62

self-propelled however, at the much gentler speed of 7 km/hour. A swap body spreader is available as supplementary equipment171

The T-lift system is currently being redesigned to cater for up to 34 metric tons and 45 foot ISO-containers and 13.6 m swap bodies172. The new generation, however, is restricted to being pure trans-shipment equipment also in the road transport version. The hourly capacity is stated as 15 transship-ments between a train and another lorry173.

2.5 RAIL WAGONS FOR LIFTING SWAP BODIES OR CASSETTES The principle used when a lorry lifts a swap body from the ground has inspired some rail wagon manufacturers. The result is a rather narrow type of rail wagon designed for running underneath swap bodies standing on their support legs, placed in a row over the tracks by the lorry drivers. Equipment on the wagons then lifts the swap bodies so that their support legs can be folded up and in. After low-ering and locking the swap bodies, the loaded wagons are ready for departure. Such a transshipment cycle is shown in the figure below.

The only unique part of the concept is the rail wagons, and they do not interfere with use in any con-ventional system employing vertical handling. One brand is designed as independent wagons suitable also for conventional wagonload systems, while the others are intended for use in fixed, short-coupled wagon groups. ISO-containers can be transferred if they are mounted on swap body platforms or, de-pending on brand, on own support legs or racks over the track.

The manufacturers have solved the lift function with pneumatic or hydraulic hoist of the superstructure or a scissors table, or by equipping the wagon with air suspension thus lifting the whole wagon. A positive effect with air suspension is smoother and better controlled run that might allow higher axle loads.

The main limitation of this technology lies in the loading process. The swap bodies have to be placed accurately in a row before transfer, and they have to be sequenced according to destination or unload-ing order. The concept cannot be used at side tracks along main lines if any swap body has to be ac-cessible and, hence, it is most suited for serving a direct connection.

171 Blatchford Cranes/Herbert Pool Ltd, product brochure, 1990. 172 POOL, letter dated 22 April 1997. 173 Weightforge Projects Ltd, 1994.

63

Figure 2-47 A transshipment cycle using a rail wagon for lifting swap bodies. (Source: Mercedes-Benz, product brochure, 1995).

On the positive side, there are very modest requirements for the terminal area, just a railway track in the road surface and some painted marks in the pavement for guiding the lorry drivers. By use of the lorry or special shunting vehicles, the lorry drivers can load the wagons without need for dedicated terminal personnel. Thus it is suitable for private sidings at industries or forwarder’s premises where capital costs can be kept at a low level.

Three application areas for this type of intermodal technology are outlined by Werner Maywald, Gen-eral Manager of the German UIRR company Kombiverkehr174:

• Direct connection between two industries of which at least one lacks handling equipment

• Short line connection from private siding to intermodal terminals

• For occasional traffic in order to avoid investments in fixed terminal equipment

In addition, there is a very promising application foreseen in shuttle services between end terminals. The wagons are rather complicated and expensive, but they have the potential for replacing several conventionally operated flat wagons. Fixed, short-coupled trains with this type of wagons could be operated like giant forklifts lifting full train loads in one automated operation. A pilot shuttle opera-tion, however without automated loading, with one of the brands, Mercedes-Benz’ Kombi-Lifter, has proven an astonishing wagon utilisation. The average speed for the wagons during the two-year trial period was 34 km/hour – calculated on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year!

174 Transport & Hantering, 1995, No. 10, p. 45.

64

For real fast transshipment, the swap bodies have to be equipped with automatically foldable support legs which also will make the lorry drivers’ job more pleasant. Such a technology has been invented by the University of Stuttgart that now looks for licensees willing to commercialise the patent175.

Table 2.18 Short summary evaluation: Rail wagons for lifting swap bodies.

Aimed for lifting swap bodies in a lorry-like style. Advantages - Easy use at private rail sidings sidings or at forwarders’ general cargo terminals - Fast transhipment when the train arrives - Proven potential for very good utilisation of rail wagon- Transhipment under the overhead contact line - Very small investments needed at the terminal

Disadvantages - Alternative to conventional rail transport rather than lorry transport - Dedicated and relatively complicated and thus expensive rail wagons - Does not accommodate ISO-containers (unless placed on frames or own support legs) - Firm need for arranging the swap bodies in sequence- Limited to end terminals and cannot be used at side tracks along main lines

A related type of rail wagon is intended for lifting cassettes in a similar way as swap bodies. Cassettes are similar to swap bodies but as they are designed for RoRo-shipping, they are equipped with fixed sides instead of foldable support legs in order to stand the moving forces at sea. The currently used cassettes are large units, normally designed to carry 70 tons, making them limited to port-to-port op-eration. They are rolled onto RoRo-ships by use of very low translifters or gose-neck trailers which is below.

Figure 2-48 RoRo-loading of paper rolls on a cassette using a translifter.

New developments in the field implies that the cassette might not be limited to the sea leg of a trans-port chain. A first step is to include rail by making the cassettes a little smaller and by using specially designed air suspended railway wagons with a long piston stroke or fixed platforms in the port.

The next natural step is to include road, but that requires low (approximately 80 cm) platform lorries. This concept alone cannot pay for developing the new rail wagons and lorries, but it is in line with

175 BÜHRER, E-mail dated 26 January 1995.

65

general development trends for the two modes. Air suspended rail wagons can benefit from higher permissible axle load and low-built lorries can carry more net volume.

Dedicated freight containers with fixed sides have been developed, but in order to implement the cas-settes gradually, they can be used as interfaces between ISO-containers and the transshipment equip-ment.

In the long run, ships might be built with railway tracks for transshipment of cassettes to rail wagons on board the ship. This solution, however, requires large and expensive ramps with small angles that most probably have to be positioned in the port.

Table 2.19 Short summary evaluation: Rail wagons for lifting cassettes.

Aimed for lifting cassettes in a lorry-like style. Advantages - Easy use at private rail sidings sidings or at forwarders’ general cargo terminals - Fast transhipment when the train arrives - Only small investments needed at the terminal - Potential for very good utilisation of rail wagon - Transhipment under the overhead contact line

Disadvantages - Alternative to conventional rail transport rather than lorry transport - Cassettes involves rather much tare weight - Dedicated and complicated and thus expensive lorries and rail wagons - Firm need for arranging the cassettes in sequence - Limited to end terminals and cannot be used at side tracks along main lines - Needs an interface for accommodating standard ITUs

2.5.1 Mercedes-Benz and Lohr Industries: Kombi-Lifter As part of its Goods Transport System 2000 project (GVK 2000) – involving Mercedes-Benz, AEG, Debis and DASA corporate units – the Daimler-Benz Group has conducted studies of future develop-ments in freight transport volumes in Europe and come up with the 4-axled Kombi-Lifter rail wagon intended for transshipping swap bodies outside conventional terminals176. The Kombi-Lifter was de-veloped together with French vehicle body manufacturer Lohr Industries177, now licensees for produc-tion, marketing and sales of the technology. Also German wagon manufacturer Graaf used to be a li-censee178, but the co-operation has now stopped179 due to financial problems at Graaf180.

At first, it might seem a little odd that one of Europe’s leading lorry manufacturers promote rail trans-port. In a wider perspective, however, it is clear that Mercedes will face problems marketing ECU 100 000 luxury cars if customers mainly benefit from the comfortable leather seating while waiting on congested highways. With the current development, the 250 km/hour capacity of Mercedes’ “Stras-senkreuzer” will be absolutely obsolete in just a few years.

176 Mercedes-Benz, 1995, p. 1 and GÖTZ, fax dated 26 May 1997. 177 UIRR, 1995, p. 22. See also Lohr Industries’ Modalor below. 178 Mercedes-Benz, product brochure, 1995; European Intermodal Yearbook, 1996, p. 224 and Transport & Hantering, 1995, No. 10, p. 45. 179 GÖTZ, letter dated 20 March 1997 (correction in a brochure). 180 Cargo Systems, 1997/a, p. 20.

66

Figure 2-49 4-axled Kombi-Lifter wagon seen from two perspectives. (Source: Mercedes-Benz, product brochure, 1995).

A full intermodal train of Kombi-Lifters can consist of 36 rail wagons with a total length of 700 m with a capacity of carrying 72 swap bodies181. The time to dismantle a train (incoming of the train un-til outgoing of the last lorry) loaded with 20 swap bodies is stated to be approximately 1 hour 10 min-utes. However, the two first swap bodies can leave the terminal within 10 minutes after train arrival182. The wagons are intended to run in groups of five wagons connected with short-couplings, but single wagons are also a possible option. A blue print of the centre wagon from two perspectives is shown in the figure above.

Handling a group of five wagons carrying 10 swap bodies, just requires 100 m of rail siding built into the surface of the road or terminal yard. In addition, compressed air has to be supplied to the lifting mechanism of the wagons, either from a mobile compressor at the terminal183, from a lorry or from the rail engine184.

A transshipment cycle starts with trucks positioning their loads of standardised swap bodies on their support legs over 30 x 90 cm marking plates. After the lorry has left, a Kombi-Lifter rail wagon is re-versed under the swap bodies, to stop at a specific point. Once the Kombi-Lifter rail wagons are in position, their pneumatic lifting gear, which features a variable centring device for fine positioning, raises the swap bodies off the ground. The support legs can then be folded away before the swap bod-ies are lowered and locked into position on Kombi-Lifter’s standard rail pins. The loaded rail wagons are then ready for departure.

181 GÖTZ, fax dated 26 May 1997. 182 LEROUX, fax dated 21 February 1997. 183 Mercedes-Benz, video, 1996 and Transport & Hantering, 1995, No. 10, p. 45. 184 LEROUX, fax dated 21 February 1997.

67

Figure 2-50 A lorry driver tranships a swap body by use of the Kombi-Lifter rail wagon. (Source: Mercedes-Benz, product brochure, 1995).

The lifting gear has a capacity of 20-25 tons and can cope with inaccurate positioning of up to 15 cm laterally and 20 cm longitudinally. Mercedes-Benz especially focuses the fact that the Kombi-Lifter employs well known and tried components185. Once the lifting gear has been lowered, its loading height is just 1.0 m, sufficiently low for Channel tunnel use186. The wagon is designed for up to 140 kms/h, however restricting the load somewhat187.

Mercedes-Benz aims for applications for small to medium scale terminals. A clear advantage is if many swap bodies are transhipped at one terminal due to the sequencing problems. The technology is also stated to be suitable for short-line feeder trains with on or two wagon groups reaching out to pri-vate sidings with maintained economy.

Mercedes-Benz and Schenker Eurocargo have completed two years of trials of the Kombi-Lifter and it is still in use188. With two train sets consisting of five wagons each, Schenker Eurocargo has moved 10 swap bodies loaded with car engines each working day, between Stuttgart-Untertürkheim and Bre-men189. These Kombi-Lifter wagon groups form part of the Mercedes-Benz integrated production network and carry 250 engines a day190 including front and rear axles191. The rail wagons go empty

185 Daimler-Benz, 1996, p. 46. 186 Intermodal Shipper, 1997, p. 1, Mercedes-Benz, 1995, p. 5; product brochure, 1996; video, 1996 and Deutsche Verkehrszeitung, 1996, p. 8. 187 Mercedes-Benz, product brochure, 1996. 188 HAGER, 1997, p. 3. 189 Intermodal Shipper, 1997, p. 11. 190 Mercedes-Benz, 1995. 191 DB Cargo, www-site: http: // www. bahn.de/Cargo/Aktuell/mb6.htm.

68

back to Stuttgart192. During the two years of trial, the wagons have run 300 000 km per year in aver-age193, an astonishing 34 km/hour if run for all 8760 hours available in a year!

Nevertheless, the high cost of a wagon necessitates a good utilisation for the operation to remain eco-nomical. In orders for large quantities (hundreds), the price for a Kombi-Lifter would be approxi-mately ECU 110 000194.

The experiences, according to Schenker Eurocargo, exceed all expectations195. Eurocargo states that the handling is easily learnt by their lorry drivers. The train set of five wagons and ten swap bodies is handled in 25196 minutes by one lorry driver and in 15 minutes by two drivers197 – thus proving the handling time given by Mercedes-Benz. Positive remarks about the Kombi-Lifter have also been ex-pressed by DB, German Freight Transport Operators, the Federal Forwarding and Warehousing Or-ganisation and Kombiverkehr KG.

For shunting operations at private sidings, Mercedes-Benz, not surprisingly, recommends the use of their Unimog Roadrailer – a road/rail vehicle equipped with both rubber and steel wheels. One such shunting operation is shown in the figure below.

Figure 2-51 Positioning of swap bodies (upper left) and shunting the Kombi-Lifter with a Unimog. (Source: Mercedes-Benz, product brochure, 1995).

Future developments might include an enhanced positioning system and automatic lifting of support legs (as mentioned above available from the University of Stuttgart). Power will also be supplied by the engine and forwarded by pneumatic or hydraulic piping.

192 HAGER, 1997, p. 3. 193 Mercedes-Benz and Schenker Eurocargo, 1996. 194 Transport & Hantering, 1995, No. 10, p. 45. 195 Deutsche Verkehrszeitung, 1996, No. 128/24 October, p. 8. 196 GÖTZ, fax dated 26 May 1997. 197 HAGER, 1997, p. 3.

69

2.5.2 ABB Henschel: WAS Wagon Also German ABB Henschel has designed a rail wagon for lifting swap bodies or cassettes – the WAS (Wechselbehälter Auf Schiene – Swap Body on Rail) wagon.

Compared to the Kombi-Lifter, the WAS wagon is not restricted to form a part of an integral train, every wagon is equipped with real buffers. A big advantage is that the WAS wagon is a 2-axle wagon198 contrary to the Kombi-lifter that employs 4 axles. In a series of 100 WAS wagons, the cost would be approximately DM 130 000 (ECU 67 000) each199, thus 40% cheaper than the Kombi-Lifter. Axles are costly!

The WAS wagon uses the steering tunnel of the swap bodies while the Kombi-Lifter can adjust its scissors tables. The lateral tolerance of WAS wagon – 10 cm – is slightly less than the Kombi-Lifter, but folding stops makes longitudinal positioning less crucial.

Figure 2-52 A WAS wagon pushed under a swap body. Note the use of the swap body’s steering tunnel. (Source: ABB Henschel, product brochure, 1995).

The WAS wagon can be moved not only with a rail engine or a Unimog, but also by lorries using a dedicated drawbar and by connecting the compressed air of the lorry to the wagon200 as seen in the picture below.

198 A drawing of 4-axled WAS wagons is shown by Lange (1994, p. 207) but it might be a mistake since the ac companying photo shows a 2-axled wagon. 199 ROCK, letter dated 10 October 1996. 200 ABB Henschel, video tape, 1996.

70

Figure 2-53 Connecting a WAS wagon to a lorry using a dedicated drawbar. (Source: ABB Henschel, product brochure, 1995).

The WAS wagon is dimensioned for 100 km/hour when loaded with maximum 32 tons201, which equals the maximum weight for two swap bodies on support legs. The Kombi-Lifter with its 4 axles is dimensioned for higher speeds and loads202 although also limited to carrying two swap bodies. Finally, the WAS wagon is higher than the Kombi-Lifter, 1.25203 compared to 1.0 m.

Siegener-Kreisbahn GmbH, a private railway company owned by the District of Siegen-Wittgenstein, started pilot traffic between Siegen/Eintracht and Hamburg/Billwerder on 18 March 1996204. ABB supplied an initial 30 wagons205 and these are still running without any difficulties206. ABB Henschel stresses the benefit of easing up the co-operation between the national railway companies and private short lines207 and thus the test runs are carried out in close co-operation with DB AG. The pilot opera-tion scheme is paid for to 40% by the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia208 and to 60% by Siegener Kreisbahn209.

2.5.3 ABB AGEVE: Supertrans Swedish ABB AGEVE together with SJ Freight Division presented blue prints of a railway wagon lifting swap bodies – the Supertrans wagon – already in 1988210. The main difference to the Kombi- 201 ABB Henschel, product description sheet, 1995. 202 Mercedes-Benz, product brochure, 1995. 203 ROCK, fax dated 16 May 1997. 204 ROCK, letter dated 10 April 1996. 205 ABB Henschel, 1995 and O’Mahony, 1995/a, p. 67. 206 ROCK, letter dated 10 October 1996. 207 SOMMER, 1995, p. 7. 208 O’Mahony, 1995/a, p. 69. 209 ROCK, fax dated 16 May 1997. 210 AGEVE, product brochure, 1988.

71

Lifter and the WAS wagon is that the Supertrans is equipped with air suspension instead of just an elevating superstructure. Furthermore, built with high-strength steel211, the 2-axled wagon is of a very slender and light-weight design – only 20 tons for a short-coupled version carrying 4 swap bodies of a total 70 tons212 – adding to the fact that the run of air suspended wagons can be better controlled thus permitting higher axle loads. Also swap bodies of semi-trailer length (13.6 m) can be accommodated. Furthermore, the load surface is as low as 78 cm. The slender and low design is shown in the figure below.

The wagon was initially designed to permit 100 km/hour at an axle load of 22.5 tons and 120 kms/h at 20.5 tons, but further developments included upgrading to 160 km/hour213. Thus the wagons are suit-able for running in passenger trains in remote areas with low flows.

Figure 2-54 Supertrans rail wagon ready to lift a swap body. (Source: AGEVE, product brochure, 1988).

AGEVE marketed the wagon independently or as part of an integrated system including improved lor-ries, swap bodies and semi-trailers – all in line with current ISO and other standards214. Moreover, automatic identification equipment was offered within the concept215. For example, the wagon can be equipped with rubber tyres and thus used for repositioning of swap bodies within the terminal area.

211 AGEVE, 1990/a, p. 1. 212 AGEVE, 1990/b, p. 1 and 2. 213 HAGMAN, notes from a meeting, 1988, p. 1. 214 HYRUM, letter dated 21 November 1988. 215 HAGMAN, notes from a meeting, 1988, p. 2.

72

Figure 2-55 A Supertrans wagon equipped with rubber tyres. (Source: AGEVE, product brochure, 1988).

The wagon is very innovative but its use, however, is limited since it is designed to meet Swedish do-mestic regulations for railway wagons and not the firm UIC-regulations. Neither is it designed to allow marshalling using conventional methods216.

A prototype was ready for tests commencing on 1 September 1989217, but the experiences from the tests have not been accessible. The development efforts have now been closed, and ABB AGEVE is no longer an active company.

A group of students at Chalmers University of Technology suggests improvements of the Supertrans concept by adapting it to European regulations by making it narrower to accommodate 2.5 m swap bodies and decrease its axle distance to 9.0 m218.

2.5.4 The Wieskötter System An older technology using basically the same principle with a lifting device on a railway wagon is the Wieskötter System presented in Germany in the late 1970’s. The swap bodies, however, are not posi-tioned along the track but across them. Hence, a turntable is required on the wagon as well as a special positioning system219. The principles are shown in the figure below.

216 AGEVE, 1990/b, p.1, 2 and 3. 217 HYRUM, letter dated 21 November 1988. 218 RYDING et al., 1993, p. 47. 219 Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981, p. 47.

73

Figure 2-56 The Wieskötter System. (Source: Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981, p. 48).

2.5.5 The Wheelless System Besides one of Europe’s leading railway wagon manufacturers, the Finnish steel-based conglomerate Rautaruukki Group also includes Biglo Oy (see the Biglo side-loader technology above) and the Tran-stech Division, a developer of intermodal transport systems. Together with Rolux Oy, specialised in cassette RoRo-technology, and the Finnish State Railways (VR), Transtech investigated the use of cassettes for multimodal purposes in the project “Paper Handling and Transportation”. The companies suggest use of smaller cassettes (Transunit or Transflat) for sea, road as well as rail transport within the Wheelless system. The Transflat intended for the Wheelless system is shown in the figure below.

Figure 2-57 Transflat. (Source: Rautaruukki, product brochure 1995).

The cassettes are transhipped between modes using air suspended vehicles (Transtrain and Transtruck) following the swap body principle. The low-platform vehicles are lowered by the air suspension to let it go under cassettes positioned on the ground. For rail, a bimodal solution where the cassettes and separate bogies make up the train is suggested. In ports, this procedure is accomplished with special Translifters towed by tugmasters allowing traditional RoRo loading. The principles used in different modes is shown in the figure below.

74

Figure 2-58 The components of the Wheelless System. (Source: Broström, 1992).

