VEL-Wagon

Versatile, Efficient and Longer Wagon for European Transportation

Grant agreement no: 265610

– DELIVERABLE REPORT –

www.vel-wagon.eu

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT

This document contains information, which is proprietary to the VEL-Wagon Consortium. Neither this document nor the information contained herein shall be used, duplicated or communicated by any means to any third party,

in whole or in parts, except with prior written consent of the VEL-Wagon Consortium.

Document ID: D 1.1

Title: State of the art and concept drafting

Responsable partner:

Technische Universität Berlin

Fachgebiet Schienenfahrwege und Bahnbetrieb

Contributors: KTH, UNIZA, TVP

2

Document Information

Document Name: State of the art and concept drafting

Document ID: D1.1

Revision: First issue, 10.06.2011

Revision Date:

Authors: A. Carrillo Zanuy (TUB); H. Boysen (KTH); J. Mašek, M. Buda (UNIZA); F. Janíček, J. Karabin (TVP)

Approvals

Partner Name Company Date Visa

1 Coordinator Prof. Siegmann/ A. Carrillo Zanuy

TUB O.K.

2 Partner KTH O.K.

3 Partner UNIZA O.K.

4 Partner TVP O.K.

Documents history

Revision Date Modification Author

1 07.06.11 Point 6.2.2, 6.2.3 Axle Load, Meter Load H. Boysen KTH

2 07.06.11 Point 7.1 J. Valigursky TVP

3 10.06.11 Point 4 (Advisory board comments, UIRR Burkhardt) A. Carrillo TUB

3

SECTION I –SUMMARY

Title: State of the art and concept drafting

Deliverable ID D1.1

Type of Deliverable Report

Input / Starting stage WP1 Kick off Minutes

Output / Final stage

Lead partner(s) TUB

Achievement to date (%) 100 %

Expected date of achievement 10th June 2011

Protection Public

4

Title: State of the art and concept drafting

Abstract

The present deliverable presents a general overview of the European rail freight system in terms of:

Demand:

Where the general characteristics and trends on freight transportation market are analysed, obtaining among other conclusions that more transport of processed high-valued goods with low density and higher space requirement is happening in contrast to transport of bulk cargo and heavy goods.

Supply

Where the freight railway system and its performance are analysed, being intermodal transportation and unit trains the business segments with major interest. The current wagon fleet characteristics together with their performance are discussed to produce guidelines for VEL-Wagon concepts, among which the multipurpose applications.

Infrastructure

General overview of railway infrastructure characteristics paying especial attention to loading gauges and axle loads.

Finally it presents rough concept definitions of VEL-Wagon based on partners evaluation.

Associated Milestones:

MS1 Market and corridor identification, MS2 Initial concepts for VEL-Wagon

Contribution to VEL-Wagon Objectives as mentioned in the Description of Work

Objective Definition Comments Quantification

• Identify basic scenarios for rail freight in which VEL-Wagon could be implemented (Theoretical)

• Determine important markets and corridors for application (Practical)

• Define rough physical characteristics of the wagons to have a first starting point when performing the subsequent market and technical research.

5

6

SECTION 2 –DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 7

2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 8

3 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE .................................................................................................... 10

4 OVERVIEW OF FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION DEMAND ........................................................ 13

4.1 CASE STUDY: TRENDS OF CONTAINERISED CARGO IN SWEDEN .................................................. 26

5 OVERVIEW OF FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY ......................................................... 28

5.1 CONVENTIONAL RAIL FREIGHT ................................................................................................. 28

5.2 INTERMODAL .......................................................................................................................... 50

5.2.1 ILUs characteristics in intermodal transport .................................................................... 50

5.2.2 Unaccompanied intermodal transport .............................................................................. 53

5.2.3 Accompanied intermodal transport .................................................................................. 56

6 OVERVIEW OF INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS .................................................................. 58

6.1 DIMENSIONS FOR ROAD VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 58

6.1.1 Vehicle mass .................................................................................................................... 59

6.2 OVERVIEW OF RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................... 60

6.2.1 Loading gauge ................................................................................................................. 60

6.2.2 Intermodal gauge ............................................................................................................. 61

6.2.3 Meter load ........................................................................................................................ 63

6.2.4 Axle load .......................................................................................................................... 63

7 OVERVIEW OF WAGON MARKET ............................................................................................. 65

7.1 PERTINENT LIST OF RULES (SELECTION): .................................................................................. 65

7.2 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................ 66

7.3 WAGON PRODUCTION TRENDS (TVP PERSPECTIVE) ................................................................. 67

7.4 STATE OF THE ART IN LONG WAGONS ....................................................................................... 68

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FIRST WAGON CONCEPTS ................... 76

9 VEL-WAGON CONCEPT DRAFTING ......................................................................................... 79

9.1 PRESENTATION OF FREIGHT RAILWAY WAGONS IN USE .............................................................. 80

9.2 VEL WAGON CONCEPTS ........................................................................................................ 86

9.3 CONCEPT EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 103

9.3.1 Methodology of evaluation ............................................................................................. 103

9.3.2 Ranking VEL Wagon´s features .................................................................................... 106

9.4 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 112

LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................................. 113

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... 116

7

1 Executive summary (A. Carrillo Zanuy) This report analyses demand, supply and recent developments in rail freight transportation. It gives an overview of the state of the art in freight wagons, determines important markets for a VEL-Wagon and identifies its rough design requirements.

