perishable and high-value commodities, for small consignments, for small flows, and for flows demanding speed, reliability, and flexibility. These markets are large, while the market share of intermodal transport is close to zero (Cardebring et al. 2002; European Commission 1998).
In order to develop these new rail freight markets, hub-and-spoke networks together with new-generation terminals could be part of the solution. Studies on these new-generation terminals give rise to the expectation that they may perform more efficiently than shunting yards (Alicke 1999; Alicke 2002; Ballis and Golias 2002; European Commission 1997; Meyer 1998). Nevertheless, we still know very little about rail-rail exchange operations at these new-generation terminals and the differences from the conventional shunting yard. Therefore, it is important that exchange operations at new-generation terminals and shunting yards are thoroughly investigated and compared. The focus of the research is on demand variables at the hub exchange facility. Other elements of the intermodal system such as pre-and end-haulage and road-rail exchange operations at origin and destination terminals are not considered.
This article reports on an investigation and comparison of the operational processes and costs, using a dynamic modeling approach. The central research question in article paper is, Under which circumstances is a new-generation terminal more efficient than a conventional terminal? Compared with previous studies, the novel aspects of this article are threefold: First, we aim to complement studies on hub-and-spoke networks in intermodal transport (see, e.g., Barnhart and Ratliff 1993; European Commission 1997; Janic et al. 1998; Jourquin et al. 1999; Meinert et al. 1998; Newman and Yano 2000; Southworth and Peterson 2000). In these network studies, operations at shunting yards and new-generation terminals are treated as a "black-box." With our models we aim to open this "black-box" of rail-exchange operations by modeling rail-exchange processes and costs. Secondly, our study tries to combine strategic, tactical, and operational aspects of rail exchange operations in one model. By following this approach, interactions between these aspects can be studied. Thirdly, previous studies (Konings 1996; Wiegmans et al. 1999) did not include a comparison of costs. This study does.
The outline of this article is as follows: First, we describe the intermodal rail freight transport networks and rail-rail exchange operations on a European level. Secondly, theory on simulation will be described and built into a theoretical model. Thirdly, the shunting yard, the road-rail terminal, and the new-generation terminal will be evaluated on process, time, and cost performance. Finally, a number of conclusions will be drawn.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
RAIL EXCHANGE AT TERMINALS
The trend is for intermodal transport operators and railway companies to focus on reliable and cost effective point-to-point services. Point-to-point services imply that all load units loaded on a train at an origin terminal have the same destination terminal (see Figure 1). This concept requires a high transport volume on specific routes. This means that intermodal rail transport services will focus more and more on ports, industrial zones, and large cities, while it will become difficult for regions with relatively smaller flows to stay integrated in the intermodal rail transport network. In order to confront this trend, in Europe, since the early 1990s a new type of intermodal terminal, specifically designed for the hubs in hub-and-spoke networks, has been studied. These new-generation terminals might replace relatively time-consuming conventional terminals. At the new-generation terminals, standardized load units (such as containers, swap bodies, and sometimes semi-trailers) are transshipped efficiently from one train to another.
Point-to-point bundling (or network) implies that all load units loaded onto a train at an origin terminal have the same destination terminal. Traditional markets for intermodal transport on such routes are large flows over long distances (e.g., seaport hinterland flows; flows between production plants and to depots; bulk commodities; and hazardous goods) (Cardebring et al. 2002). Despite this strong position, intermodal transport accounts for little more than 5 percent of the total surface traffic (in tonne-kms) of the EU15 (Savy and Aubriot 2005). This reflects the small size of these traditional markets compared with the total transport market. The implementation of hub-and-spoke networks in intermodal transport is suggested as one of the potential solutions for helping to increase the intermodal market share (Beisler 1995; European Commission 1997; Cardebring et al. 2002). The proposed hub-and-spoke networks with exchange operations at hubs differ from the traditional rail production system. (ICF operated two hub-and-spoke networks, with hubs in Metz [France] and Herne [Germany] respectively. Interferry Boats operated a hub-and-spoke system with a hub in Muizen [Belgium]). In the traditional rail production system, each rail wagon has a unique "trip plan" that shows the planned sequence of trains and shunting yards through...
|