2.5.6 Chalmers University of Technology: Titan Cassettes Also Chalmers University of Technology has come up with the idea of making cassettes multimodal. Cassettes are suggested by professor Kenth LUMSDEN as interface load carriers with the dimensions of the transport mode with the smallest permitted measurements, in this case road transport. The great-est advantages are stated as that horizontal transfer of the load carriers is possible, that vehicles used for the transport function is better utilised and that the stability on ships in RoRo traffic will be accept-

75

able due to more stable units220. An additional advantage is that today’s laborious load securing of semi-trailer using chains becomes obsolete with cassettes.

The innovative aspect of the TITAN cassettes is that they are particularly designed for containers with standardised positioning of the fastening points. The cassettes are suited for stacking, empty or laden, as shown in the figure below.

Figure 2-59 TITAN cassettes stacked empty and laden. (Source: Algell and Simert, 1997, p. 16).

The transfer techniques imply that the cassettes are to be handled by means of vehicle attached equip-ment, i.e. air-suspension or hydraulics. To accomplish flexibility, translifters are used in harbours.

In RoRo traffic, existing ships with normal RoRo decks should be used. Block loading will be used to a large extent. The cassettes are transported on road on low, vertically movable trailers. These should be skeleton trailers, relatively light, technically uncomplicated with a low loading plane, approxi-mately 80 cm. In the rail system, the same principles with low wagons equipped with air-suspension are to be introduced. Road and rail vehicles loaded with TITAN cassettes are shown below.

Figure 2-60 Road and rail vehicles loaded with TITAN cassettes. (Source: Algell and Simert, 1997, in Appendix).

220 WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1994, p. 9.

76

Recently, the plans where taken ahead in a co-operation scheme with the shipping line Tor Line and the stainless steel manufacturer Avesta-Sheffield with production units in both Avesta in the middle of Sweden and in Sheffield in the UK. In a first step the cassettes are intended for use on rail and at sea loaded with steel products for Avesta-Sheffield. Test traffic is planned to commence during the spring of 1997221. Today, slabs are moved by rail from Sheffield to Immingham where they are transshipped to large-sized cassettes for the sea voyage to Göteborg. After a second transshipment, they are trans-ported by rail to Avesta. After refining to steel plate, 80% of the products are send back to Sheffield in form of coils. In order to decrease handling operations, it is suggested that cassettes are used even for the rail legs of the transport chain.

2.6 SMALL AND SPECIAL CONTAINER SYSTEMS Logistics is slowly changing the focus from door-to-door transport to a wider scope; floor-to-floor thus, making today’s principle of breaking all shipments at the loading dock obsolete. The recent eco-nomic recession together with lower interest rates has also caused a shift in the long tradition of de-creasing shipment sizes – some transport companies experience that the amount of part loads222 is in-creasing at the cost of general cargo223. DB for instance, has seen a rapid growth in this segment and although it only accounts for 13% of DB’s freight volumes it accounts for 43% of the revenues224. Classical ITUs, i.e. containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers, are too large both for shipment sizes and for bringing into factories. Floor-to-floor transport of part loads thus calls for new and smaller ITUs that can easily be handled by electric forklift trucks at the same time as being weather protected and slightly larger in size than pallets. Early examples of small containers for door-to-door transport is shown in the figure below.

Since this was in the pre-ISO-container era, SJ called the boxes “large containers” comparing to even smaller containers and Europallets. A horizontal transshipment of an open “large container” is shown in an early book on transport economy225 but more information about the system has not been obtain-able.

221 Transportjournalen, 1997, p. 17. 222 Part loads are "solid goods of homogeneous character that is transported in a larger amount" (SIS, 1992). Part loads can be grouped with other goods at terminals, but are generally loaded "in the proper order" to facilitate direct delivery. 223 General cargo is "solid goods of different size and character that is transported and handled in smaller amounts or consolidated into load units" (SIS, 1992). General cargo is always handled at terminals. 224 BUKOLD, 1996, p. 290. 225 SJÖGREN, 1957, p. 139.

77

Figure 2-61 Covered “large containers” in the “From door to door with SJ” system. (Source: Sjögren, 1957, p. 139).

Table 2.20 Short summary evaluation: Small container systems.

Aimed for floor-to-floor transport of part loads Advantages - Can be designed specifically for local needs - Can be highly automated - Easy use at private rail sidings or at forwarders’ general cargo terminals - Facilitates good utilisation of rail wagons - Facilitates integration with passenger trains - Fast transshipment - Flexible use of terminal equipment - Low demands on the terminal surface - Modularity with possibility to integrate in today’s systems (some systems) - Simple and cheap terminals and transshipment equipment - Suitable for corridor terminals - Transshipment under the overhead contact line

Disadvantages - Accommodates only small ITUs - Does not accommodate standard ITUs - Does not accommodate standard rail wagons (some systems) - Does not accommodate standard road vehicles (some systems) - Not compatible with large-scale intermodal transport (some systems)

2.6.1 DB: Logistikbox German State Railways, DB AG, advocates transport solutions for part loads involving load unit mod-ules which, combined make up a swap body. Within the governmentally sponsored project “Cargo 2000”, DB together with forwarders and shippers run a project they call Logistikbox226. The aim is to develop the concept of small boxes for floor-to-floor transport of part loads that is compatible with today´s intermodal transport system. Other national railways are also invited to take part and a COST-project on the all-European level has been proposed227. The joint development and implementation is emphasised in the available DB publications, but the system is also thought to become a pure DB ser-

226 WACKER and WENDLER, 1992, p. 233. 227 TRÜEB, 1996.

78

vice228. Moreover, a joint working group between SNCF and DB AG formed in March 1989, aims at making the Commutor (see section 3.1.2) and Logistikbox systems compatible229.

Out of three developed load units, two have been chosen for further development. With outer dimen-sions of 1.64 x 2.44 m and 2.50 x 2.50 m respectively they can carry 4 or 6 Europallets. Consequently, the boxes are called 4-pallet and 6-pallet Logistikbox. The loading capacities are 3 and 4.5 tons re-spectively230.

Figure 2-62 The two Logistikbox variants. (Source: DB, product brochure, 1993, p. 2).

In a first implementation step, three Logistikboxes will be loaded onto a 7.82 m swap body frame in order to be compatible with today’s general intermodal transport system. Transshipment is carried out by using forklift trucks with 10 ton lifting capacity or dedicated small distribution lorries with tail plat-form lifts. Manual horizontal transfer is possible when using a dedicated swap body frame equipped with hydraulically lifted rollers231. At the consignor’s and consignee’s premises, the boxes can be moved by forklift trucks or manually by using rolling frames on the ground. If the system is success-ful, however, the goal is obviously to develop a dedicated transport system with specialised rail wag-ons with direct horizontal transfer of the small-boxes. The principles are presented in the figure below.

228 BUKOLD, 1996, p. 290. 229 WACKER and WENDLER, 1992, p. 233. 230 DB, product brochure, 1993, p. 3. 231 WACKER and WENDLER, 1992, pp. 234-235.

79

Figure 2-63 Principles within the Logistikbox concept. (Source: DB, product brochure, 1993, p. 1).

In 1995, DB carried out tests on the German overnight intermodal transport system using several hun-dred boxes232. Nine terminals were used in the pilot study, and a further four were planned233. In 1996, DB possessed 280 boxes234. Nevertheless, the future of the system is uncertain235, and information on the current development stage has been hard to obtain. Rumours now say that the project is at a stand-still.

2.6.2 Flexbox Also another German invention, the Flexbox, adresses the demand for direct part load transportation. There are similarities with the Logistikbox, but the Flexbox does not require a swap body frame for intermodal transport. Instead the load units are simply connected to each other. Three boxes measuring (length x width x height) 2.50 m x 2.50 m x 2.38 m thus make up a 7.50 long swap body as seen in the figure below. However, not requiring the frame calls for a heavier design than the Logistikboxes – a Flexbox weighs 1.1 tons with a loading capacity of 6 tons236.

232 RUTTEN, 1995, p. 126. 233 DB, product brochure, 1993, p. 5. 234 TRÜEB, 1996, p. 2. 235 BUKOLD, 1996, p. 290. 236 HOLMQVIST and PÁLSSON, 1993, p. 58.

80

Figure 2-64 Three Flexbox units making up one swap body.

The Flexboxes are equipped with support legs so that they can easily be handled with lorries equipped with air suspension. Forklift trucks can also be used for transshipment to rail wagons or stacking the boxes two high. Thanks to the stacking ability, the load units are also suitable for short sea shipping or inland navigation. Nevertheless, the combination does not conform to the ISO-standard of maritime containers making it less viable as the ITU for the future.

2.6.3 TCS: Trilok The Australian company TCS markets its Trilok small-box containers, three of which can be com-bined into a 20-foot ISO-container. The interlocking is integrated into each of the smaller units, thus eliminating the need for loose and separate mechanisms. The combined unit allows for stacking nine high.

Facts about the technology have been hard to obtain, but reportedly some 50 units have been manufac-tured by TCS in Australia and the company has received a world-wide patent. Trilok containers have been in service in the Antarctic for relief missions. In the long run it is believed that manufacturing will be transferred to East Asia in order to lower the costs237.

237 Article copied from unknown journal, p. 23.

81

Figure 2-65 Three Trilok units interlock, providing an ISO standard 20ft unit. (Source: article copied from unknown journal, p. 23).

2.6.4 Linjegods: LLB – Linjegods Lastbaerer In the 1970’s, the Norwegian forwarder Linjegods came up with the idea to operate ITUs that combine the maximum permissible width of road transport (2.50 m) with the little more generous maximum width of rail transport (3.4 m) without, like turntable systems, having to twist the load units. The re-sult, the LLB (Linjegods Lastbaerer (container in Norwegian)) became operational in 1976238. At the time, the ownership of Linjegods was divided between the Norwegian State Railways (NSB) and a group of road hauliers239 which made the intermodal implementation easier. The boxes and the system specific vehicle equipment were manufactured by the Swedish company Kalmar Lagab240(today La-gab AB).

The LLB containers can carry eight Europallets241, and they can be loaded in two layers. However, LLB containers need cut upper corners in order to fit into the Norwegian railway loading profile which make the upper layer less spacious. All LLB containers are fitted with support legs and they are han-dled like swap bodies for transshipment between lorry and ground. The Norwegian containers are also equipped with tunnels for forklift truck handling.

238 JENSEN, 1990, p. 16. 239 Kalmar Lagab, product brochure, 1980, p. 8. 240 TORKELSSON, telephone interview, 21 February 1997. 241 Linjegods, product brochure, 1976, 6.

82

Figure 2-66 Linjegods’ LLB container loaded while standing on its support legs. (Source: Linjegods, product brochure, 1976, p. 2).

Beside the load units, the system requires purpose-built wagons and lorries. Special frames are fitted onto standard 2-axle rail wagons that carries four242 containers and transshipment equipment utilising a scissors lift and chains are attached to the lorries. Load units are typically equipped with a special tunnel frame in order to simplify transshipment.

Linjegods operated some 400 boxes serving 800 customers in 20 cities with expansion plans for addi-tional 60 terminals243. Reportedly, the LLB system was very well received by the shippers,244 but facts about the system’s status today have not been obtainable.

2.6.5 Kalmar Lagab: C-sam Following the Norwegian experiences with the LLB system, the Swedish State Railways (SJ) with its subsidiary Svelast developed their C-sam system245. The small-containers are very similar to their Norwegian cousins LLB containers, but the width is 2.60 m since the Swedish road regulations are

242 Linjegods, product brochure, 1976, p. 3. 243 Kalmar Lagab, product brochure, 1980, p. 8. 244 Kalmar Lagab, product brochure, 1980, p.8. 245 DAHLIN, telephone interview 10 December 1996.

83

somewhat more generous. Also the Swedish rail loading profile is generous – the C-sam containers do not need cut upper corners. The extra volume did not facilitate extra pallet places246, but less accurate and time-consuming loading was possible.

Also the Swedish system was manufactured by Kalmar Lagab and it includes purpose-built wagons and lorries as well as load units. Like in Norway, special frames are fitted onto standard 2-axle rail wagons, but the Swedish wagons can carry four247 or five248 containers. Transshipment equipment utilising a scissors lift and chains is attached to the lorries. The horizontal conveyance procedure is similar to that of CarConTrain and takes approximately 2 minutes249.

For pick up and distribution purposes, most C-sam lorries are fitted with a tail platform lift, but larger combinations for longer transport distances carries up to five containers. As shown in the figure below, the transshipment lorry is also capable of putting the containers directly onto the ground.

Figure 2-67 Some vehicle combinations carrying C-sam boxes. (Source: ASG, product brochure, 1989, p. 3).

The standard box carried eight Europallets with a maximum net weight of 6.8 tons. Thermo and bulk versions as well as a higher jumbo container carrying 16 pallets in two layers were other options. Wheel sets and support legs are optional allowing handling as a standard swap body250. From a sys-tem’s perspective, there are many similarities between C-sam and Logistikbox as described above.

246 Svelast, product brochure, 1980, p. 2. 247 ASG, product brochure, 1989, p. 3. 248 Kalmar Lagab, product brochure, 1980, p. 3. 249 HOLMQVIST and PÁLSSON, 1993, p. 47 and SCHREYER, 1996, p. 109. 250 ASG, product brochure, 1989, p. 5.

84

Figure 2-68 The lorry driver transships a C-sam container to raiway wagon. (Source: photo supplied by Kalmar Lagab).

SJ and Svelast put C-sam into operation in 1977251 as a way of decreasing the losses from SJs in-volvement in general cargo transport252. In the beginning it was functioning well both technically and commercially253. In total, the SJ family operated more than 3000254 containers, 700 rail wagons255 and several hundreds of dedicated transshipment lorries. Nevertheless, although theoretically magnificent, it never showed any commercial success in the long run. In 1988, 1800 containers and 160 lorries were taken over by the Swedish forwarder ASG256, then a part-owned subsidiary of the SJ group, but the operations could not be made economically feasible. Large scale operations were abandoned in 1992, only leaving sporadic containers in the Swedish transport system.

The failure is commonly blamed on the fact that the system employed dedicated technology257 and that the dimensions isolated it to use in Sweden. In order to build up the flows, the boxes were also used in general cargo traffic employing consolidation terminals rather than the benefits from door-to-door transport of unbroken units. Moreover, the service was initially marketed towards customers with low-value cargo such as return paper and bottles. That was in an era when the railways charged cargo types differently, but once in the container, the customers with high-value cargo could not be charged excessively. Other shortcomings are the limited size that, reputedly, made SBB and ÖBB sceptical when approached258.

251 Kalmar Lagab, product brochure, 1980, p. 7. 252 SJÖSTEDT, 1992, p. 2. 253 JENSEN, 1990, p. 16. 254 SJÖSTEDT, 1992, p. 3. 255 ADAMSSON, 1988, p. 18. 256 ADAMSSON, 1988, p. 19. 257 DAHLLÖF, 1996, p. 29. 258 JÖNSSON and KROON, 1990, p. 39.

85

2.6.6 DSB: +box Even the Danes had their version of LLB, marketed as +box by the company HMK Truck AS. The Danish road regulations limited the +box to the same measures as the LLB (2.50 x 3.40 m) but the up-per corners were not cut and it had an equal capacity of carrying 8 Europallets259. Still its size did not permit international traffic.

Figure 2-69 DSB’s +box. (Source: Schreyer, 1996, p. 76).

The +box system is now abandoned by DSB260, reportedly after a patent dispute with Lagab AB. The settlement said that DSB could use the units they already had in service, but Lagab AB owned the rights for further implementation261.

2.6.7 Mini-link and Maxi-link The Scandinavian tests with small-boxes attracted attention also in the UK262. In the end of the 1980’s two concepts designed by Swedish Lagab AB, the Mini-link and the Maxi-link, were tested263. The Mini-link was similar to the Norwegian LLB – Linjegods Lastbaerer and the tests included 12 load units. Also the Maxi-link – following similar principles but more like a standard swap body – was tested in a small scale but the tests were closed in 1989264.

259 SCHREYER, 1996, p. 75. 260 HAULUND, E-mail dated 8 October 1996. 261 TORKELSSON, fax dated 26 February 1997. 262 SCHREYER, 1996, p. 24. 263 TORKELSSON, telephone interview, 21 February 1997 and SJÖSTEDT 1992, p. 3. 264 TORKELSSON, fax dated 26 February 1997.

86

2.6.8 Costamasnaga: TR.A.I 2000 and FL.I.H.T.T. As a part of the EU-project FL.I.H.T.T. (an acronym for Flexible Intermodal Horizontal Transship-ment Techniques), Costaferroviaria in the Costamasnaga group has presented its TR.A.I. 2000 inter-modal system laboratory. A comprehensive system approach is used to give the TR.A.I. 2000 competi-tiveness over transport distances below 200 kms trough facilitating265:

• a 33% decrease of investment costs compared to existing technologies for the same quantity of units transshipped per day

• a drastic (40-70%) reduction of management and maintenance costs

• a dramatically decreased need for ground surface ensuring high penetration into urban terminal sites

The system is based upon a modular transport unit, where standardisation has been sacrificed for easy and economic robotisation. From the information available, it seems that Europallets are loaded upon larger pallets of a size comparable to a 20 foot container. Also the new family of rail wagons is spe-cialised (or “optimised” as stated by Costaferroviaria), but the system is compatible with existing lor-ries and semi-trailers, requiring small adjustments only in case of full automation. A reliable and cheap horizontal transshipment technique is said to be used, apparently by sliding the flats into the railway wagon. The goal is interoperability with a wide range of standardised and specialised load units.

Figure 2-70 The prototype of the TR.A.I. 2000. (Source: Costaferroviaria, product brochure, 1997).

The basic domestic Italian RTD project TR.A.I. 2000 has resulted in a full scale proto-type/laboratory266 and a basic operative scheme for a terminal with a capacity of 30 to 50 TEU/hour has been presented. The project is taken forward by the FL.I.H.T.T. project (EU Commission/Brite EuRam) that presently is in a study/inventory/ classification phase267 and Costaferroviaria is now searching for investors/partners for further market realisation steps268. A second research phase named

265 Costaferroviaria, product brochure, 1997. 266 MAGNI, letter dated 28 February 1997. 267 LEROUX and MERCIER-HANDISYDE, faxes dated 26 November 1996 and 20 December 1996. 268 Costaferroviaria, product brochure, 1997.

87

FL.I.H.T.T. 2, including “On Site” testing, has been proposed to the EU Commission for further fund-ing269.

2.6.9 Jenbacher: Rolling Shelf Austrian rail vehicle manufacturer Jenbacher is one of several European companies presenting solu-tions for the railways to recapture the lost general cargo market. Since this report is mainly aimed at describing and evaluating intermodal systems employing ITUs the Jenbacher Rolling-Shelf is not de-scribed in detail.

Nevertheless, the system is based upon highly mechanised indoor terminals where primarily pallets, and secondarily boxes of sizes equal to the Logistikbox will be sorted and transshipped between trains and to and from lorries. Eight wagons at the time are handled at the terminal270, then the locomotive has to move new wagons into the terminal building. The wagons are loaded from both sides and in two levels by manual forklifts or by automated equipment. The wagons are of advanced design including air suspension and disk brakes as well as automatically hoistable doors and upper shelf. They are de-signed for travelling at a speed 160 kms/hour in order not having to wait for passing passenger trains with higher priority. The internal cube is 164 m3. An advanced information system is obviously re-quired for keeping track of all small consignments.

In Sweden, SJ has received deliveries of 104 similar wagons from Finnish manufacturer Transtech. The second shelf of the wagon is hoistable giving flexibility for different cargo types on the long dis-tances related to Swedish international rail traffic. Consequently, the wagon is called the Multipur-pose-wagon and it is currently used for taking lorry cabins from Volvo’s factory in Umeå in northern Sweden to the assembly plant in Gent in Belgium271. On the way back to Sweden, the wagons are loaded with passenger cars and palletised spare parts.

2.7 BIMODAL SYSTEMS In the original bimodal systems272, semi-trailers were permanently equipped with wheels for both road and railway use. This solution is still in use in the USA (see Figure 2-72) and it was used in earlier European versions of the system. In more recent bimodal systems, reinforced semi-trailers are fitted onto railway boggies at the terminals. There are no rail wagons involved; instead two semi-trailers are mounted directly onto opposite ends of a 2-axle boggie. The basic transshipment principles are shown in the figure below.