Transport decisions are taken by quality and by price. Nowadays rail freight is competitive in bulk goods and large shipments sizes over long distances. In spite of this, road transportation wins the mode choice in 80 per cent of the cases (expressed in tkm). To reverse this situation, rail freight needs to optimize its processes, improve quality and adjust its system to modern logistic needs.

Rail freight was severely hit by the economic crisis from 2008 onwards but recovered in the last months reaching again performances levels of 2007. This development is accompanied by the general change in freight structure which strives for more transport of processed high-valued goods with low density and higher space requirement in contrast to transport of bulk cargo and heavy goods. This trend leads to a growing share of combined transport and palletized consignments that demand a new generation of wagons – versatile (suitable for container of different sizes, semitrailer, swap bodies and other loads), longer (to transport more TEUs and pallets per wagon) and lighter (fewer bogies per cargo unit).

There are already long wagons without articulation up to 80 ft. in use. For higher lengths articulated types are used.

Length is a fundamental parameter for VEL-Wagon to be successful. A primarily analysis indicated that constructional problems start from 80 ft. onwards. A first rough design of a VEL-Wagon envisages a loading length up to 90 ft. (VEL90) with 25t per axle. It could transport up to four 20 ft. containers, two 45 ft. containers or two semi-trailers. Additionally the uninterrupted length of VEL-Wagon might be valuable to transport finished products with low-medium density and to address in a versatile manner a great variety of cargo forms including long elements. Attachable modules, e.g. a cover with side walls, should be necessary.

VEL-Wagon project aligns with the actual situation and trends of European rail infrastructure development, especially when it comes to loading gauge, axle load and other dimensional parameters enlargement. It also analyzes the current logistics and economics on European rail transportation to determine viable scenarios for VEL-Wagon within sustainable European freight railway transportation.

8

2 Background (A. Carrillo Zanuy) The freight railways in Europe used to enjoy better times before the deindustrialization process in the late 1900s, affecting western Europe gradually, and eastern Europe very abruptly. This process is shifting the European production structure towards an economic system more dependent on information, services and technological development, imposing important quality requirements for transportation that freight railways are presently not able to meet. During such important development times the European railways have lost an important share of their freight market, which in the case of central and eastern European countries has been especially devastating. About 60% of the total tonne-km transported by railways in eastern Europe disappeared between 1988 and 1993.

Exhibit 1: Freight railways’ performance in Europe (Mrd. tkm). Source: UIC 2009.

Indeed, a major part of the decline of European freight railways can be attributed to the changed production structure; however other reasons such as the poor coordination of international cross-border scheduled routes necessary for longer distances of transportation as well as the inflexibility to connect railway freights to other modes brought an important worsening effect too. <<Hilmola, O-P, "European Railway Freight Transportation and Adaptation to Demand Decline Efficiency and Partial Productivity Analysis from Period of 1980-2003," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 205-225, 2007>>

The large decline suffered by freight railways since the 1980s contrasts very much with the increase of other modes, particularly the road freight, which increased its tonne-km output by 180% between the years 1980 and 2000. <<Eurostat, “Panorama of transport Statistical overview of road, rail, inland waterways and air transport in the European Union”, Data 1970-1999, 2001>>

During the 20th and the early 21st century, road and sea freight underwent a phenomenal expansion, absorbing the major portion of new freight market created and taking market share from the railways. Unfortunately the environmental price paid for this was high, especially regarding the case of road transport. As European governments became aware of

9

the environmental problems arising from such rapid transportation expansion, they were increasingly looking at freight railways that should offer a better energy utilisation and lower external costs, if used efficiently. Then, ideally, rail transport should be more competitive in an environmentally-concerned market of surface transportation.

At the beginning of the 21st century there was clear interest from administrations, lobbies and potential users of rail services in promoting the use of freight railways again. The so-called “Revitalising the railways” as one of the principal measures proposed in the EC 2001 White Paper is a good example.

In many cases though, public and national-oriented management of railway transports did, and still do, hinder the proper evolution of rail freight businesses.

While other modes of freight transport enjoyed a propitious regulative context, freight railways were caught amidst monopolistic interests and strong-regulated markets. The liberalization of the European rail freight market taking place from the year 1993 onwards, as in the UK, Sweden or Germany, is still is not accomplished by many countries at the time being. This has produced different scenarios for freight railways in which international traffics still have impediments for being efficient. In spite of this, a combination of interoperable networks and liberalized markets has paved the way for newcomers to produce benefits in some corridors and areas, especially in the container segment, e.g. the Rhine-Swiss-Italian corridor, and the hinterlands of Antwerpen, Rotterdam, Bremen and Hamburg.

Currently, environmental concerns of the society combined with unstable energy prices and increased demand of crude oil and other commodities has positioned railways in the spotlight of many potential users.