269 MAGNI, fax dated 23 May 1997. 270 O’MAHONY, 1995/a, p. 71. 271 Transportjournalen, 1996, p. 12. 272 As argued in the terminology section (A1.2), the term bimodal should not be used for any combination of two modes of transport, but for various technical systems where semi-trailers are main components in road as well as rail operations.

88

Figure 2-71 Basic transshipment principles for bimodal systems.

The terminals are of a very simple design, the system only requires railway tracks at ground level. The solution saves tare weight, although the semi-trailers weigh approximately one ton more than standard semi-trailers in order to withstand the longitudinal forces when towed in a train. In addition, the dis-tance between two adjacent semi-trailers is reduced to about 30 cm with positive effects on train carry-ing capacity and aero dynamics.

The system has limited transfer capacity as it requires special equipment. The total transfer time is long, as only one semi-trailer can be loaded at the time. On the positive side, neither storage space nor terminal personnel need to be provided since semi-trailers are converted directly from road to rail mode by the lorry drivers.

A major problem for operating transport systems with this type of technology is the repositioning of boggies, as these are too light to be transported empty. It is also difficult to carry any kind of load car-rier and to marshal. The marshalling problem is due to the fact that the wagons cannot be easily sepa-rated, as two semi-trailers share the same boggie. These disadvantages mean that this system is best suited for a direct connection design, or for operations within an isolated system.

89

Bimodal systems are marketed by many companies under many brand names such as273:

A.T. Kearney: A.T. Kearney Cars

Breda/Ferrosud: Carro Bimodale (Bi-modal wagon)

Coda-E: Coda-E

Fruehauf/Talbot/Remafer: Kombirail (formerly marketed independently as Kombirail Kombitrailer and Semirail)

Innotermodal: 3R International system274

Reggiane: Proteo275

Sambre et Meuse: Rail Trailer

Technical University of Warsaw: Tabor Bimodalny (The Bimodal Stock)

Trailer Train Limited: Trailer Train

Transfesa: Transtrailer

Wabash: Road Railer

The bimodal systems are evaluated as a group, but two of the above systems are briefly described be-low. The prime source of information is the final report from a test carried out by Euroventure – a group formed by several European railway companies in order to test and market bimodal systems276. The test runs were carried out during 1991.

Table 2.21 Short summary evaluation: bimodal systems.

Aimed for using semi-trailers as an integral part of a train Advantages - Densely packed ITUs on rail - Easy use at private rail sidings or at forwarders’ general cargo terminals - Low demands on the terminal surface - No need for external transshipment equipment or terminal personnel – transshipment is carried out by the lorry drivers - Simple and cheap terminals - Transshipment under the overhead contact line - Very good net to tare weight ratio on rail - Bimodal semi-trailers can be accommodated in classical intermodal transport

Disadvantages - Does not accommodate standard ITUs - Firm need for transshipping the semi-trailers in sequence - Need for synchronisation of road and rail vehicles at terminals - No immediate access to any ITU - No transshipment under the overhead contact line - Not suited for corridor terminals - Problems with marshalling - Problems with repositioning of rail bogies - Relatively expensive ITUs - Relatively high tare weight of semi-trailers - Slow transshipment of full trains - Unsuitable for terminal stops along a corridor

273 For a comparison of bimodal systems in a European context, see STOLK, 1992. 274 For further information, see CN/Innotermodal, marketing video and Containerisation International, 1995/a, p. 49. 275 COVEZZI, letter dated 13 March 1997. 276 STOLK, 1992, pp. 1-3.

90

2.7.1 Wabash: Road Railer Wabash’ Road Railer has been commercially operated in the USA for many years. About 2000 units have been built. The technology is marketed in Europe by RoadRailer Europa GmbH but as several serious mistakes have been committed during the adaptation to European conditions, the tested units have spend a lot of time in the repair shop277. A detail of the first version of the RoadRailer is shown in the figure below. Note that the semi-trailer is equipped with steel as well as rubber wheels.

Figure 2-72 Detail of the RoadRailer version with rubber and steel wheels. (Source: Own photo taken at the Norfolk Southern/Triple Crown terminal in Chicago in 1993).

The newer version is based upon semi-trailers equipped with rubber wheels only and separate rail bo-gies. The aft of a RoadRailer trailer rests completely on the adapter on the rail bogie. The trailer com-ing behind in the train set has a front mounted coupling tenon that is connected to the trailer in front. The design requires very accurate driving and as the tenon must fall within the maximum 13.6 m length of semi-trailers, the loading surface is restricted by some 25 cm278.

2.7.2 Coda-E Coda-E is a European bimodal system. First invented by an NS employee in 1972, no work was done to engineer the concept and construct a prototype until 1985, when the Stork Alpha engineering group – which now owns the patent rights to the system – undertook to advance the concept and presented a prototype in 1991. Reportedly, this was due to the fact that NS did not want top promote a technology based upon road technology and the road transport industry’s unwillingness to promote any transport concept utilising rail. In 1991 the Coda-E prototype was tested by SJ in the harsh Swedish climate.

Coda-E is shortly to commence trial operations between the Netherlands and Italy in a project partially supported by European Union’s Pilot Action for Combined Transport (PACT) funds. The trials will be

277 STOLK, 1992, pp. 1-3. 278 STOLK, 1992, pp. 1-3.

91

started by the Dutch combined transport operator Rail Distri Centre Midden Holland BV, as soon as a new certificate can be obtained from the UIC279. The company has already bought the three trailers and four bogies used in the Euroventure tests in Sweden during 1991, of which one is shown in the figure below.

Figure 2-73 Coda-E unit tested in Sweden. (Source: Novem, brochure, 1991).

Advantages of the Coda-E compared to other makes is that it is supported by three suspension points – two at the back and one in the front – implying less torsion on the rail leg. Furthermore, Coda-E does not use a traditional king-pin connection to the rail bogie, but a safer concept based upon a ball bear-ing, which reduces the forces when the semi-trailer travels in different directions on rail.

2.8 RAIL WAGONS FOR RORO-TRANSHIPMENT OF SEMI-TRAILERS AND LORRIES Many designers of intermodal transport system have been inspired by the roll-on-roll-off principles behind RoRo-shipping. As all road vehicles are equipped with rubber tyres, these can obviously be used for driving the vehicles onto rail wagons. Consequently, RoRo loading of railway wagons is not a new invention. Especially in the USA with very generous rail loading profile, rolling vehicles onto a set of bridged rail wagons over a ramp was for long the dominating principle for intermodal trans-shipments. In fact, the intermodal terminals are still often referred to as “ramps” since a ramp at wagon height was practically the only thing needed for the operations. The terminal workers devel-oped certain skills as they had to drive semi-trailer tractors backwards on the train for long dis-tances280. In Europe, military tanks are usually loaded onto rail wagons in a similar way.

Rolling Highway, often also referred to as Rollende Landstrasse after the German term, was intro-duced in Europe in the 1960’s281. The main purposes of using Rolling Highway are either to overcome 279 Intermodal Shipper, 1997, p. 1. 280 For further reading about this era, see DEBOER, 1992. 281 SJÖGREN, 1996, p. 3 and WARMUTH, 1995, p. 27.

92

a natural or legislative obstacle (for instance, 90% of German Rolling Highway refer to transport crossing the Alps282) or to permit the driver of an accompanied transport to sleep during movement. After some years’ decline, European Rolling Highway services increased its share of total UIRR traf-fic to 19% in 1996283.

Clear parallels can be drawn between Rolling Highway and RoRo-ferries. The principles of Rolling Highway services are shown in the figure below:

Figure 2-74 The roll-on-roll-off principle used in Rolling Highway services.

A French and an American initiative to bring the Rolling Highway concept further ahead by using a generous loading profile have been identified:

SNCF: Autoroute Ferroviaire (new infrastructure)284

CSX Intermodal: The Iron Highway (American loading profile)285

With its generally restricted loading profiles in Europe, RoRo-technologies are rather complicated matters. Full-sized lorries and semi-trailers have to be loaded down into the hull of the rail wagon or the wagons have to be equipped with very small and maintenance demanding rail wheels. Besides the classical Rolling Highway concept, technologies for this have been presented by the following compa-nies and inventors:

Transtech: The Tiphook System

Lohr Industries: The Modalor

Cholerton: Shwople

Entwicklungsteam Kölker-Thiele: ALS (Automatic Loading System)

Firema: Twist wagon

Eriksson: FlexiWaggon

Berglund: G2000 Ro-Ro

General Motors: The Trailoader286

282 EWERS and FONGER, 1993. 283 UIRR, 1997, p. 11. 284 For further reading, see Containerisation International, 1995/b, p. 49; DE GUILHEM and MONTELH, 1996, p. 15 and SNCF, www-site: http://www.sncf.fr/dr/dpri/autorout.htm. 285 For further reading, see Cargo Systems,1996/e, p. 23 and CSX Intermodal, www-sites: http:// www .csx.com/csxiover.html and http:// www .csx.com/docs/ironhwy.html 286 For further information, see DEBOER, 1992, pp. 28-31.

93

Another disadvantage of the RoRo concepts is that the loading of whole lorries or semi-trailer implies that more capital and weight than necessary are carried around in the intermodal system. Also in the USA, the Trailer-on-Flatcar operations have lost ground to more efficient double stack container ser-vices.

Since also this family of technologies lies somewhat beside the core of the survey, they are only briefly evaluated in this appendix and only a selection of the technologies are described.

Table 2.22 Short summary evaluation: Rail wagons for RoRo-transshipment of semi-trailers and lorries.

Aimed for RoRo-transshipment of semi-trailers or lorries to rail wagons Advantages - Compact installation - Easy use at private rail sidings or at forwarders’ general cargo terminals (some designs) - Efficient surface utilisation - Facilitates integration with passenger trains - Facilitates very good utilisation of rail wagons - Fast transshipment (for single semit-trailers/lorries) - Low demands on the terminal surface - No need for external transshipment equipment or terminal personnel - Simple and cheap terminals - Suitable for corridor terminals (some designs) - The lorry driver transships the units alone - Transshipment under the overhead contact line (some designs)

Disadvantages - Does not accommodate standard ITUs - Does not accommodate standard rail wagons - Firm need for arranging the lorries in sequence (some designs) - Need for synchronisation of road and rail vehicles at terminals - Not compatible with large-scale intermodal transport - Relatively complicated and thus expensive rail wagon (some designs) - Relatively expensive ITUs - High total tare weight - Unsuitable for terminal stops along a terminal (some designs) - Uses entire vehicles of different transport modes upon each other

2.8.1 Classic Rolling Highway Rolling Highway is technically open to most road vehicles since the transfer operation is accomplished by driving onto a platform consisting of rail wagons. These are far from standard flat wagons, but this is no severe operational complication since the trains are generally operated on direct relations without marshalling. Since Rolling Highway is generally used over short distances, technical flexibility is a prerequisite. Transport of detached ITUs such as ISO-containers and swap body is, by definition, not applicable.

The first rail wagons for Rolling Highway in Austria in the 1960’s were built by Simmering-Graz Pauker Works287 and many different brands have been introduced since then. What they have in com-mon is the large number of small wheels required for keeping the platform low and that they can be hauled by a conventional rail engine on condition that a tender is put between the low built wagons and the rail engine288. The principles behind Rolling Highway are so simple that no further analysis of the technological part is given here although two wider development plans – the French Autoroute Ferroviaire and the American Iron Highway – are described under their own headings.

287 WARMUTH, 1995, p. 27. 288 JENSEN, 1990, p. 6.

94

Rolling Highway is especially popular for crossing the Alps. In fact, Rolling Highway will become compulsory in Alp transit, since it was decided in a Swiss referendum on February 20, 1994 to pro-hibit lorries to cross the Alps by road289. This is justified by environmental concern, highlighted by the fact that the trees on the Alp hillsides offer very efficient avalanche protection. Dead trees protect the valleys much worse.

Within a governmental “corridor programme” Austria started a Rolling Highway service between Graz and Regensburg, Germany, in 1984 and the service Minz-Wels the year after290. Before entering the EU, the Austrian government paid for some 80% of the costs just to get rid of the large amount of Hungarian lorries transiting to Germany. In 1994, the government supplied some ECU 70 million291. After a dramatic increase in traffic volumes, Austria now sees a dramatic decrease in the use of Roll-ing Highway, especially for the transiting lorries from the former Eastern states. The reason is that EU regulations now force Austria to cut subventions implying that the traffic has shifted back to single-mode road transport. The large subventions needed is yet another evidence for the fact that Rolling Highway is not an economically viable intermodal solution for wide implementation.

Rolling Highway is also decreasing in Germany where DB has discontinued domestic Rolling High-way services. In 1992, some 90% of German Rolling Highway traffic referred to Alp transit292. The figure below shows a transiting Rolling Highway train passing the Alps.

Figure 2-75 A Rolling Highway train passing the Brenner Pass. (Source: DB, brochure, 1992, p. 10).

After good experiences from a commercial but restricted traffic in the north of Sweden, SJ has carried out commercial tests of Rolling Highway by leasing 10 German wagons. The market aimed for was Norwegian lorries transiting to Germany294. In spite of well-elaborated analyses295 and preparations,

289 SJÖSTEDT, et al., 1994, p. 4. 290 WARMUTH, 1995, p 26. 291 HANREICH, 1995, p. 11. 292 EWERS and FONGER, 1993. 293 WOXENIUS et al., 1996, p. 19. 294 WOXENIUS et al., 1996, p. 19.

95

the results for the tests that ran under the name RoLa Scandinavia have been rather disappointing296. To be honest, it was a little odd to see the first lorry disembark the maiden train. As shown in the fig-ure below, it was an ISO-container loaded upon a semi-trailer chassis towed by a semi-trailer tractor…

Figure 2-76 The introduction of RoLa-Scandinavia in Strömstad. (Source: Own photo).

Avoiding such redundancies in the use of transport equipment is the challenge that Rolling Highway must take on in order to be a true alternative to single-mode road transport. As it is today, the hauliers using the service do not save much money for which they can pay for the rail service. Nevertheless, despite the decreases in certain countries, the overall European Rolling Highway services increased its share of total UIRR traffic to 19% in 1996 after some years’ decline297.

American tries with Rolling Highway, except for the widespread but decreasing Trailer-on-Flatcar traffic, is described under its own heading below. In Japan, JR Freight uses Rolling Highway for smaller distribution lorries of up to 4 tons of weigt. Two lorries with a vaulting roof are loaded on each wagon298.

2.8.2 SNCF: Autoroute Ferroviaire In France, SNCF advocates the construction of a dedicated rolling highway corridor with a very gen-erous loading gauge299. The long-term project has a stated aim of relieving the environment from emissions300. The trains are planned to be 750 m long and carry 35 lorries and a passenger wagon for the drivers. A frequent shuttle service travelling at 120 to 140 km/hour will give certain time benefits

295 BRYNE and LJUNGHILL, 1995. 296 DAHLIN, telephone interview, 10 October 1996. 297 UIRR, 1997, p. 11. 298 JR Freight, 1996. 299 SINGER, 1995, p. 120. 300 SNCF, www-site: http://www.sncf.fr/dr/dpri/autorout.htm.

96

to the hauliers. A terminal for handling four trains of 70 lorries per hour are planned to be as simple as two tracks with platforms on either side on a surface of 60 to 80 hectares301.

The development project started in 1991 and has now reached the prototype stage. A prototype of the articulated wagon built by Lohr Industries has gone through technical tests at SNCF that hopes to commence cross-Alpine traffic in 2006302.

SNCF compares its approach rather with the Channel Tunnel traffic and CSXI’s Iron Highway (see below) than with American Trailer-on-Flatcar traffic or classical European Rolling Highway. Two links are studied; one domestic French line between Beaune (close to Dijon) and Avignon and one cross-Alpine line to Italy. The latter line is prioritised and at a predicted construction cost of ECU 9 billion full sized lorries could be transported from Lyon to Turin303.

2.8.3 CSXI: The Iron Highway CSX Intermodal (CSXI) is an American intermodal transportation company providing door-to-door transportation over a broad rail network extending throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico. However, American intermodal transport is generally said to be competitive only at distances exceed-ing 500 miles (800 km), but as is true in Europe the bulk of transport assignments relate to the short and medium distances. With the goal of competing with single-mode road transport over distances as short as 500 km304, CSXI now introduces the Iron Highway.

Only needing a level loading surface and road network access, the Iron Highway will utilise power units at both ends of the train and a unique split ramp design that separates to provide two drive-on/drive-off surfaces for rapid loading and unloading305. As mentioned above, SNCF compares the RoRo-concept of its Autoroute Ferroviaire with the Iron Highway306 and the Iron Highway has also been compared to DB’s Cargo Sprinter as its wagon groups are semi-permanently coupled to special traction units307.

The Iron Highway is an outgrowth of a project begun by the Association of American Railroads in the 1980’s. In the early stages, it was called the "High Productivity Integral Train" (H-PIT), and its goal was to address the problems of handling different sizes of containers and the need for special load-ing/unloading facilities in the shorter-haul markets. Different suppliers were asked to design hardware to be tested by the AAR308.

CSXI, along with New York Air Brake, further developed the concept into a prototype in the early 1990’s. Its name, "Iron Highway," reflects the concept of providing alternative, cost-effective trans-

301 Containerisation International, 1995/b, p. 49. 302 DE GUILHEM and MONTELH, 1996, p. 15. 303 Containerisation International, 1995/b, p. 49. 304 Cargo Systems,1996/e, p. 23.

305 CSX Intermodal, www-site: http:// www .csx.com/csxiover.html. 306 Containerisation International, 1995/b, p. 49 and DE GUILHEM and MONTELH, 1996, p. 19. 307 Cargo Systems,1996/e, p. 23. 308 DEBOER, 1992, p. 144.

97

portation of truck trailers on a "highway" of iron rather than pavement. CSXI bought out New York Air Brake's interest in 1994.

The prototype consists of a 360 m long continuous platform capable of handling any combination of trailer lengths. The element is designed to move as many as 40 trailers of varying lengths or as few as 20 53-foot trailers. Trailers are driven on and off the ramps, without need for sophisticated terminals. Several Iron Highway elements can then be coupled to form a train309. Handling over a ramp after splitting the train is seen in the figure below.

Figure 2-77 RoRo-handling over a Iron Highway ramp after splitting the train into two units. (Source: Cargo Systems,1996/e, p. 23).

The technology, overall design and train lengths of the system were evaluated and tested in 1996 at the AAR (Association of American Railroads) Test Center Pueblo, Colorado. A commercial service pilot test on CSXT's system between Chicago and Detroit was conducted from August to November 1996 during which CSX ran in excess of 225 trains between Chicago and Detroit with an on-time arrival rate exceeding 93 percent. Line of road and terminal operations ran smoothly.

Despite the promising test results, the Iron Highway project has been suspended since CSX has to concentrate on completing its proposed merger with Conrail in the next 12 to 18 months. Once the merger is completed, CSX will examine how the Iron Highway fits into the new company’s plans310.

2.8.4 The Tiphook System The Tiphook System is based upon a railway wagon offering RoRo-handling of standard semi-trailers without marshalling. There is no need for lift pockets nor the extra strength required for vertical lift of semi-trailers. While used in its primary market in the UK, however, the trailers must have cut upper corners in order to fit into the restricted rail loading profile.

309 CSX Intermodal, www-site: http:// www .csx.com/docs/ironhwy.html. 310 CSX Intermodal, www-site: http:// www .csx.com/docs/ironhwy.html.

98

The wagon is of a rather complicated design needing compressed air for swinging out the loading bridge, upon which a semi-trailer is backed up by a semi-trailer tractor. After transhipment, the load-ing bridge is swung in again. Nevertheless, the loading bridges do not reach all the way to the ground – small and mobile inclined planes have to be positioned at the terminal. Transfer times are favourable – two men can unload and load a wagon in ten minutes311 – although a full train can take hours to unload. The wagons can also be loaded vertically at conventional intermodal terminals312.

Figure 2-78 The Tiphook System. (Source: Transtech, 1992).

Two wagon designs have been tested, one needing an external supply of compressed air and one equipped with an internal compressor313. The use of an external air supply was regarded as the best option since the internal compressor is expensive both to purchase and to maintain, however it in-creases the flexibility of the wagon. The wagons were built by Finnish Transtech314 of the Rautaruukki group and an initial order in 1990 included the manufacture of 100 wagons. Facts on how many of these that actually where built has not been obtainable.

The system’s main disadvantage is that custom-built rail wagons, with an unfavourable tare to gross weight ratio and of a rather complex design, have to be employed. Besides the need for the movable inclined planes and the air pressure machine, demands for the terminal area are very modest, princi-pally only 12 m of flat surface along the track. Storage space is not required, as the trailers are trans-ferred directly to and from the road vehicles.

311 JÖNSSON AND KROON, 1990, p. 17. 312 JÖNSSON AND KROON, 1990, p. 18. 313 JÖNSSON AND KROON, 1990, p. 16. 314 Transtech, 1992, product brochure.

99

The possibility to handle any wagon in the train makes this system well suited for mixed customer, mixed destination trains, for example trains operating in a corridor or a flexible routes design315. In order to increase the usefulness of the system, however, Tiphook wagons should be mixed with other wagons in trains also carrying containers and swap bodies. Development efforts in the early 1990’s aimed at making the wagons accommodate swap bodies and containers316.

Charterail of the UK was the first317, and to date the only, intermodal operator to introduce the Tiphook system to revenue service. A test application was transport of pet food from a production plant outside London to a break point in the urban area from which the dedicated trailers distributed the pet food to local stores. The Tiphook System is not known to be operative today.

2.8.5 Lohr Industries: The Modalor A more recent development effort was initiated by the Belgian UIRR-company T.R.W. that came up with the idea for the Modalor and contacted French rail wagon manufacturer Lohr Industries for build-ing a prototype318. In principle, the Modalor is very similar to the Tiphook System, but the technical solutions are somewhat different. Two variants of the Modalor wagon have been presented and they can accommodate standard 13.6 m semi-trailers weighing up to 33.5 and 38.5 tons respectively319. Both versions can be loaded by use of conventional vertical technologies.

The Modalor 40 is simply a rail bogie with a hull for the semi-trailer to drive into. For rail travel, the Modalor 40 must be connected to another Modalor 40 or to a single rail bogie since it is designed as a rail wagon chassis hanging between two bogies. The design can be compared to bimodal solutions, but with the advantage of accommodating standard semi-trailers rather than special bimodal trailers. A disadvantage, however, is that the hull/chassis is rather costly and that it adds weight to the train.

Transhipment can either be prepared by the rail engine driver that positions the Modalor 40’s over the tracks with intervals, or by terminal workers or drivers that swing the hulls open after the train has stopped. Both procedures – as shown in the figure below – allow the semi-trailers to be driven onto the hulls directly by use of semi-trailer tractors320. The first procedure, however, is regarded to take far too much terminal space to allow handling of many semi-trailer at each stop.

315 GISBY, 1992, p. 83. 316 JÖNSSON AND KROON, 1990, p. 18. 317 GISBY, 1992, p. 83. 318 FUKI, fax dated 29 November 1995. 319 Lohr Industries, 1995, p. 9 and 22. 320 Lohr Industries, 1996/a, p. 1-2.

100

Figure 2-79 Two ways of preparing the Modalor 40 for loading. (Source: Lohr Industries, 1995, p. 11 and 15).

The Modalor 44 is a short-coupled, independent wagon capable of taking two semi-trailers loaded tail-to-tail. The hulls are of a little different design than the Modalor 40 and they swing from a central fixed bogie by use of a rolling jack. Marketing seems to be focused onto the Modalor 40 version rather than the Modalor 44.

The technology is primarily aimed for the semi-trailer transport market, but as shown in the figure be-low, the Modalor 40 can accommodate containers up to 40 foot and swap bodies – however vertically transhipped – with a special version of the rail wagon chassis. The Modalor 44 can, seemingly, ac-commodate shorter swap bodies without special arrangements.

Figure 2-80 The Modalor loaded with a swap body on a special rail wagon chassis. (Source: Lohr Industries, 1996/b, p. 3).

101

Both Modalor versions facilitate that the semi-trailers can be loaded very densely lengthwise, espe-cially the 44 version as they are loaded with the king-pin resting above the bogies. The evaluation is similar to that of the Tiphook System above, but Lohr makes the technical solutions simpler.

2.8.6 Cholerton: Shwople In 1989, Cholerton of Isle of Man patented its “Shwople” (a parody on SHuttLE + sWOP)321, a road-rail roll on/roll off system consisting of pop-up mechanisms digged into the ground between the tracks and monowell rail wagons. One pop-up mechanism per wagon position lifts the loading floor of the wagons in order to allow RoRo handling either along the train or sideways onto platforms after twist-ing the loading surface. The transshipment is thus horizontal, but the overhead contact line must be switched off during the terminal stop322. A blue print of the system components is shown below.

Figure 2-81 Rolling highway monowell rail wagon with pop-up scissors table. (Source: Cholerton, 1995, product brochure, p. 7).

Shwople Type ”RU” accommodates unaccompanied standard semi-trailers of 13.6 m and 38.5 tonnes weight. The hydraulic pop-up mechanism lifts and turns the loading surfaces of the wagons, so that semi-trailer tractors can drive the semi-trailers on and off the wagon from the platform in a RoRo-operation as shown in the figure below. Type ”RA” is a similar version with turntables for accompa-nied tractor/trailer or articulated lorries.

321 BROWN, letter dated 18 November 1996. 322 Cholerton, 1994, product leaflet, p. 1.

102

Figure 2-82 Shwople type RU. (Source: Cholerton, 1994, model picture).

Type ”BA” is intended for Rolling Highway services with accompanied tractor/trailer or articulated combinations of 18 m maximum length and 44 tonnes maximum weight. At the terminal, the unit train is positioned so that the pop-up mechanisms match each of the 30 wagons. The loading surface of each wagon is elevated, the lorries drive onto the train and, finally, the scissors lifts submerge the loading surfaces in order to keep the loaded train within the loading profile. Hence, normal sized rail wheels can be used. Small manoeuvre units at each end transfer brake signals and electric power along the train and every fifth wagon is equipped with powered bogies. Since no turning operation is needed, a dedicated type ”BA” terminal can be equipped with simpler scissors lifts as shown in the figure below.

Figure 2-83 Shwople type BA. (Source: Cholerton, 1994, blue print).

The different types can use the same terminal which also means that by combining the wagon types, different combinations of loads and handling principles can be used for the same train. For obvious reasons, the system must be redesigned in order to accommodate the 18.75 m lorries soon allowed in all EU member states.

103

Cholerton’s Seaform division also designs access systems for short sea, inland waterway and marine ro-ro ships323 as described in the road-sea section below.

2.8.7 Entwicklungsteam Kölker-Thiele: ALS German Entwicklungsteam Kölker-Thiele has presented the Automatic Loading System (ALS), an innovative equipment for horizontal transshipment of semi-trailers between purpose built railway wagons and station platforms. The transshipment equipment is of a caterpillar design able to climb small differences in height between wagon and platform as shown below324.

Figure 2-84 An image of a future ALS terminal. (Source: Entwicklungsteam Kölker-Thiele, product brochure, 1997, p. 3).

Two caterpillar units are carried on board each railway wagon and a whole train carrying 28 semi-trailers can be simultaneously unloaded and loaded in about 5 minutes325, however requiring a plat-form as long as the train. Since the ALS allows transshipment to both platform sides, the distance be-tween the unloaded semi-trailers is sufficient for the semi-trailer tractors to pick-up any semi-trailer.

The ALS technology aims for transshipment of semi-trailers in a corridor type of service and Entwick-lungsteam Kölker-Thiele specificly notes that it can be integrated into today’s intermodal transport system326.

2.8.8 Eriksson: FlexiWaggon Wagons for Rolling Highway services in the Nordic countries meet specific requirements related to the long, high and heavy lorries allowed in Finland and Sweden. Also Norwegian lorries transporting

323 BROWN, conference presentation 28 January 1997. 324 KÖLKER, fax dated 19 February 1997. 325 Entwicklungsteam Kölker-Thiele, product brochure, 1997, p. 5. 326 Entwicklungsteam Kölker-Thiele, product brochure, 1997, p. 3.

104

fish to continental Europe start as heavy vehicles but melting ice reduces the weight to the regulated 40 tons at the German border. The latter fact was one reason for the partly disappointing outcome of SJ’s commercial tests of a Rolling Highway service for transiting Norwegian lorries. The wagons were leased from Germany and could not accomodate the many lorries with iced fish327.

The FlexiWaggon solves the problems by having a long, strong and extremely low-built platform that can be swung out between the bogies. In practice, the wheels of the lorry and trailer will be between 250 to 350 mm above the upper edge of the rail depending on the axle distance of the wagon. Conven-tional Rolling Highway wagons has a platform at least 450 mm above the rails. The twisting loading platforms allows each wagon to be loaded and unloaded separately and at the same time. Only the lorry drivers are needed for the quick loading and unloading which takes 5 to 10 minutes per lorry and train. No reverse driving is needed and transshipment can be done even if the wagon is in the middle of a fully loaded train. Standard wheels (820 – 920 mm) are used which give lower costs especially regarding maintenance and together with flexible bogies also give possibilities for higher speeds. An image of the wagon is shown in the figure below.

Figure 2-85 Eriksson’s FlexiWaggon (Source: Eriksson, E-mail dated 97 01 15)

Strength calculations, general plans and computer simulation of construction have been carried out. Successful computer simulations of the passability on the Swedish and Norwegian railway network have been made by the National Rail Administration in Sweden and the NSB in Norway regarding maximum length, width and height of the loaded wagon. Contacts are also taken with international wagon builders, road carriers, companies with a big bulk of transports, different railway companies and authorities, research institutes etc. Furthermore, pollution calculations regarding emissions from transport by electric train, diesel train and lorry are made (incl. energy calculations). The transport economy is also calculated for the different modes of transportation, a market survey is started and patent is granted. The next step is the financing and building of a prototype which will be tested and evaluated.

327 DAHLIN, telephone interview 10 October 1996.

105

2.8.9 Berglund: G2000 Ro-Ro The G200 Ro-Ro is an innovative concept based upon an integral train with a new design. The load-bearing component is not the bottom but the roof of the wagons. Plastics or composite materials are used rather than traditional steel. The Karlskrona Shipyard Company, with long experience from con-structions in composite materials, has shown that it is possible to build a wagon with a 26-metre load length (facilitating transport of Swedish 24-metre lorries) and a carrying capacity of 70 tons. The net weight of such a wagon is estimated to just 18 tons328.

The train set can be swung open and lorries and semi-trailers can be backed into the hull of the train. Lifting devices in the train body sides allow for loading of swap bodies and containers that are lifted directly off lorries that are driven into the train. Transshipment is possible underneath the overhead contact line. The unloading of a complete lorry is shown in the figure below.

Figure 2-86 A lorry driving out of the opened G2000 Ro-Ro wagon in open position. (Source: Berglund, bro-chure, 1997).

The next step in the development is to calculate the economics of train operations based upon the G2000 RoRo train. The project is run by Mr. L. Berglund with support from Stiftelsen Innovationscen-trum SIC.

2.9 BULK CONTAINER SYSTEMS Less damageable cargo types – mainly refuse, liquids, powder and other bulk materials – facilitate for more innovative ITU designs and transshipment principles. This section is added merely for orienta-tion, and the technologies are only breifly described and evaluated since they are not applicable for general cargo.

328 Berglund, brochure, 1997, p. 2.

106

Table 2.23 Short summary evaluation: bulk container systems.

Aimed for floor-to-floor transport of part loads Advantages - Can be designed specifically for local needs - Easy use at private rail sidings or at forwarders’ gen-eral cargo terminals - Innovative solutions possible due to the cargo charac-ter - Low demands on the terminal surface - Transshipment under the overhead contact line

Disadvantages - Accommodates only special ITUs - Does not accommodate standard ITUs - Does not accommodate standard rail wagons (some brands) - Does not accommodate standard road vehicles (some brands) - Not compatible with large-scale intermodal transport - Some handling principles not applicable for general cargo

2.9.1 SJ: Bulk container For transportation of bulk material such as wood chips, SJ has developed a type of container and a transshipment device for forklift trucks. The container has a central tunnel with a square cross section. The transshipment device has a matching stick that allow it to lift and tilt the container for easy empty-ing in stacks at the terminal. For natural reasons, the technology is intended for use at private sidings, e.g. at a district heating plant using wood chips as fuel. Since wood chips make up rather light cargo, the need for hardening the terminal surface is moderate.

Figure 2-87 SJ’s bulk container system for wooden chips. (Source: Transportjournalen, 1994, p. 24-25).

The container has a tare weight of 2.3 tons and its carrying capacity is 14.8 tons/45 m3. Beside the cen-tral tunnel, they are equipped with standard lift pockets which allows transshipment with conventional gantry cranes and reach stackers. Currently, the containers are used for all-rail transport with dedicated 2-axle wagons, but as the containers have ISO standard bottom corner pockets they can be loaded upon any container flat wagon or lorry329. For easier emptying, they are equipped with a patented tar-paulin in the bottom. Today 154 wagons are used commercially for wood chips transport330 and fur-ther applications such as transport of waste, iron ore, coal, grain and fertilisers are sought for331.

329 Transportjournalen, 1994, p. 25. 330 Transportjournalen, 1996, p. 11. 331 Transportjournalen, 1994, p. 25.

107

2.9.2 Intermodal Technologies: The Railaway Plus Also the Americans have identified the possibilities for innovative handling methods for bulk materi-als. Intermodal Technologies, Inc. has presented its Railaway Plus system that is based upon the fol-lowing components:

The Bulkbox: a 22 x 10 x 8 foot aluminium bulkcontainer with 52 m3/25 tons capacity.

The Bulkmover: a lifting and tilting device mounted on a standard wheelloader.

The Bulkrailer: a special railway wagon with guidance/locking system carrying four Bulkboxes.

The Intermodal Trailer: A 48 foot aluminium trailer carrying one Bulkbox.

All components of the Railaway Plus system are shown in the figure below where a Bulkbox is trans-shipped from a Bulkrailer to the Intermodal Trailer – an operation carried out in less than two minutes. Transshipment of a Bulkbox standing on the ground to a Bulkrailer is said to take just 30 seconds332.

Figure 2-88 The Railaway Plus system. (Source: Intermodal Technologies, Inc., product brochure, 1995, p. 3).

The Bulkbox is similar to SJ’s bulk container but instead of being twisted around the centre point by a stick on a fork-lift truck, it is tilted by use of the Bulkmover device mounted on a large wheelloader. The device, however, is similar to the fork of the fork-lift.

332 Intermodal Technologies, Inc., product brochure, 1995.

108

Figure 2-89 Emptying a Bulkbox by tilting it over the edge. (Source: Intermodal Technologies, Inc., product brochure, 1995, p. 2).

Contrary to SJ’s open-top container, the Bulkbox is covered with a water tight lid during rail transport.

2.9.3 System Altvater An unusual form of container handling is presented by the Altvater company. Cylindrical containers are actually rolled between road vehicles and rail wagons along their longitudinal axes. This ultimate RoRo transshipment obviously limits the range of cargo to bulk materials insensitive to hard treat-ment. Variants for waste and heated materials respectively are offered333.

333 SCHREYER, 1996, p. 24.

109

3 LARGE SCALE ROAD-RAIL TECHNOLOGIES

As argued for in the concluding section of the dissertation, the central regions of Europe will probably select highly automated terminals while the remote regions must seek other efficient systems that do not require large investments at many terminals. Most attention is currently paid to the large-scale technologies of which some are marketed as the solutions to all problems of intermodal transport. With separate network modules, the large-scale terminals will also play a role as gateway terminals linking regional network modules. The latter potential application is the reason for describing this technology family in such detail in this report.

3.1.1 Krupp: Fast Handling System In Germany, there is a demand for technologies offering fast transshipments, high surface utilisation and reduced noise emission in order to operate corridor trains with frequent stops at terminals in urban areas in addition to shuttle and feeder trains. This is the target market for Krupp’s Fast Handling Sys-tem that is characterised by automated and fast transshipment with a compact installation. Standard ITUs such as containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers are transshipped to and from standard railway wagons and lorries via an open storage area or a high-bay warehouse. The warehouse can be contained in a building thus reducing noise emission at urban terminal sites as well as weather related problems during winter. A similar solution based upon a crane and a high-bay warehouse has also been pre-sented by Schmitz334.

The speed of the handling device – referred by Krupp to as the Rendez-vous-Technique – is well illus-trated by the fact that the ITUs are transshipped while the trains slowly pass the terminal335. The rail and road sides of the terminal employ different cranes and a modular design allows adaptability to dif-ferent requirements and capacities.

The Fast Handling System is regarded to be suitable for all the train operation principles described in section 4.2.1 of the dissertation, although a hub and spoke design implies intermediate buffer storage of ITUs to quite an extent. The system is considered to be best fitted for the corridor design. The peak capacity is specified as handling of a 600 m train with 40 containers or swap bodies in 15 minutes336.

A pilot installation with the Rendez-vous-Technique operating at low and medium handling rates was opened in 1994337, financed partly by the Ministry of Economy, Middle Class and Technology of the Land Nordrhein Westfalen338, and partly by the EU Commission through its PACT funds339, and has become operational in co-operation with DB AG in Duisburg-Rheinhausen, Germany340. The test fa-cility is shown in the figure below.

334 Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981, p. 44. 335 LANGE, 1994, p. 208. 336 Krupp, product brochure, 1993. 337 O’MAHONY, 1996/a, pp. 39-42. 338 SONDERMANN, E-mail dated 15 May 1997. 339 UIRR, 1995, p. 22. 340 SONDERMANN, letter dated 16 December 1996.

110

Figure 3-1 Krupp’s Fast Handling System. (Source: Krupp, product brochure 1993).

Earlier plans included a full scale terminal for DUSS in Dresden with operations commencing in 1998341, but now Krupp plans to build the terminal for DB AG in the German Network of Combined Transport in either Dresden or Ulm. The changed plans mean that the operations can start first in 1999. Also this development might benefit from PACT funding342. So far, a contract for further technical development and preparation of a medium size terminal has been signed with DB AG343. Krupp also takes part in the IMPULSE RTD-project within the EU Commission’s Fourth Framework Pro-gramme344.

341 O’MAHONY, 1996/b, p. 26. 342 European Commission, 1997/a, p. 15 and SONDERMANN, E-mail dated 15 May 1997. 343 SONDERMANN, 1997, p. 4. 344 MINARINI, presentation, 1997.

111

Table 3.24 Short summary evaluation: Krupp’s Fast handling System.

Aimed for fast transshipment along a transport corridor. Advantages - Compact installation - Facilitates good utilisation of rail wagons - Facilitates integration with passenger trains - Fast transshipment - High capacity and short train and lorry stops - Low number of staff required due to high degree of automation - Modular design (however relatively large modules) - No need for shunting - Potential for very good utilisation of rail wagon - Suitable for corridor terminals - Takes a wide range of ITUs - The combination of rail-rail hub at night and conventional road-rail terminal at daylight

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus expensive - Large scale - Low average crane utilisation? - Must be integrated into network operations in order to be cost efficient - No transshipment under the overhead contact line

3.1.2 Technicatome and SNCF: Commutor Technicatome and the French State Railways (SNCF) has developed an experimental transfer station for containers and swap bodies. In its first stage, it is designed to replace a marshalling yard, although later developments might comprise a road vehicle interface and thus form a complete intermodal ter-minal. The development includes transshipment equipment, rail wagons and supporting technologies.

The system is based upon vertical handling of ITUs. When the train is in position at the terminal, a separate system – the CATOFF – removes the overhead contact line laterally and another system pro-pels the train through the terminal, thus making diesel-powered shunting engines unnecessary. The terminal is intended for a hub function and several integral trains stop at the terminal at the same time. One crane per ITU position transfer containers and swap bodies between trains directly or via a stor-age area using automatic vehicles for moves along the trains. These features give a high capacity and very short transfer times making this system well suited for serving as the centre of a hub and spoke design suitable to France. By use of far-reaching automation, only four employees are needed for shifting ITUs between nine full trains every hour. Also surface utilisation is high and selling the ground of an old marshalling yard should be a well needed first contribution when financing a new Commutor terminal. The cost is estimated at FFr 1 billion (ECU 150 million)345.

345 O’MAHONY, 1994, p. 55.

112

Figure 3-2 Commutor of Technicatome and SNCF. (Source: Technicatome, presentation sketch, 1996).

A severe shortcoming is that the system employs dedicated rail wagons346. Hence, the technology is restricted to the hub function in an isolated hub-and-spoke network – if standard wagons were used, a much larger market for gateway terminals would be open. Nevertheless, Technicatome states that new and better adapted wagons are needed for the intermodal transport system of tomorrow anyway347 and they might have a point in that. The wagons are very flexible when it comes to handle varieties of ITUs. This is illustrated by the fact (as mentioned above) that a joint working group between SNCF and DB AG was formed in March 1989, with the aim to make the Commutor and Logistikbox systems compatible348.

A facility for testing Commutor components and subsystems has been built at Trappes outside Paris, but the development efforts are now terminated. Nevertheless, parts of the technology are about to be implemented, e.g. the CATOFF, that will be implemented at the Holland Eastgate Terminal in the Netherlands349.

In order to cope with the high initial investment Technicatome recently presented a modular design with five crane positions350. After unloading and loading five wagons, the train moves ahead and posi-tions the next five wagons under the cranes and so on until the whole train is handled.

346 LANGE, 1994, p. 208. 347 LEROUX, fax dated 21 February 1997. 348 WACKER and WENDLER, 1992, p. 233. 349 Cargo Systems, 1996/b, p. 15. 350 LEROUX, fax dated 21 February 1997.

113

Table 3.25 Short summary evaluation: Commutor of Technicatome and SNCF.

Aimed for fast transshipment between trains at the hub of a hub-and-spoke system. Advantages - Compact installation - Efficient surface utilisation - Facilitates good utilisation of rail wagons - Facilitates the combination of rail-rail hub at night and conventional road-rail terminal at daylight - Fast and efficient transshipment of full train loads from the terminal area - Fast transshipment - High capacity and short train and lorry stops - Low number of staff required due to high degree of automation - Modular design (however relatively large modules) - No need for shunting - Possibility to prepare transshipment before train enters the terminal

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus expensive - Does not accommodate standard rail wagons - Large scale - Low average crane utilisation? - Must be integrated into network operations in order to be cost efficient - No transshipment under the overhead contact line

3.1.3 Pentaplan: High capacity terminal – HoT (Hochleistungsterminal)

To meet a future demand for high capacity technologies for use at gateway terminals and terminals for fixed routes, flexible routes and corridor traffic designs, Austrian Pentaplan has designed its High Ca-pacity Terminal (HoT from Hochleistungsterminal in German). The concept is designed to have the following characteristics351:

• High capacity for peak demand

• Indirect transshipment of containers and swap bodies with possibilities for intermediate storage

• Short stops for full trains and lorries

• No need for shunting

• Transshipment under existing overhead contact line

• Compact installation for urban areas

• Modular extension potential

• Ability to be the core resource of transport networks and freight villages

The HoT meets these target characteristics by use of a modular design. The core module is obviously the train loading system with side-loading machines and a pre-positioning system. A full size side-loading machine is a gantry crane overreaching two pre-positioning lanes and it is equipped with an arm with a spreader that reaches out sideways over one train loading track on each side. The side-loading machine exchanges containers and swap bodies between trains or between a train and a pre-positioning lane under the overhead contact line. Train stops can be kept very short by careful prepara-tion before train arrival and by use of several side-loading machines running along 700 m of loading 351 POSCH and SCHNEIDER, 1993, p. 210.

114

tracks equalling the length of full trains. For a 105 TEU train, 30 minutes are stipulated as transfer time. If only 50 TEU are to be transshipped, 10-15 minutes are enough352.

Figure 3-3 The side loading machine of Pentaplan’s High capacity terminal (HoT). (Source: Posch and Schneider, 1993).

Lorries are loaded and unloaded at a separate module using a more conventional transshipment tech-nique.

Another module, however optional, is the high-bay warehouse that is primarily used for saving surface at urban terminals, allowing not only containers but also swap bodies to be stacked. The reason for stacking containers in racks rather than simply upon each other is that fortuitous container can easily be accessed. Nevertheless, if there is a need for long time stacking of empty containers, a separate con-tainer pool operated with a traditional gantry crane can be added.

Other modules for making up a complete freight village, however not specified in detail by Pentaplan, are a barge loading port, consolidation terminals for general cargo, survey and repair shops for ITUs, fuelling stations and premises for maintenance of lorries.

Pre-positioning and internal transport between freight village modules are carried out by driverless and track-bound sleds that grip the ITUs from below. For obvious reasons, an advance information system is a prerequisite for controlling all operations.

352 SCHREYER, 1996, pp. 63-65 and 107.

115

Figure 3-4 A freight village based upon Pentaplan’s High capacity terminal (HoT). (Source: Posch and Schneider, 1993).

The development project was cleverly managed by Pentaplan starting out from the terminal environ-ment lining up new train operation philosophies and the technology’s role in a freight village. This is obviously the right approach, unfortunately not frequently used by inventors in the field. Governmen-tal funding took the project to a state where Austrian steel producer Voest Alpine-MCE took an inter-est in the technology, planning for a terminal at their premises in Linz. A further development includ-ing a demonstration test site for a gateway function that was proposed for funding under the EU Com-mission's Fourth Framework Programme, was unfortunately rejected. The project now continues on a national level.

Table 3.26 Short summary evaluation: Pentaplan’s High capacity terminal.

Aimed for fast transshipment at terminals along a transport corridor. Advantages - Compact installation - Efficient surface utilisation - Fast transshipment - High capacity and short train and lorry stops - Low number of staff required due to high degree of automation - Modular design - No need for shunting - Possibility to prepare transshipment before train enters the terminal - Potential for good utilisation of rail wagon - Suitable for corridor terminals - Transshipment under the overhead contact line

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus expensive - Large scale - Must be integrated into network operations in order to be cost efficient

116

3.1.4 Noell: Mega Hub Concept Noell’s Mega Hub353 concept was developed keeping the following specifications in mind354:

• a capacity of half a million transshipments a year • nightly use for rail-rail transshipment • operation as a conventional rail-road transshipment terminal during daytime • a very high night-time capacity of ten transshipment or five sorting cycles a minute • a comparatively small storage capacity of approximately 270 spaces

The handling manoeuvres are executed on an area covering approximately 730 x 80 m where the trains remain during the entire procedure. Ten gantry cranes have direct access to the lorry lanes, loading tracks, storage lanes and sorting area. Crane handling manoeuvres are preferably carried out in the di-rection of trolley travel. The main travelling mechanisms are primarily used for positioning operations and not for transporting the ITUs along the tracks. The ITUs are transported longitudinally by a sys-tem of horizontal shuttle wagons to prevent the cranes from obstructing each other355. Hence the main characteristics are similar to those of the French Commutor, however employing standard rail wagons and a smaller number of conventional gantry cranes. With slightly different layouts or operation prin-ciples, the Mega Hub concept is considered to be suitable to serve as a hub, a gateway or as a corridor terminal. Although Noell aims at implementing a full scale terminal, the design allows a gradual in-vestment with the addition of new cranes along with increased flows.

Figure 3-5 Noell’s Mega Hub Concept. (Source: Noell, product brochure, 1996).

A pure rail-rail transshipment terminal could preferably be built in the countryside if the served rail-way lines cross there. However, as the terminal is supposed to work as a standard road-rail terminal

353 Mega-Drehscheibe in German. 354 Noell Stahl- und Maschinenbau GmbH, Product brochure, 1996. 355 FRANKE and HÄFFNER, 1996.

117

during daytime, the localisation becomes more crucial and probably a rather central site will be cho-sen. Since the terminal is intended to work intensely during night-hours, such a location requires the terminal to be covered in order to reduce noise emissions.

A full scale terminal using Noell’s Mega Hub concept is planned to be built for DB AG in Lehrte356.

Table 3.27 Short summary evaluation: Noell’s Mega Hub Concept.

Aimed for fast transshipment at terminals along a transport corridor. Advantages - Compact installation - Efficient surface utilisation - Fast transshipment - High capacity and short train and lorry stops - Low noise emissions (if covered) - Low number of staff required due to high degree of automation - Modular design (however relatively large modules) - No need for shunting - Possibility to prepare transshipment before train enters the terminal - Potential for very good utilisation of rail wagon - Suitable for corridor terminals - Takes a wide range of ITUs - The combination of rail-rail hub at night and conventional road-rail terminal at daylight - Use of conventional and well proven technology

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus expensive - Large scale - Low average crane utilisation? - Must be integrated into network operations in order to be cost efficient - No transshipment under the overhead contact line

3.1.5 Noell: Fast Transshipment System To meet the demands for high space utilisation in German cities, Noell has also developed a fast trans-shipment technology utilising intermediate storing in a three story high-bay warehouse. The concept is based upon the idea of the train being able to drive straight into a high-bay warehouse. The terminal is divided into a number of parallel racks for the storage, and aisles for the transshipment of ITUs. Either a railway track or a lorry lane is assigned to the individual aisle, which is also provided with the re-quired number of handling devices for loading and unloading. The system is of a modular design which means that more storage space and railway tracks or lorry lanes can be added as the flow in-creases357. A basic module covering one track and one lane is designed for a capacity of 30 to 80 transshipments per hour358.

356 O’Maahony, 1996/a, pp. 39-42 and FRANKE, fax dated 16 May 1997. 357 Noell Stahl- und Maschinenbau GmBH, Product brochure, 1995. 358 FRANKE, fax dated 16 May 1997.

118

Figure 3-6 Noell’s Fast Transshipment System. (Source: Noell Stahl- und Maschinenbau GmBH, product brochure, 1995).

Containers, swap bodies as well as semi-trailers can be transshipped. The ability to transship and store semi-trailers calls for large cranes and racks. The development project has come up with blue prints and a working model, but until a customer is found no full scale prototype is planned.

Table 3.28 Short summary evaluation: Noell’s Fast Transshipment System.

Aimed for fast transshipment at terminals along a transport corridor. Advantages - Compact installation - Fast transshipment - High capacity and short train and lorry stops - Low number of staff required due to high degree of automation - Modular design (however relatively large modules) - Possibility to prepare transshipment before train enters the terminal - Suitable for corridor terminals

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus expensive - Large scale - Lorry-side crane cannot be used for loading and unloading trains - Low average crane utilisation? - Must be integrated into network operations in order to be cost efficient - No transshipment under the overhead contact line

3.1.6 Tuchschmid: The Compact Terminal Tuchschmid Engineering AG, Swiss producer of high-bay warehouses and intermodal equipment for the ACTS system (see section 2.3.3), has presented a modular concept for medium to high capacity transshipment at a small terminal surface – the Compact Terminal. A minimum installation can be configured to handle 20 ITUs per day, but a capacity in the range of 100 to 1000 transshipments a day would make full use of the concept.

This concept uses components, who have a proven technical performance, in new functions. It is de-signed for direct transshipment of ITUs between trains or between lorries and trains but ITUs can also be stored and retrieved by use of AGVs. The largest terminal configuration presented uses a separate

119

module for transshipment between the storage area and lorries. The concept is technologically flexible as it accommodates a wide range of standardised ITUs and rolling stock. Containers, swap bodies as well as semi-trailers are said to be handled although semi-trailers cannot be accommodated in the automatic storage zone359.

The modular design allows the investor to configure the terminal to meet actual demand as it develops over time. The modular building blocks are360:

• Removal system for electrical overhead contact line for trains

• Overhead travelling crane for direct road-rail transshipment

• Buffer zone for short term storage

• AGVs for automatic movement between transshipment and storage areas

• Smaller overhead travelling crane for transshipment between storage area and lorries

• Forwarding module for stuffing and stripping of ITUs as well as sorting general cargo

In a further development, Tuchschmid divides its concept into four modules: Transshipment module, Intermediate storage module, Road module and Distribution or forwarding module361.

The concept is similar to Krupp Fast Handling System in the sense that it uses overhead travelling cranes and Noell Mega Hub in the overall concept, however using different cranes for road and rail side operations in the largest configuration.

Figure 3-7 Tuchschmid: The Compact Terminal. (Source: Erni, 1996).

359 ERNI, fax dated 11 May 1997. 360 ERNI, 1995 and 1996 and ERNI, fax dated 11 May 1997. 361 ERNI, fax dated 11 May 1997.

120

Today, commercial and technical feasibility have been proven and as the concept employs current technologies, many of the components are in regular use. The design has attracted interest from the companies DB AG, Kombiverkehr and HUPAC362.

Table 3.29 Short summary evaluation: Tuchschmid’s Compact Terminal.

Aimed for fast transshipment at terminals along a transport corridor. Advantages - Compact installation - Direct as well as indirect road-rail transfer possible - Fast transshipment - High capacity and short train and lorry stops - Low noise emissions (if covered) - Low number of staff required due to high degree of automation - Modular design (however relatively large modules) - No need for shunting - Possibility to prepare transshipment before train enters the terminal - Suitable for corridor terminals - Use of conventional and well proven technology

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus expensive - Large scale - Low average crane utilisation? - Must be integrated into network operations in order to be cost efficient - No transshipment under the overhead contact line

3.1.7 Thyssen: Container Transport System (CTS) Also Thyssen Aufzüge GmbH has presented a technology designed to meet the German demand for high throughput at a limited terminal surface. Their Container Transport System (CTS) is a further development of aerial cableways363 and thus comparable to a ski lift where the seats are exchanged for container spreaders. However, to handle the deflection, the spreaders are mounted on sleds that travel on overhead rails.

The spreader sleds move the containers along the train to the appropriate rail wagon where it is low-ered. As the name implies, container transport and transshipment is the main target market, but also swap bodies and semi-trailers could be handled with the same principal design. Maximal lifting capac-ity is defined as 41 tons.

362 O’MAHONY, 1996/a, pp. 39-42. 363 LANGE, 1994, p. 208.

121

Figure 3-8 Thyssen: CTS (Source: DB AG, 1995).

The development project is now terminated364 reportedly primarily due to internal reorganisation at Thyssen.

Table 3.30 Short summary evaluation: Thyssen CTS.

Aimed for fast transshipment at terminals along a transport corridor. Advantages - Compact installation - High capacity and short train and lorry stops - Innovative technology transfer from other application - Low number of staff required due to high degree of automation - Modular design (however relatively large modules) - No need for shunting - Possibility to prepare transshipment before train enters the terminal - Suitable for corridor terminals

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus expensive - Large scale - Long travelling distance to transshipment point - Low average crane utilisation? - Must be integrated into network operations in order to be cost efficient - No transshipment under the overhead contact line

3.1.8 Mannesmann Transmodal: Transmann Mannesmann Transmodal has launched a product range in the intermodal field under the product fam-ily name Transterminal. Like Tuchschmid’s Compact Terminal, the Transterminal is truly modular and can be designed to meet actual throughput demand. It is also an open technology that, according to Mannesmann365, is also tailored to accommodate future developments. The modules are marketed with individual brand names including:

364 GRIEME, letter dated 7 October 1996. 365 Mannesmann Transmodal, product brochure, 1996.

122

Transmann: Telescopic handling machine combining the principle of gantry cranes and reach stackers.

TLS: Computerised terminal management system

Transstacker: Long-term external storage facility

AGVs Driverless Terminal Transporters (not a Mannesmann brand name)

The Transmann is regarded as the innovative part of the technology. It replaces a conventional gantry crane but has, however at the price of excluding semi-trailers, the capability of transshipping under-neath existing electrical overhead contact line. As a result, time and cost consuming shunting and clas-sification operations as well as brake checks no longer need to be carried out.

A hydraulically driven telescopic mono-beam connected to an active spreader lifts and guides contain-ers and swap bodies at four strips that normally are configured as one rail track, two intermediate stor-age lanes and one lorry driving lane. Weight and length restrictions of ITUs are 41 tons and 45-foot respectively meaning that the swap bodies of semi-trailer length that are becoming more common in Europe366 can be handled. Fully automatic or semi-automatic modes can be chosen for transshipping up to 40 ITUs an hour.

Parts of the technology are commercially proven, e.g. the AGVs that constitute a central resource in ECT’s Delta Terminal in Rotterdam where 50 AGVs are operational and 60 more are ordered. The Transmann in full scale is planned for Erfurt as a part of the German DM 400 million (ECU 205 mil-lion) plan to build seven new terminals, but the Transterminal will not employ AGVs and external storage areas in the first development phase367. Mannesmann also takes part in the OSIRIS RTD-project within the EU Commission’s Fourth Framework Programme, however not primarily for devel-oping the Transmann368.

366 THOMAS, 1996. 367 O’MAHONY, 1996/a, pp. 39-42. 368 FIRSCHING, 1997.

123

Figure 3-9 Mannesmann Transmodal’s Transmann. (Source: Mannesmann Transmodal, product brochure, 1996).

Table 3.31 Short summary evaluation: Mannesmann’s Transmann.

Aimed for fast transshipment at terminals along a transport corridor. Advantages - Compact installation - Fast transshipment - Modular design (however relatively large modules) - No need for shunting - Suitable for corridor terminals - Transshipment under the overhead contact line

Disadvantages - Complicated and thus rather expensive - Relatively large scale

3.1.9 DEMAG: The DEMAG System In the late 1970’s, the German company DEMAG has presented a gantry crane able to transship con-tainers and swap bodies under the overhead contact line. The gantry crane is designed in three sizes with spans ranging from 21.7 m to 41.1 m369. The feature that distinguishes it from traditional gantries is its L-shaped mounting of the spreader. Much more information has not been obtainable, but the pic-ture below is rather illustrative.

369 Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981, p. 39.

124

Figure 3-10 The DEMAG System. (Source: Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981, p. 39).

The technology is not further described or evaluated since it brings about all other shortcomings of gantry cranes and it is no real alternative for small-scale intermodal transshipment.

3.1.10 Aachen University of Technology: System Aachen Another gantry able to transship underneath the overhead contact line was presented by Aachen Uni-versity of Technology, also in the late 1970’s370. This design is similar to ship-to-shore gantry cranes as the forces are carried by a pilar with wires holding the beam. The spreader is carried by a sledge that runs on wheels upon the beam as shown in the figure below.

Figure 3-11 System Aachen. (Source: Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981, p. 40).

The System Aachen operates in conjunction with a traditional gantry and it should be suitable also for operation in inland ports. With the same argument as for the DEMAG System, no further description or evaluation is forwarded here.

370 Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981, p. 40.

125

4 ROAD-RAIL-SEA TECHNOLOGIES

At the beginning of the industrial age, the localisation of industrial activities was restricted to places with a supply of raw material or port access. First trains and then lorries changed the geographical re-strictions and thanks to the containerisation, port access is hardly a localisation factor for the manufac-turing industry anymore.

This section focuses on technologies used at the interaction points between shipping and land-bound modes of road and rail. The rendering is not restricted to conventional ports371, as small-scale tech-nologies are of priority, technologies not requiring extensive port facilities are sought for. The section is divided between three parts of the shipping market: inland navigation, short sea shipping and deep sea shipping. Since deep sea shipping normally implies large ships and long voyages, that rendering is not restricted to small-scale technologies, but the focus is still on future technologies.

4.1 ROAD-RAIL-INLAND NAVIGATION In line with the increasing congestion on the European roads, politicians look for alternative means of transport with a comparable transport quality. Beside the rail mode, they look at the inland waterways for relieving the highways from saturation.

The Netherlands is probably the leading European country when it comes to transport of ISO-containers on inland waterways. It goes without saying that the main reason for this is the huge mass of ISO-containers372 that is moved to and from the container terminals in Rotterdam. The access to the Rhine and the lack of capacity on roads and railways373 make barges a suitable way of moving con-tainers to and from the hinterland. Annual flows between Rotterdam and Germany amounts to 600 000 containers of which a large part is generated by the Ruhr area374. Not surprisingly, the Netherlands takes a leading role also in the development of container ships for inland waterways although co-operation with German ports necessitates technical co-operation.

Some of the new concepts for transshipment to and from barges and other ships for inland waterways are presented in this section.

4.1.1 Roller Barge The Roller Barge is a twin-hulled barge onto which blocks of several ISO-containers can be rolled. The concept was presented in 1995 by the consultants H. Huijsman and P. Swaak together with F. van der Gevel of the shipping company Gevelco and C. Backer of Conprose Engineering375.

371 For conventional port handling technologies, see, e.g., EURET, 1995; European Commission, 1997/b; MULLER, 1995 and SCHREYER, 1996. 372 In 1995, 4.8 million TEUs where transshipped in Rotterdam and 5 million are estimated for 1996 and 5.2 million for 1997 (Cargo Systems, 1997/b). 373 HUIJSMAN, 1995, p. 1. 374 VAN HORSSEN, 1996, p. 27. 375 Nieuwsblad Transport, 1995.

126

The intention is that a block of pre-stacked container will be rolled in one move from the quay onto a hydraulically operated platform on the river barge. Once the container stack has been positioned onto the platform, it would be lowered to the stowage deck level by a hydraulic scissors lift system. When the platform is at the deck level the blocks of containers will be rolled horizontally to their intended stowage position in horizontal cell-guides376. The figure below shows how a stack of four 40-foot con-tainers and four empty 20-foot open top containers is horizontally moved onto the platform.

Figure 4-1 Horizontal container transshipment to a Roller Barge. Note the conventional intermodal terminal in the background. (Source: Huijsman, 1995).

To facilitate the horizontal movement the platform and deck will be equipped with rollers similar to those used in the airfreight industry and utilised by the Stenhagen System (see sections 2.2.10 and 5.1). Due to tidal water, the hoist must be able to lift the container stacks 6 metres377.

The proposed catamaran style of barge will take 312 TEU which might seem very little in comparison to the 6000 TEU of a Post-panamax container ship, but it is equal to several container trains and many small vessels allowing fast transshipment could reduce the saturation in Rotterdam considerably. To load such a ship with conventional container cranes with a capacity of 25 containers an hour, will take eight hours assuming a container mix with 200 containers. A successful implementation of the Roller Barge can reduce that time to 1 hour 40 minutes378.

A study by the Technical University of Delft confirmed that the stability of the vessel with a 17-metres beam would allow for the horizontal handling.

376 TOWNSEND, 1996, p. 30. 377 HUIJSMAN, 1995, p. 4. 378 TOWNSEND, 1996, p. 31.

127

4.1.2 Mondiso: Barge with on-board crane The Dutch company Mondiso has presented a barge equipped with an onboard gantry crane to be op-erated within the Mondiso Intermodal System. The ship that is currently being designed is supposed to transship ISO-containers sideways to the quay where the containers will be picked up by N.C.H. 2000/4000 (see section 2.3.1) lorry-to-ground systems. The on-board gantry crane can also be used for container positioning on deck379.

4.1.3 Shwoplecat In 1989, Cholerton of the Isle of Man patented its “Shwople” (a parody on SHuttLE + sWOP)380, a road-rail roll on/roll off system consisting of pop-up mechanisms dug into the ground between the tracks and monowell rail wagons381. As an extension to a really multimodal system382, Cholerton’s Seaform Design division suggests a range of barges for horizontal loading, all containing the family name Shwople383.

The Shwoplecat BA type is, as is indicated by the name, a catamaran intended for use on the river Rhine. With a length of 99 m, a width of 19.5 and a draught of 5 meters, the vessel is able to carry 31 accompanied384 semi-trailers standing across the ship. The road vehicles are reversed onto the ship by use of an “Intraface” RoRo-ramp connected directly to the quay385 or to a berth type “SV” in the port. All components are designed by the Seaform Design division. The Shwoplecat BA can be compared to a floating parking lot as is shown below.

379 N.C.H. Hydraulic Systems, video, 1995. 380 BROWN, letter dated 18 November 1996. 381 Cholerton Limited.; product leaflet, blue print and model picture, 1994; and product brochure, 1995. 382 Cholerton Limited, 1996. 383 BROWN, presentation, 1997. 384 With an accompanied semi-trailer is meant the semi-trailer, the semi-trailer tractor and the driver. 385 Seaform Design, blue print, 1996.

128

Figure 4-2 Shwoplecat BA. The picture shows a model catamaran (note the bridge) unloading lorries over the RoRo-ramp. (Source: Seaform Design, product leaflet, 1996/b).

A smaller version is the Shwoplecat AU for unaccompanied semi-trailers of 13.6 m or accompanied lorries of the same maximum length386. Also ISO-containers can be carried by the Swoplecats, then transshipped with a forklift truck driven over the ramp.

Yet another barge for inland waterways, the Shwopleship GC is a similar flat-decked ship intended for the transport of ISO-containers transshipped using a forklift truck as is shown in the figure below. As the single-hulled vessel is to be operated off-Rhine, it is just 11.4 m wide.

The Shwopleship DA/U, finally, can carry 15 accompanied or 20 unaccompanied semi-trailers. Also this vessel is an 11.4 m wide and single-hulled, which implies that the semi-trailers have to be loaded diagonally across the ship387.

386 Seaform Design, product leaflet, 1996/a. 387 Seaform Design, product leaflet, 1996/c.

129

Figure 4-3 Shwopleship GC. (Source: Seaform Design, product leaflet, 1996/c).

4.1.4 Calconship Aimed for cargo such as containers and concrete products, the CALCONship uses an on-board crane and a stabilising system for facilitating transshipment to any quay along rivers and canals. Calculus Transport Engineering has presented the concept, which is an acronym for Calculus Container Ship388.

The proposed ship is a rather small vessel of 60 m length, 6.6 m width and 3 m draught. An alternative ship with 7.2 m beam is also considered. The capacity is 450 tons or 24 TEUs with an average weight of 18 tons, loaded 2 wide and 2 high. The containers are transshipment with a revolving crane posi-tioned amidships. The boom length needed for handling the boxes in all slots on the ship also guaran-tees a large outreach over the side.

An innovative feature is that the stabilising system includes two fold-away sponsoon tanks of about 20 x 3 m. During transshipment, when extra stability is needed, the steel tanks are folded down from an on-deck position, thus increasing the width of the ship to 10 m. The operation is stated to take a few minutes. For further stability during loading and unloading, the top containers can be moved out above the stabilising tanks thus giving access to 75% of the containers yet avoiding reshuffling389.

The technology is licensed and Calculus hopes to have a marketable product within one year390.

4.1.5 The RiverSnake The RiverSnake is an inland-shipping concept consisting of six to nine specially designed barges, which are flexibly connected and pulled by one main tugboat and one or two intermediate tugboats in

388 WERF, presentation, 1997. 389 WERF, presentation, 1997. 390 WERF, presentation, 1997.

130

the “train”391. The concept does not include a transshipment function, but it is included here since, if implemented, it will bring considerable changes into container shipping on inland waterways.

The largest version of the RiverSnake will carry 1300 TEU, considerably more than today’s barges although the width of 17 metres is less than the double-pushed barges used today. The tonnage is up to 30 000 tons392.

Figure 4-4 The RiverSnake concept. (Source: Rutten, 1995, p. 88).

The concept was presented by F. Prins of EGM Architecten BV, based in Dordrecht, the Netherlands, who has applied for a development grant for bringing the concept to operations within two years393.

The RiverSnake is intended for shuttle services between Rotterdam and three inland multimodal ter-minals, such as Duisburg and Emmerich, from where the containers are further transported with road or rail394. Hence, it has been used in the discussions of the Betuwe-line, which is planned to connect Rotterdam with the Ruhr area in Germany.

4.2 ROAD-RAIL-SHORT SEA SHIPPING Despite the construction of fixed connections, large parts of Europe will depend on short-sea shipping for reaching the main markets for many years to come. The fixed connections, such as the Channel Tunnel and the Öresund Bridge, are not even suitable for all freight transport. Dumped prices for crossing the English Channel with ferries has kept substantial volumes away from the tunnel and the Scandinavian hauliers state that they will continue to use some ferry routes also after the Öresund

391 RUTTEN, 1995, p. 88. 392 Cargo Systems , 1994/b, p. 16. 393 Cargo Systems , 1994/b, p. 16. 394 RUTTEN, 1995, p. 88.

131

bridge is in place. Short-sea shipping is also considered as a serious alternative to rail and road trans-port along the coasts of Europe.

Consequently, short-sea shipping is here to stay although considerable problems are foreseen, as tax-free shopping will soon be banned by the EU. Below, some interesting concepts are described.

4.2.1 Rolux: RoRo-cassettes As described in section 2.5.6, RoRo-cassettes are becoming more common for short sea shipping of long, heavy or bulky shipments, e.g. steel coils, pipes or paper rolls. The cassette itself is an all-steel platform body resting on robust sides making up a tunnel for handling equipment.

The design is very rigid with a normal capacity of 70 metric tonnes but cassettes for project cargo of some 300 tonnes have been built. The cassettes are moved by so called Translifters which function could be compared to forklift trucks. The Translifters are equipped with a gooseneck, which is con-nected to a terminal truck with a hydraulic pressure system395. The Translifter is driven under the cas-settes and the hydraulics is used for lifting the cassette and then the terminal truck rolls it onboard a ship. The Translifter and terminal truck make up the handling equipment and the cassettes with their loads are stowed closely together to reduce the movements on board. The figure below shows how paper rolls are transported on a cassette and the handling principles with a Translifter.

Among the benefits are quick loading of ships and efficient use of the space on board without need for lashing. The principle is to prepare the cargo as far as possible on the quay and then transfer it quickly onto the ship. The problem is that the cassettes are restricted to port-to-port operations, transshipment to trains and lorries is costly and time-consuming but often necessary since very few transport assign-ments only comprise a sea leg. The alternative is often to use handling equipment grabbing the naked cargo, so cassette technology implies repositioning which is carried out with cassettes stacked up to five high.

Figure 4-5 Paper rolls transported on a cassette.

The Swedish forest products company SCA has recently received the first vessels dedicated for cas-sette transportation. Several other Nordic paper producers use cassettes for their damage sensitive pa- 395 Teco Engineering, product leaflet, 1996/c.

132

per rolls on short sea relations. Other applications include RoRo transshipment of containers that are hard to handle on board RoRo-ships and do not use the full height of the hull. In that case up to four 20-foot containers are loaded upon a cassette and then rolled on board in one operation.

Cassettes have been around for the last ten years and they are designed, manufactured and marketed by TECO Engineering under the brand name Rolux396. The current development trend goes towards smaller cassettes also open for rail transport397 and, in the longer run, for road transport. Rolux Oy, a company originating from a joint venture between Lindquist Oy Lintec and Electrolux, offers a range of smaller cassettes and Translifters for use within industrial premises398. However, cassettes are not only developed towards smaller sizes, TECO Engineering offers cassettes for heavy industries with capacities of up to 180 tonnes399.

The same company also offers Translifters with 30, 60, 90, 120, 160 and 300 metric tonnes. The de-sign is heavier and more robust than ordinary flats and, consequently the cassettes are more expensive. Also the Finnish company SISU Terminal Systems (about to become a part of PARTEK’s Cargotec group) offers Translifters400.

4.2.2 Volvo Transport: Swap body piled upon cassette With manufacturing plants in Göteborg, Sweden and Gent, Belgium, Volvo is a substantial buyer of short-sea shipping services. In order to lower its own freight costs, Volvo has presented plans for bet-ter use of the height of RoRo-ships401. Volvo’s logistics division, Volvo Transport, plans to use swap bodies piled upon small cassettes with foldable gables. The space on the cassette, under the swap body, is filled with pallet loads. The combination is to be transshipped in one RoRo operation using Translifters. The combination is shown below.

Figure 4-6 Swap body piled upon cassette.

396 Teco Engineering, product brochure, 1996. 397 ALGELL and SIMERT, 1997 and Transportjournalen, 1997, pp. 14-17. 398 Rolux Oy, product brochures, 1996/a and /b. 399 Teco Engineering, product leaflets, 1996/a and /b. 400 SKYTTÄ, interview, 28 May 1997. 401 HOLMQVIST and PÁLSSON, 1993, p. 61 and WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1994, p. 6.

133

The aim of the project is to create an open system for balanced transport flows between Scandinavia and Continental Europe. It has been going on for some four years and is practically ready for commer-cial operations once the need is firmly stated402.

4.2.3 Ahlmark Lines: CASH 94 Ahlmark Lines of Karlstad, Sweden, has designed Cassette Aboard Ship 94, CASH 94, a ship using computerised on-board LoLo (Lift-on-Lift-off) cranes for loading cassettes and ISO-containers loaded upon dedicated cassettes403. The cassettes are currently demarcated to port-to-port operations due to size and weight, but as described above, the area of use for cassettes is planned to be extended. The ship is designed for carrying 280 cassettes with 70 tons capacity each. It seems a little odd to use a complicated vertical transshipment technology when loading ITUs designed for horizontal transship-ment, but the technology could add some benefits to the shipping industry. An available picture shows top-lift transshipment of ISO-containers, which should be a wider area of application.

The ship is primarily aimed for short sea shipping of forest products from Sweden to Continental Europe404. The principles, however, should be applicable also for inland navigation. As a matter of fact, the company Ahlmark Lines is located in Karlstad, a port city on the coast of Lake Vänern, which is only accessible through the river Göta Älv with several locks.

The hull of the CASH 94 vessel is designed as a high-bay warehouse using the on-board overhead cranes for piling cassettes as seen in the figure below. Like the Via Aqua Via-concept the loads can be prepared during sea voyage allowing very short stops with a small crew. The only thing required from the port’s side is to move the cassettes or containers to and from the quay. Consequently, the ship is suitable also for night calls.

Figure 4-7 The CASH 94 ship.

The owner of Ahlmark lines, Mr. Bo Wärmling came up with the idea some 15 years ago. The devel-opment is still in a projecting phase, blue prints are available but no order has yet been placed405.

402 HOLMQVIST and PÁLSSON, 1993, p. 71. 403 HOLMQVIST and PÁLSSON, 1993, p. 56. 404 HOLMQVIST and PÁLSSON, 1993, p. 66. 405 WÄRMLING, telephone interview, 9 June 1997.

134

4.2.4 Rail, Road & Sea Consulting: Mega-Rail-Runner When lead by Mr. R. Svensson, Volvo Transport was very active in promoting Fast Ships that would cross the North Sea, and hopefully also the Atlantic, in speeds of up to 40 knots. Finally the shipping line Tor Line decided to go for slightly lower speeds between the “Volvo cities” of Göteborg and Gent and a distance of some 500 nautical miles. Then, Volvo’s ambition has been to reduce the time in port. This ha been possible through introducing more efficient RoRo-handling and, which is perhaps more important, the ports have been convinced to work also during night hours. A Tor Line RoRo-ship is today turned around within hours and the speed allows for efficient use of the ships around the clock.

As a means of reducing the time in port even more, Volvo and the Port of Gothenburg tested the ALI-CON system, based upon an air cushioned “train” being towed on board the ships. The “train” is sup-posed to be ready before the ship called the port thus facilitating very fast transshipment of rather ex-tensive loads. Although using the hovercraft principle, it has to follow a track on the quay and onboard the ship. The tests did not work out too well and is not further described here.

Another initiative, however, was taken in 1995 by Mr. L. Gullberg of Rail, Road & Sea Consulting Ltd, when he presented the Mega-Rail-Runner. Also for this concept, the basic idea is to prepare as much as possible in the port in order to facilitate short calls for the ships. One should keep in mind that this procedure does not speed up the flow of goods since it has to be available in the port for prepara-tion, but it utilises the ship in a better way.

The Mega-Rail-Runner concept is influenced by conventional rail ferries. Up to 200 tons of load is stowed onto 20-foot x 50-foot large “MEGA-wagons” equipped with steel wheels. The wagons are able to take virtually any combination of ISO-containers, swap bodies and oversized cargo. A ship with tracks onboard will be able to load ten such MEGA-wagons with 2000 tons of total load within less than five minutes406.

Three sets of MEGA-wagons per ship will be used, one set onboard and one set in each port for prepa-ration. A loading sequence is shown in the figure below.

406 GULLBERG, 1995, p. 5.

135

Figure 4-8 Loading principles for the Mega-Rail-Runner. (Source: Rail, Road & Sea Consulting Ltd., concept description, 1995).

Mr. Gullberg says that Rail, Road & Sea Consulting Ltd does not have any ambitions for taking the idea to the market – it should rather be regarded as a point of departure when discussing fast RoRo-handling.

4.3 ROAD-RAIL-DEEP SEA SHIPPING Since the container was first developed for deep-sea shipping purposes, this part of the intermodal transport market has matured and the technologies used are very much the same globally. However, as a new generation of Post-panamax ships are entering service, the large ports now have to invest not only in faster and higher cranes with longer out-reach, but also in ground handling equipment. The huge amount of containers (some Post-panamax vessels can carry more than 6 000 containers) that have to be transshipped implies the development of much more efficient transshipment and on-quay handling. Also the transport system feeding containers to and from the port has to be further devel-oped. Some recent developments are described below, however only briefly.

4.3.1 Reggiane: Octopus As stated above, the developed method of transshipping containers in ports is to a certain degree be-coming obsolete due to the new Post-panamax vessels. Larger cranes and more efficient ground han-dling is needed to fully utilise the benefits of the new ships, and for some ports, for attracting direct calls by the big vessels in the first place.

Italian crane manufacturer Reggiane proposes an advanced concept under the name Octopus, a suit-able name since the technology uses up to six gantry cranes extending like octopus arms over each

136

ship. Efficiency is also enhanced since the cranes are not used for lowering the containers all the way to the ground, but only to a roadway elevated 14 m from the ground407. AGVs will run on the roadway and other cranes will interact with the port’s more conventional equipment such as yard tractors and rubber-mounted gantries408. The concept is modular where each module, as shown in the figure below, operates on 320 m of quay409.

Figure 4-9 The Octopus concept. Here with six gantry cranes working on a container vessel. (Source: Reg-

giane, product brochure, 1997).

The crane operator is only active for some seconds per transshipment cycle and he does that from a cabin separated from the trolley410. The rest is automatically done by the control system, thus letting the operators work for longer period than today’s approximately 20 minutes.

As an Octopus module can achieve 240 container lifts per hour on just 320 m of quay, Reggiane an-ticipates that the vessel occupancy time can be reduced by 60%. 411. Besides its ship-to-shore gantry cranes, Reggiane is also producing reach-stackers in the Fantuzzi division and also has plans for a bi-modal vehicle named “Proteo”412.

4.3.2 Robotic Container Machine Another system trying to solve the problems experienced by overcrowded container ports is the Ro-botic Container Machine as presented by Robotic Container Handling Co. in the USA.

The basic concept for a Robotic Container Machine is an integrated container terminal with eight gan-try cranes along some 600 m of quay. Each crane is planned to have a capacity of 50-70 containers per hour, which has been confirmed by simulations with input from real terminal operations at the SSA Pacific Container Terminal in Long Beach413.

407 Reggiane, concept description, 1997/b, p. 5. 408 Reggiane, blue print, 1996. 409 Reggiane, product brochure, 1997. 410 Reggiane, concept description, 1997/a, p. 1. 411 Cargo Systems, 1995/a, p. 5. 412 COVEZZI, letter dated 13 March 1997. 413 Cargo Systems, 1996/f, p. 17.

137

The innovative aspect is the random access racking system equivalent to a high bay warehouse. Con-tainers are transshipped between shore crane and rack via a “receiving balcony” where rail mounted transporters run. On average, each crane will interchange with 25 storage slots in the warehouse. Empty containers will be stacked 16 high in an automatic storage. On the landside, the terminal can handle 250 lorries and 2500 m of container trains per hour.

The main benefit is the high throughput on a limited terminal area. It is stated that the Machine can handle 600 000 annual boxes in just 50 acres. Two aspects of the terminal have been patented in the USA, with a further eleven design features currently being processed414.

414 Cargo Systems, 1996/f, p.17.

138

139

5 ROAD-RAIL-AIR TECHNOLOGIES

The airfreight segment of the global transport system is in a phase of rapid development. However, as is the case with the rail and sea modes, the long air transport leg has to be complemented with road haulage for geographic accessibility. For instance, the global parcel transport company UPS has 120 000 trucks for use in conjunction with their 530 own aeroplanes as well as for direct road services. As further described below, also the intermodal combination air-rail is now being further developed.

A special feature with airfreight is that much of the air cargo actually never leaves the ground and even more are trucked over rather large parts of the distance before it enters an aeroplane. The idea is that it is between the continents (in competition with container vessels) that much time can be saved and not within the continents (in competition with road and rail).

A new approach should facilitate the use of lightweight air containers that today are generally stuffed and stripped at the airport, even in the road and rail modes. One reason for today’s limited intermodal use is that mainly small parcels are transported by air. These are normally sorted and consolidated in the parcel services’ terminals at the airport. Another factor is that in the air cargo transport industry, the focus has been to maximise the use of the aeroplane as the expensive resource it is. Less effort has been aimed at lowering costs in the surrounding transport system. Today, the parcels are picked up and distributed by small parcel vehicles with good outreach in urban areas. With a new approach, the lightweight containers can be used outside the airports for full air cargo container consignments.

Transshipment of containers between ground and aeroplanes is normally carried out with scissors-tables equipped with rollers. The containers have flat bottoms and are rolled onto the transshipment equipment, then lifted up to the aeroplane door where it is rolled into the fuselage. Most freight aero-planes are equipped with rollers in the floor. Since planes are used for passenger services mainly dur-ing the day, some planes have seats mounted on flat pallets that can be rolled out facilitating the use of the plane for airfreight assignments during the night hours. A second benefit is that cleaning of the seats can be performed in a hangar while the plane is used for other assignments.

The description below is not intended to be extensive as the focus of the report is on the small-scale road-rail transshipment technologies. The technologies described below are selected since they repre-sent interesting interactions between road and rail transportation and use ITUs in some way or another.

5.1 STENHAGEN: STENHAGEN SYSTEM The Stenhagen System is basically a technology for road-air transportation, although its road-rail ap-plications are presented in section 2.2.10. The technology is well adapted for local road haulage around airports, but in a future development it can also work as an independent transport system. For road-air applications, the Stenhagen System facilitates a wider use of the lightweight air containers that today are generally stuffed and stripped at the airport.

For the horizontal transshipment, the containers and pallets must have a flat bottom. They can only be moved horizontally, they are not designed for vertical lift. In principle, the pallets are rather large sheets of aluminium with tightening points. The standard pallet measures 2.46 and 3.30 m and carries eight Europallets. Like the C-sam system they combine the maximum width on road in one axis and

140

the maximum width on rail in the other. Thus they efficiently use the measures of both modes at the same time as being suitable for airfreight use.

By use of the roller frames one standard pallet carrying eight Europallets can be exchanged with an-other in one manual operation. The manual transshipment operations for the road and rail modes are presented below.

Figure 5-1 Manual unloading and loading using the Stenhagen System. (Source: Hägglunds, brochure, 1993).

The key element of the system is the Stenhagen Trailer (shown in a figure in section 2.2.10) that en-ables the driver to lower the floor of the semi-trailer to the ground level. The semi-trailer floor is equipped with integrated rollers that can be pneumatically lowered into the floor, thus securing the load by friction against the floor, after horizontal transshipment of a load. The semi-trailer can be moved on top of a flat wagon, but it is merely considered as a vehicle and transfer device, it is too costly to use as a unit load in an intermodal transport system.

141

5.2 ROAD-RAIL-AIR INTEGRATION As mentioned above, airfreight has its most natural market between continents where a lot of time can be saved. The timesaving is not as dramatic within the continents. Consequently, a lot of airfreight is actually trucked today. With further developments of fast trains, these will most probably serve as a good complement to the aeroplanes for fast transport services. UPS has for long been one of the big-gest intermodal (road-rail) customers in the USA with 800 000 annual consignments bringing some USD 530 million (ECU 450 million) of revenues to the American railroads. UPS is now ready to in-crease its use of European intermodal services drastically. In Germany, for instance, UPS states that they can tenfold their use. If applied to the whole of Europe it will mean volumes in the range of that in the USA415.

In France, SNCF uses dedicated high-speed TGV trains for mail, and they have revealed plans for pure freight TGVs. These will most probably be used for competing with airfreight but also for intermodal rail-air services. A dedicated freight airport is under construction in Vatry some 150 kilometres from Paris. The Europort multimodal facility will contribute to relieving Paris airports and aims at becom-ing the largest freight airport in France. It is well located with direct connection to A26 (Calais-Dijon) and A4, A5 and A31 passing in the vicinity. SNCF is participating in the construction of the ECU 13 million intermodal transport component of the plans, including re-opening of a disused stretch of the rail track to connect the existing Paris-Strasbourg railway. In the long run it is also planned to be con-nected with the TGV-East high-speed link416.

Also Lufthansa and Swissair plan to integrate their airfreight services with a fast train connecting Frankfurt and Zürich417.

415 DAMAS, 1995, p. 81. 416 LADRET-POWELL, 1997, p. 5. 417 Transport iDAG, 1996.

iii

REFERENCE LIST

PUBLISHED REFERENCES ABB Henschel (1995) Technischer Anforderungskatalog für den Bau von 30 Stück 2-achsigen "WAS-Tragwagen" (Technical requirements for the construction of 30 2-axle WAS wagons), 2 May, Siegen.

ADAMSSON, E. (1988) C-sam öppnar dörrarna (C-sam opens the doors), Transport-Journalen, No. 3, pp. 18-19. In Swedish.

AGEVE (1990/a) AGEVE, SWEDEN Introduces a new intermodal transport system based on a new multipurpose wagon, press release, Gävle.

AGEVE (1990/b) Teknisk specifikation för Supertrans – kortkopplad kombivagn (Technical specifica-tion for Supertrans – short-coupled intemodal wagon), Gävle. In Swedish.

ALGELL, J., SIMERT, J. (1997) Tekniska möjligheter för ett kassettbaserat system för kombinerade transporter (Technical possibilities for a system for combined transport based upon cassettes), Mas-ters thesis 97:06, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. In Swedish.

BORHART, R. (1993) Resultate Komatibilität ACTS/Multi-berces (results of a compatibility test be-tween ACTS and Multi-berces), report from the compatibility working group, Brussels. In German.

BRANKE, P. E. (1983) Ingenjören lekte med Lego – Fann lösning för växelflak (The engineer played with Lego – found solution for swap bodies), Dagens Industri, March 8, p. 12. In Swedish.

BRANKE, P. E. (1985) Nu finns CarConTrain i verkligheten och den fungerar (Now the CarConTrain exists – and it works), Skandinavisk Transportteknik, No. 4. 1985, pp. 60-61. In Swedish.

BROSTRÖM, M. (1992) Cassette by rail – opening up a new dimension, Oy Transtech, Oulo.

BRYNE, B., LJUNGHILL, D. (1995) Rullande Landsväg för transittrafik Norge -kontinenten, (Roll-ing Highway for transit traffic Norway-Continental Europe), Master’s thesis 1995-12, Department of Infrastructure and Planning of Society, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. In Swedish.

BUKOLD, S. (1996) Kombinierter Verkehr Schiene/Strasse in Europa – Eine vergleichende Studie zur Transformation von Gütertransportsystemen, Dissertation, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.

Bundesminister für Verkehr (1981) Gütertransportsystem für den kombinierten Verkehr – Probleme, Alternative, Chancen (Freight transport system of CT -Problems, Alternatives, Possibilities), Kirsch-baum Verlag, Bonn. In German.

Bundesministers für Forschung und Technologie (1986) Kombinierter Verkehr in der Fläche (Combi-ned transport in wide areas), Studiengesellschaft für den kombinierten Verkehr, Frankfurt. In German.

Cargo Systems (1994/a) SLT’s carry a greater load, No. 7, July, pp. 31-33.

Cargo Systems (1994/b) RiverSnake idea uncoils, No. 7, July, p. 16.

Cargo Systems (1994/c) Blatchford-Siman launched, No. 11, November, p. 19.

Cargo Systems (1995/a) Far-reaching Octopus, No. 5, May, p. 5.

iv

Cargo Systems (1995/b) Self loaders develop their market, No. 7, July, pp. 20-22.

Cargo Systems (1996/a) DB Cargo at a sprint, No. 7, July, p. 14.

Cargo Systems (1996/b) High-tech HET, No. 7, July, p. 15.

Cargo Systems (1996/c) A bit more on the side, No. 7, July, pp. 37-41.

Cargo Systems (1996/d) Beating the Biglo blues, No. 7, July, p. 41.

Cargo Systems (1996/e) CSX rolls out the Iron, No. 9, September, p. 23.

Cargo Systems (1996/f) Robotic thinking, No. 11, November, p. 17.

Cargo Systems (1997/a) Perfect Kombination?, No. 3, March, pp. 19-20.

Cargo Systems (1997/b) Top 100 Container Ports, Supplement to No. 4, April.

Cargo Systems (1997/c) Survival of the fittest, No. 6, June, p. 35-36.

Champion, V. (1992) Give us a fix, Cargo Systems, No. 4, April.

Containerisation International (1995/a) Innotermodal's bi-modal launch, October, p. 49.

Containerisation International (1995/b) SNCF piggyback “expressway”, November, p. 49.

COULTER, S. (1995) Safe as SLTs, Container Management, March, pp. 53-55.

DAHLLÖF, G. (1996) SJ utvecklar lättkombinät för snabb partigodstrafik över meddellånga avstånd (SJ develops light combi network for rapid part load traffic over medium distances), Transport & Hantering, No. 10, October, pp. 29-30. In Swedish.

Daimler-Benz (1996) Auch morgen mobil, Stuttgart. In German.

DAMAS, P. (1995) UPS: why Europe lags behind the US, Containerisation International, No. 12, December, p. 81.

DB AG (1995) Masterplan II – Beitrag der Deutschen Bahn AG zur Planung der Güterverkehrzentren in Deutschland (Master plan II – Contribution of Deutsche Bahn AG (German State Railways) to the planning of freight villages in Germany), pamphlet, Frankfurt am Main. In German.

DE GUILHEM, Y., MONTELH, B. (1996) L’autoroute ferroviaire: les camions prennent le train, Rail et Recherche, No. 8, April, pp. 14-21. In French.

DEBOER, D. J. (1992), Piggyback and Containers – A History of Rail Intermodal on America's Steel Highway, Golden West Books, San Marino, Ca.

DENELL, A. (1979) Lastbil med inbyggda gafflar hämtar container från järnvägsvagn (Lorry with forks picks a container from a railway wagon), Transport & Hantering, No. 4, p. 86. In Swedish.

Deutsche Bundesbahn (1990) Multimodale Behälter-Transportsysteme (Multimodal container trans-port systems). In German.

Deutsche Verkehrszeitung (1996) Kombilifter hat “alle Erwartungen übertroffen” (Kombilifter has “exceeded all expectations”), No. 128/24 October, p. 8. In German.

ELLIOT, S. (1997) Eastern Europe – the next market, In: European Intermodal Yearbook, Edition 1997, IIR Publications, London, pp. 6-12.

v

ERNI, D. (1995) Presenting the Compact Terminal, article for the Intermodal 95 conference, Amster-dam, 24-26 October.

ERNI, D. (1996) Compactterminal, report presenting the concept, Tuchschmid Engineering AG. In German.

EURET (1994) Future Fast Transfer Technologies, SIMET Action 2.2, Doc. EURET/410/94, Brus-sels.

EURET (1995) Present optimum transfer technologies, SIMET Action 2.2, Doc. EURET/409/95, Brussels.

European Commission (1997/a) PACT – A user’s guide 1997, Brussels/Luxembourg.

European Commission (1997/b) SIMET – Smart Intermodal Transport, Transport Research APAS Intermodal Transport, Brochure No. 3, Luxembourg.

European Intermodal Yearbook (1996) Intermodal transport, equipment and services, IIR Publica-tions, London.

EWERS, H-J., FONGER, M. (1993) Gesamtwirtschaftliche Effizienz multimodaler Trans-portketten (National Economic Efficiency of Multimodal Transport Chains), Institut für Verkehrswissenschaften an der Universität Münster, Kombiverkehr KG, Deutsches Verkehrsforum, Münster. In German.

FIRSCHING, A. (1997) Osiris, Innovative Control for Intermodal Transport, 28 January, Amsterdam.

FOXCROFT, A. (1983) Finnish road/rail transfer gives boost to the box, Containerisation Interna-tional, July, p. 55.

FRANKE, K.-P., HÄFFNER, G. (1996) Automatisierung der Umschlagsknoten als Beitrag der Indus-trie, Transportketten wirtschaftlicher zu machen (Automation of terminal nodes. Industry's contribu-tion towards more economical transport chains), VDI Berichte, No. 1274, pp. 181-195. In German.

GISBY, R. (1992) Chartering a new course, Cargo Systems, June, pp. 83-85.

GOLDBECK-LÖWE, F., SYRÉN, R. (1993) Stenhagensystemet – en utvärdering av ett nytt trans-portsystem (The Stenhagen System – an analysis of a new transportation system), Master's thesis, De-partment of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology. In Swedish.

GULLBERG, L. (1995) Fast Ship – alternativt fartygs- och lasthanteringssystem (Fast Ship – alterna-tive vessel and loading system), Swedish Port Gazette, No. 3, pp 4-5.

HAGER, H.-J. (1997) Die ökologische Alternative is Koperation im kombinierten Verkehr – das Pro-jekt Kombilifter als Innovation, Schenker Eurocargo, Coburg. In German.

HANREICH, G., (1995), Erfordnisse und Bedingungen für den kombinierten Verkehr: technische, wirtschaftliche und administrative Probleme aus der Sicht der Verkehrministerien, (Demands and conditions for combined transport: technological, business and administrative problems in the view of the transport ministries), G-24 Brussels, January 31. In German.

HOLMQVIST, T., PÁLSSON, P. B. (1993) Standardiserade enhetslastbärare för öppna transportsys-tem (Standardised unit loads in open-interface transport systems), M.Sc. Thesis 1993:06, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. In Swedish.

vi

HUIJSMAN, H. (1995) Presenting the “Roller Barge” – a horizontal barge loading system, paper for the Intermodal 95 conference, Amsterdam, 24 October.

Intermodal Shipper (1997) No. 3, March.

JENSEN, A. (1990) Combined transport – Systems, economics and strategies, TFB (Swedish Trans-port Research Board)-report 1990:4, Allmänna förlaget, Stockholm.

JÖNSSON, H., KROON, B. (1990) Horisontell omlastning vid kombitrafik (Horizontal transshipment in combined transport), Department of Transportation, University of Lund, Master thesis 5228/1990, Lund. In Swedish.

JR Freight (1996) Yearbook with maps, time table and technical descriptions of equipment. In Japa-nese.

LADRET-POWELL, R. (1997) New dedicated freight airport in France, ECIS Newsletter- European Centre for Infrastructure Studies, No. 13, April, Rotterdam, p. 5.

LANGE, K. (1994) Neue Technologien für den Kombinierten Ladungsverkehr (KLV), ETR No. 43, April, pp. 205-208.

LARSSON, S. (1996) The Future of Rail and Intermodal in a Free Market, Conference Information and Documentation, Intermodal 96, 4-6-December, London.

Mercedes-Benz (1995) The Mercedes-Benz kombi-Lifter: The sensible way to link road and rail trans-port, Press information, 7 June, Stuttgart.

Mercedes-Benz and Schenker Eurocargo (1996) Zwei Jahre Kombilifter – Praxisbetrieb erfolgreich (Two years of Kombilifter – pilot tests successful), Press information, 7 October, Stuttgart. In German.

MULLER, G. (1995) Intermodal Freight Transportation, 3rd edition, IANA and ENO, Lansdowne, VA.

NELLDAL, B.-L. (1994) Järnvägstransporter år 2010 (Rail transportation in 2010), Transportjour-nalen, No. 2, pp. 28-31.

Nieuwsblad Transport (1995) Nieuw plan voor overslag binnenvaart: Containeroverslag kan snel en goedkoop met de “rollerbarge”. In Dutch.

O’MAHONY, H. (1994) Waiting on the COMMUTOR line, Cargo Systems, No. 7, July, 1994, pp. 55-57.

O’MAHONY, H. (1995/a) Wagon Permutations, Cargo Systems, No. 10, October, pp. 67-71.

O’MAHONY, H. (1995/b) An intermodal flower, Cargo Systems, No. 12, December, pp. 31-33.

O'MAHONY, H. (1996/a) Terminals in a nutshell, Cargo Systems, No. 4, April, pp. 39-42.

O'MAHONY, H. (1996/b) The growth of the compact terminal, European Intermodal Yearbook, Edi-tion 1996, IIR Publications, London, p. 26.

O'MAHONY, H. (1997) This side up, Cargo Systems, No. 4, April, p. 61.

POSCH, K-H., SCHNEIDER, K. (1993) Hochleistungsterminal: Ein Innovatives System zur Leis-tungssteigerung im Kombinierten Verkehr, ZEV+DET Glas. Ann. 118, H. 2-3, p. 206.

vii

Railway Age (1938) August 27 (supplied by Arne Sjödén SJ).

Railway Age (1939) December 25 (supplied by Arne Sjödén SJ).

Railways (1990) Making the intermodal transfer of containers easy with the innovative MITRALIFT system, February/March, pp. 14-17.

RUTTEN, B. C. M. (1995) On Medium Distance Intermodal Rail Transport, Dissertation, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft.

RYDING, C., NORRMAN, F., FORSELL, J., HUSERYD, J., ZUDDAS, P. (1993) System för hori-sontell överföring av enhetslaster (Systems for horizontal transfer of unit loads), Project report, De-partment of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. In Swed-ish.

SCHREYER, R. (1996) Beiträge zu einer ökologisch und sozial verträglichen Verkehrsplanung, Mas-ter's thesis 1/1996, Institut für Verkehrsplaung und Verkehrstechnik, Vienna University of Technol-ogy, Austria. In German.

SINGER, A. (1995) Intermodal Concepts in France, In: World Freight International 1996, Sterling Publications Limited, London, pp. 119-123.

SIS (1992) Transportordlista (Transport glossary), Solna. In Swedish.

SJÖGREN, D. (1957) Transportekonomi (Transport Economy), Sveriges Kontoristförening, Uppsala. In Swedish.

SJÖGREN, S. (1996) Effektiva kombiterminaler – En tillämpning av DEA (Efficient Combined Trans-port Terminals – A DEA Approach), dissertation, Gothenburg School of Economics and Commercial Law. In Swedish.

SJÖSTEDT, L. (1992) Das Minicontainersystem für kombinierten Verkehr (The small-container sys-tem for intermodal transport), Short presentation to the New Logistics Technologies Project, IIASA, Laxenburg. In German.

SJÖSTEDT, L., WOXENIUS, J., HULTÉN, L. (1994) Flexibility Versus Specialisation – On the Con-trollability of Combined Transport Systems. In: LIU BAO, BLOSSEVILLE, J. M. (1995) Transporta-tion Systems: Theory and Application of Advanced Technology, Proceedings of the 7th IFAC Sympo-sium on Transportation Systems, Tianjin, 24-26 August, Elsevier Science, Oxford.

SOMMER, H. (1995) Effizienter Güterumschlag von der Schiene auf die Strasse – Das W.A.S.-System zum Transport von Wechselbehälter (Efficient transfer of goods from rail to road – the W.A.S.system for the transportation of swap bodies), Siegen. In German.

SONDERMANN, K. (1997) Improvement of Intermodal Transport by Introducing Fast Handling Sys-tems, Innovative Control for Intermodal Transport, 28 January, Amsterdam.

The TT Club (1996) The box – an anthology celebrating 25 years of containerisation and the TT Club, EMAP Business Communications, London.

THOMAS, R. (1996) A lengthy debate, Cargo Systems, No. 11, November, pp. 47-51.

viii

TOWNSEND, H. (1996) The roller coastal ride, In: European Intermodal Yearbook, Edition 1996, IIR Publications, London, pp. 30-31.

Trafikmagasinet (1997) Stabil och funktionssäker sidlastare (Stable and functional sideloader), No. 1, p. 40. In Swedish.

Transport & Hantering (1995) Ny järnvägsvagn för växelflak körs in under behållarna och lyfter (New rail wagon for swap bodies is driven underneath the containers and lifts), No. 10, p. 45.

Transport iDAG (1996) Lufthansa och Swissair planerar sätta in ett snabbtåg för flygfrakt mellan Frankfurt och Zürich (Lufthansa and Swissair plan to use a fast train for air-freight between Frankfurt and Zürich), No. 11, p. 3. In Swedish.

Transportjournalen (1994) Roterande container för flis (Rotating container for wood chips), No. 4, p. 24-25. In Swedish.

Transportjournalen (1996) Vagnar för övriga skogsprodukter (Wagons for other wooden products), No. 1, pp. 11-12. In Swedish.

Transportjournalen (1997) Stålbro till England (Steel bridge to England), No. 2, pp. 14-17. In Swe-dish.

Transport-nytt (1982) Kuljetus – 82, Helsingforsutställningen större än någonsin (Kuljetus – 82, the Helsinki exhibition larger than ever), No. 8, pp. 22-26. In Swedish.

TRÜEB, M (1996) Cost-proposal Technical and economical conditions for a(n) European operation of small containers (Logistic-Box), 4 April, Zürich.

UIRR (1995) Im Blickpunkt: Kombinierter Verkehr (In Focus: Combined Transport), Brussels. In German but also available in English.

UIRR (1997) UIRR report 1996, Annual activity report of the UIRR companies, Brussels.

Unknown journal, Trilok container system in service, p. 23.

VAN HORSSEN (1996) The barge shuttle arrives, In: European Intermodal Yearbook, Edition 1996, IIR Publications, London, pp. 17-29.

VON STEMPEL, A. (1989) Refuse on the rails, Cargo Systems, No. 8, August, p. 97.

VON STEMPEL, A. (1990) Horizontal moves, Cargo Systems, No. 1, January.

WACKER, R., WENDLER, H. (1992) Schneller Parallelumschlag von Ladeeinheiten bei SNCF und DB (Fast parallel transshipment of load units by SNCF and DB), Die Bundesbahn, No. 2, p. 233-239.

WARMUTH, H. (1995) Sustainable Transit Traffic in Austria – A Decade of Change in Transport Policy from 1985 to 1995, Institute of Geography, University of Vienna, PTRC, The 23rd European Transport Forum, Coventry, 11-15 September, pp. 27-35.

WOXENIUS, J., HELLGREN, J., KARLSSON (now HULTKRANTZ), O. (1996) A combined ap-proach to technology, In: European Intermodal Yearbook, Edition 1996, IIR Publications, London, pp. 18-20.

WOXENIUS, J., HENRIKSSON, A., SJÖSTEDT, L. (1995) Handbok för lastbärarval (Handbook for the Choice of Unit Loads), Report for Rail Combi AB, Stockholm. In Swedish.

ix

WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1994) System and Functional Requirements for RoRo Cassettes in Multimodal Transport, RoRo 94, Göteborg, 26-28 April. Printed in preceedings. Shorter version published in the Scandinavian Shipping Gazette (Vol. 90, No. 40, pp. 82-85). Appended to the licenti-ate thesis.

YOUNG, R. (1997) God’s intermodal solution, Cargo Systems, No. 5, May, p. 111.

Zetterbergs Produkt AB (1996) Instruktions- och användarhandbok för Rullflaksväxlare LIVAB, (In-structions- and user handbook for the LIVAB-lift), handbook. In Swedish.

UNPUBLISHED REFERENCES

Brochures, newsletters, blue prints and other printed marketing ma-terial418 AGEVE (1988) Supertrans, product brochure.

ABB Henschel (1995) Tragwagen für Wechselbehältern auf Schienen, product description sheet. In German.

ABB Henschel (1995) WAS (Wechselbehälter Auf Schiene) Systemlösung für den Güterverkehr der Zukunft (WAS (Swap Body on Rail) System Solution for the Freight Transport of the Future), product brochure. In German.

Accurate Industries (1995/a), Trailer Mounted Roll-Off Hoist, brochure.

Accurate Industries (1995/b), Double Container Trailer DC80, brochure.

ACTS Nederland BV (1994) ACTS, marketing folder. In Dutch.

ACTS Nederland BV (1996) ACTS – Intermodal Container Transportation System – “Highly Effi-cient”, marketing folder.

ACTS Nederland BV (1996) ACTS, daar draait het om!, brochure. In Dutch.

ACTS Nederland BV (1997) Afvalstromen in goede banen, brochure. In Dutch.

ASG (1989) Minikombi (Mini Combi), product brochure. In Swedish.

Berglund (1997) G2000 RoRo The ultimate goods train, product brochure.

Blatchford Cranes/Herbert Pool Ltd (1985) Blatchford Stag – all purpose ISO container hauler/handler, product brochure.

Blatchford Cranes/Herbert Pool Ltd (1990) Blatchford T-lift system – all purpose ISO container hauler/handlers with unique railhead direct cross-transfer capability, product brochure.

Blatchford Transport Equipment (1997) The Sideloader Handling and Transport System, product bro-chure.ABB AGEVE AB (1988) Supertrans – Ekonomi på väg (Supertrans – Economy on the way), product brochure. In Swedish.

418 Product brochures are normally not dated. For non dated brochures, the given year of issue is eitherthe year the brochure was distributed or an estimation.

x

CarConTrain AB (1997) CCT AB presenterar CCT Plus (CCT AB presents the CCT Plus), product brochure. In Swedish.

Cargotec (1997) Handling Logistics, product brochure and various product leaflets.

Cholerton Ltd. (1994) System Shwople and pop-up monowell wagons- type BA, blue print.

Cholerton Ltd. (1994) System Shwople and pop-up monowell wagons- type RU, model picture.

Cholerton Ltd. (1994) System Shwople and pop-up monowell wagons, product leaflet.

Cholerton Ltd.(1995) Problem – The best solution – System Shwople and pop-up monowell wagons, product brochure.

Cholerton Ltd. (1996) Integrated Transport Chains – Interoromodalism – Neither a crane nor a lift-truck in sight, product leaflet.

Chr. Olsson (1992) Chr. Olsson, Göteborg, Sweden, product brochure. In Swedish, but English text is enclosed.

Costaferroviaria (1997) TR.A.I 2000 – Logistics and intermodal operators looking for innovative solu-tions, brochure.

DB (1992) Intermodal Transport – System Advantages Intelligently Linked, brochure.

DB (1993) Logistikbox – Der Baustein für integrierte Transportketten, product brochure. In German.

Entwicklungsteam Kölker-Thiele, Automatic-Loading-System – ALS, product brochure, 1997.

Hammar Maskin AB (1993/a) Hammarlift SL 30LH – Dimensions and weights, technical specifica-tions leaflet.

Hammar Maskin AB (1993/b) Hammar 170H – Dimensions and weights, technical specifications leaf-let.

Hammar Maskin AB (1995) Hammar Programme 160, product brochure.

Hammar Maskin AB (1996) Hammar 151H – Dimensions and weights, technical specifications leaflet.

Hammar Maskin AB (1997) Hammar Programme 150, product brochure.

HIAB-FOCO (1985) Bredden (The Width), product brochure.

HIAB-FOCO (1990) Europas största lastväxlarprogram (The largest load exchanger programme in Europe), product brochure.

Hägglunds (1993) Stenhagen Systems bring the advantages of air cargo transport systemtems down to earth, brochure, 1993.

Hägglund Vehicles (1993) Hägglund Stenhagen Trailer, product leaflet. In Swedish.

Hungarian State Railways (1995) Intermodal Railway Basket Car, product brochure.

Kalmar Lagab (1980) Här kommer miniflaken! (Here come the small-boxes!), product brochure. In Swedish.

Klaus Transportsysteme Vertriebs GmBH (1996/a) KLAUS Kranmobile, product brochure.

xi

Klaus Transportsysteme Vertriebs GmBH (1996/b) KLAUS Erfahrung macht stark, product brochure. In German.

Kombiverkehr (1991) Brückenslag zwischen Strasse und Schiene (bridge between road and rail), marketing brochure. In German.

Krupp (1993) Krupp Fast Handling System Linking Rail and Road, product brochure.

LEANDER, P. (1992) Quality Cargo – En vision avseende ett effektivt och flexibelt system för högkvalitativa kombitransporter, (Quality Cargo – A vision concerning an efficient and flexible system for high quality combined transport), unpublished working document, Swedish State Railways.

Linjegods AS (1976) LLB – Linjegods Lastbaerer, product brochure.

Lohr Industries (1995) Modalor, technical specifications and blue prints. In French.

Lohr Industries (1996) Modalor – Really road, really rail, product leaflet.

Lohr Industries (1996) Vraiment route vraiment rail, product brochure. In French.

Mannesmann Transmodal (1996) Mannesmann Transmodal – System Integrator for Freight Traffic, product brochure, Düsseldorf.

Mercedes-Benz (1995) Kombilifter, product brochure.

Mondiso (1996) Your Partner for International Transport, leaflet.

N.C.H. Hydraulic Systems (1992) ISO 2000, product brochure.

N.C.H. Hydraulic Systems (1994/a) N.C.H. Transport Logistics ISO 4000, product brochure.

N.C.H. Hydraulic Systems (1994/b) N.C.H. Mega Mix, product brochure.

N.C.H. Hydraulic Systems (1996) Mondiso Intermodal Transport System, product brochure.

Noell Stahl- und Maschinenbau GmBH (1995) Fast Transshipment System – a new transshipment sys-tem for the intermodal traffic of the future, product brochure.

Noell Stahl- und Maschinenbau GmBH (1996) Making transport chains more efficient, product bro-chure.

Novem (1991) Coda-E – A new Road/Rail transport system, brochure.

NS Cargo (1996) NS Cargo rail distribution in the Netherlands, brochure.

Partek Multilift Factory (1982) TTT-System opens new economic perspectives for transpors of ex-changeable bodies, product brochure.

Partek Multilift Factory (1990) Multilift container handling equipment for 20 feet, product brochure.

Proveho AB (1997) Glesbygds-terminal, variant 3 (Low-flow terminal, version 3), product leaflet. In Swedish.

RAG Umwelt Netzwerk (1995) Problemlöser (problem solver), Newsletter No. 3.

Rail, Road & Sea Consulting Co. Ltd (1995) Mega-Rail-Runner, concept description.

Rautaruukki (1995) Wheelless System, product brochure.

xii

Reggiane (1996) Octopus – Junction Shuttle Tracks, blue print.

Reggiane (1997) Octopus – The most advanced connecting link from today to the future of container terminals, product brochure.

Reggiane (1997/a) Octopus System Terminal Module, concept description.

Reggiane (1997/b) The Octopus System – Design Criteria and Key Elements for Success, concept de-scription.

Roland Tankbau GmbH & Co. KG (1993/a) Roland Container – Rationell transportieren (Roland Container – Rational Transportation), brochure. In German.

Roland Tankbau GmbH & Co. KG (1993/b) Technik aktuell rund um den Abrollkipper (Technology around the the Abrollkipper of current interest), brochure. In German.

Roland Tankbau GmbH & Co. KG (1996) Abroll-Container-Transport-System (ACTS), brochure. In German.

Rolux Oy (1996/a) Itsekuormaava Mini-Rolux uutta tehokkuutta materiaalinkäsittelyyn, product bro-chure, In Finnish.

Rolux Oy (1996/b) Rolux löser de interna hanteringsknutarna (Rolux solves the internal handling problems), product brochure. In Swedish.

SBB Cargo (1993) Kombinierte Alternative (Combined Alternatives), Kundenbrief (Newsletter) No. 4, p. 24. In German.

SBB Cargo (1995/a) Einmal Aluminium retour, bitte (I´d like this aluminium to be sent back, please), Kundenbrief (Newsletter) No. 2. In German.

SBB Cargo (1995/b) ACTS: Neues Modell für altes Papier (ACTS New model for old paper), Kunden-brief (Newsletter) No. 3. In German.

Seaform Design (1996) Proposed ”Shwoplecat AU” Rhine Express RO-RO catamaran vessel for un-accompanied semitrailers, product leaflet.

Seaform Design (1996) Proposed ”Shwoplecat BA” Rhine Express RO-RO catamaran vessel for ac-companied semitrailers and/or lorries, product leaflet.

Seaform Design (1996) Proposed ”Shwoplecat DA/U” RO-RO vessel to carry either 15 accompanied semitrailers and/or road trains, alternatively 20 unaccompanied semitrailers on a draught of approx. 2.7 m., product leaflet.

Seaform Design (1996) Proposed Rhine Express ”Shwoplecat” RO-RO vessel, blue print.

SJ (1997) Tågtrafik i samverkan (Train traffic in cooperation), brochure, Stockholm.

SJ Gods (1994) SJ Godsvagnar (SJ Freight wagons), information package.

SNCF Fret (1993) “Multi-berces” the multi-loader system, brochure.

Steelbro (1995) Manifest – news and views from around the world on Steelbro Sidelifters, newsletter, June edition.

Steelbro (1996/a) The Steelbro Sidelifter Story, product brochure.

xiii

Steelbro (1996/b) Manifest – news and views from around the world on Steelbro Sidelifters, newslet-ter, January edition.

Steelmec Verkstäder i Ale AB (1996) Konstruktion, nytillverkning och påbyggnationer (Design, manufacturing and superstructures), product brochure. In Swedish.

Steelmec Verkstäder i Ale AB (1997) SIMAN – sideloader – the new SIMAN is here, product leaflet.

Steelmec Verkstäder i Ale AB (1997) SIMAN – sideloader, product leaflet.

STOLK, G. (1992) Slutrapport Trailer Tåg (Final report Trailer Train), internal SJ-report, SJ Freight division, Research and Development, Gothenburg. In Swedish.Svelast (1980) C-sam – skär ner dina transportkostnader (C-sam cuts your transport costs), product brochure. In Swedish.

Technicatome (1996) TA Commutor Presentation Sketch, presentation sketch, 4 November.

Teco Engineering (1996) Rolux Technologies – Intermodal transportation technology known the world over, product brochure.

Teco Engineering (1996/a) Rolux Combos – meet record capacities in heavy transports, product leaf-let.

Teco Engineering (1996/b) Rolux Translifter + Cassette, product leaflet.

Teco Engineering (1996/c) Rolux Translifter T 904, product leaflet.

Transtech (1992) The Tiphook System, product brochure.

Tuchschmid (1996) Tuchschmid – company profile, brochure.

Weightforge Projects Ltd (1994) Variuos blue prints describing T-lifts, June-December.

Volvo (1996) TCS – Transport Class System, pamphlet. In Swedish.

Zetterbergs Produkt AB (1997) LIVAB Lastväxlare (LIVAB load exchanger), product leaflet. In Swed-ish.

Zetterbergs Produkt AB (1997) LIVAB-liften – Ett lyft för framtiden (the LIVAB-lift – for a bright fu-ture), product brochure. In Swedish.

ÖBB (1994) Rail Cargo Austria. Transport-Logistik für die Brau AG (Rail Cargo Austria. Transport Logistics for Brau AG), brochure. In German.

Marketing videotapes ABB Henschel AG (1996) WAS – Systemlösung für den Güterverkehr. Speech in German.

Berglund’s (1997) G2000 Ro-Ro.

CN/Innotermodal (1996) From Road to Rail to Road – 3R International, European version.

Mercedes-Benz (1996) Kombilifter.

N.C.H Hydraulics Systems B.V. (1995) The Mondiso Intermodal Transportation System.

Steel Bros. (NZ) Ltd. (1994) The Steelbro Sidelifter Story.

xiv

World Wide Web sites419 CSX Intermodal (11 March 1997) http://www.csx.com/docs/ironhwy.html

CSX Intermodal (11 March 1997) http://www.csx.com/csxiover.html.

DB Cargo (11 March 1997) http://www.bahn.de/Cargo/Aktuell/mb6.htm.

SJ Gods (7 March 1998): http://www.sjgods.sj.se/nyheter/tj/tj4_97/artiklar/art_3.html.

SNCF (11 March 1997) http://www.sncf.fr/dr/dpri/autorout.htm.

Interviews and oral presentations BROWN, J., Director, Cholerton Limited, presentation at Innovative Control for Intermodal Trans-port, 28 January 1997, Amsterdam.

COVEZZI, R., Marketing Department, Reggiane S.p.A., letter dated 13 March 1997.

DAHLIN, B., Swedish Road Hauliers’ Association, telephone interview, 10 December 1996.

HALLBERG, A., Export Manager, Hammar Maskin AB, interview at the exhibition International In-termodal Expo 95, Atlanta.

HENRIKSSON, A., General Manager, IMC – InterModal Components, interview 20 December 1996.

HILL, M., Market Manager, International Marketing & Sales, Burlington Northern Railroads, inter-view 27 June 1993.

JR Freight, interview at study visit at the Umekoij terminal in Kyoto, 21 October 1996.

KOZMA, P., former chairman of ISO standardisation committee for freight containers, interview 20 June 1993.

LARSSON, S., General Director, Swedish State Railways, presentation at Intermodal 96, 5 December 1996, London.

MINARINI, F., Project Officer, EU Commission – DG VII, presentation at the SCANDINET kick-off meeting, Helsinki, 31 January 1997.

NIJENHUIS, H., Export Manager, N.C.H. Hydraulic Systems B.V., interview at exhibition Intermodal 96, 5 December 1996, London.

SKYTTÄ, E., Senior Vice President Technology, SISU Terminal Systems, interview, 28 May 1997.

TORKELSSON, Glenn, Lagab AB, telephone interview 21 February 1997.

WEDE, J-O., Project Manager, SJ Staff Strategic Development, telephone interview, 19 January 1997 and personal interview, 26 March 1997.

WERF, J.M.O., CALCONship, short-track waterway transport, presentation at Innovative Control for Intermodal Transport, 28 January 1997, Amsterdam.

419 World Wide Web sites are dated here since they change (or should be changed) regularly. Paper copies of the cited sites are kept by the author.

xv

WIJKANDER, E., Logistics Manager, Avesta Sheffield, Can European rail nationalism be over-come?, presentation at the Intermodal 95 conference, Amsterdam, 24 October 1995.

WÄRMLING, B., General Manager and owner, Ahlmark Lines, telephone interview, 9 June 1997.

Letters, faxes, E-mail messages and personal notes BABA, T., UCLA, Los Angeles, E-mail dated 3 February 1996.

BROWN, J., Director, Cholerton Limited, letter dated 18 November 1996.

BÜHRER, R. K., researcher University of Stuttgart, E-mail dated 26 January 1995.

ERNI, D., Responsible for intermodal structures and installations, Tuchschmid Engineering, fax dated 11 May 1997.

FRANKE, K.-P., Head of Container Handling Systems Department, Noell Stahl- und Maschinenbau, fax dated 16 May 1997.

GRIEME, W., Thyssen Fördertechnik, dated 7 October 1996.

GÖTZ, U., Mercedes-Benz, letter dated 20 March 1997 and fax dated 26 May 1997.

HAGMAN, T. (1988) Supertrans, Notes from a meeting with Lars Hyrum, General Manager of Super-trans, at Chalmers University of Technology on 17 November 1988.

HART, P. R., General Manager, Steel Bros (Aust) Pty Ltd, letter dated October 7, 1996 and fax dated 14 May 1997.

HAULUND, L., DSB Planlaegningskontoret, E-mail dated 8 October 1996.

HYRUM, L. General Manager, Supertrans, letter to professor Lars Sjöstedt dated 21 November 1988.

LE ROUX, J. B. and MERCIER-HANDISYDE, P., Technicatome, faxes dated 26 November and 20 December 1996.

LE ROUX, J. B., Technicatome, fax dated 21 February 1997.

LÖVGREN, S. General Manager, Proveho AB, letter dated 15 March 1997 and file transmisson (pic-tures) 2 July 1997.

MAGNI, F., General Manager, Costaferroviaria in the Costamasnaga group, faxes dated 16 October 1996 and 23 May 1997, and letter dated 28 February 1997.

MASUDA, T., Managing Director, Japan Freight Railway Co., fax dated 14 February 1996.

POOL, N.A.H., Director, Blatchford Transport Equipment, letter dated 22 April 1997 and fax dated 16 May 1997.

RENKEMA, R. Translift Nederland BV, letter dated 13 November 1996.

ROCK, H., ABB Henschel, letters dated 10 April and 10 October 1996, fax dated 16 May 1997.

SONDERMANN, K.-U., Krupp Fördertechnik, letter dated 16 December 1996 and E-mail dated 15 May 1997.

SUNDSTRÖM, L., Project Manager, SJ Staff Strategic Development, fax dated 26 June 1997.

xvi

SUTELA, L., Cargotec Oy, letter dated 17 March 1997 and E-mail dated 9 May 1997.

TER POORTEN, G.J., Manager Strategic Development, International Projects, NS Cargo, letter dated 28 February 1996.

TORKELSSON, G., General Manager, Lagab AB, fax dated 26 February 1997.

WEDE, J-O, Project Manager, SJ Staff Strategic Development, fax dated 19 February 1997.