10

3 Introduction and scope (A. Carrillo Zanuy) It is commonly accepted that in surface transportation the rail mode is more appropriate for transporting large and heavy consignments over long distances whereas road mode is more appropriate for small and light consignments over short distances. Between these extremes there are many transports’ demands that may choose one mode or the other one.

Typically, road transportation wins the mode choice in 80% of the cases (expressed in tkm).

Exhibit 2: Example of a modal share in surface transportation (>600km).

Indeed nowadays about 1,5 billion tkm are transported in Europe by lorry at distances farther than 150 km, conversely only 0,4 billion tkm (20%) are transported by train (Eurostat 2011), this entails important costs for fossil fuels.

In the nearby future when transportation has to be more sustainable it seems quite clear that freight railways will win the mode choice more often.

For this to happen though, it is necessary that freight railways, apart from lowering their prices, significantly improve highly increase the quality of transportation. In that sense, quality standards such as reliability, flexibility, availability, cargo security and safety, punctuality, customisation, marketability, traceability, complementary servicing and time for transport among others have to be improved by railways as well.

Hence, rail freight has the challenge to become excellent and to gain in reputation.

There are many actions to increase quality in rail freight transport; one of them is the optimisation of the current wagon fleet to improve availability, flexibility, marketability, commercial speed, cargo security and cost. This optimisation has to respond to the actual trends of transport demand and has to be in consonance with the required and feasible infrastructure upgrades.

In European rail freight transportation the total amount of freight wagons has been gradually decreasing at an approximate rate of 3% per year until reaching approximately 650.000 units in the year 2010, on the other hand the offered tkm has been stagnating or slightly decreasing to reach around 400 milliard tkm in 2010 (UIC stats and Eurostat 2011).

11

Exhibit 3: Amount of wagons vs. freight rail performance. Data source: Eurostat and UIC 2011.

This mirrors the actual trend of utilising more efficiently the available wagon fleet, which is achieved by increasing the amount of productive km (loaded km) the wagons make per year.

An important part of this overall wagon efficiency is attributable to the exhaustive utilisation of intermodal wagons, which have found a proper place in the globalised market of containerisation. Intermodal wagons usually carry lighter cargoes that have high value, typically, the higher the value of the cargo the lighter it is and the more exigent in respect to quality standards, especially concerning security and safety.

Conventional wagons have the optimal physical and technical characteristics to transport some specific kinds of commodities – usually with lower value per ton – and fail in being versatile for other transports. There are exceptions as the H and L wagons that address general (palletised) cargo which have high value too.

The production system in which wagons are utilised has as well an important effect on the productivity thereof. Then so, intermodal and company-dedicated wagons tend to run in point-to-point direct configurations with short turn-over times, while other conventional wagons may make use of the single wagon load system where they can be re-marshalled many times, reducing by this their total yearly mileage. A compromised solution has to be found to increase mileage while being flexible.

Graphically, the wagon type, mileage and % of loaded runs could look as follows:

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

# wagons

t-km 2010c.a. 400 Mrd. t-km

2010c.a. 650.000 wagons

12

Exhibit 4: European wagon productivity. Source: Eurostat, UIC 2010, DB reports and internal knowledge.

Hence in a nearby future the productivity of wagons has to continue increasing in order to achieve better competition levels against road. This challenge will pave the way for the excellence in freight railways and will enable a more sustainable future of transportation

The VEL-Wagon project is targeting these concepts by analysing the future necessities on light and versatile wagons that will deploy better performance and quality to compete against the road.

This deliverable presents an overview of the current situation in demand and supply for European rail freight transportation; furthermore it gives an overview of rail infrastructure and wagon fleet conditions.

13

4 Overview of freight transportation demand (A. Carrillo Zanuy) The demand of freight transportation in Europe has been affected severely by the recent economic crisis. According to Eurostat 2011 the crisis has cancelled out six years of growth in European road freight (in tkm). In rail transport the decline has been even worse, leading to further undesirable modal share.

Exhibit 5: Modal share in EU25. Data source: Eurostat 2011.

In respect to the type of goods transported by road, the most affected segments were:

RANK OF CRISIS-AFFECTED GOODS (NST2007) IN ROAD TRANSPORT

2009

(Mrd.t-km)

2008

(Mrd.t-km)

Drop

09/08

Share (2008)

Drop x share

Basic metals; fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment

117 147 20,31% 7,67% 1,56%

Other non-metallic mineral products 157 182 13,36% 9,48% 1,27%

Metal ores and other mining and quarrying products; 145 168 14,14% 8,78% 1,24%

14

peat; uranium and thorium

Grouped goods: a mixture of types of goods which are transported together

104 123 15,00% 6,39% 0,96%

Machinery and equipment n.e.c.; office machinery and computers; electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c.; radio, television and communication equipment and

apparatus; medical, precision and optical instruments; watches and clocks

59 73 19,56% 3,83% 0,75%

Unidentifiable goods: goods which for any reason cannot be identified and therefore cannot be assigned

to groups 01-16. (Containers) 59 72 17,10% 3,74% 0,64%

Furniture; other manufactured goods n.e.c. 32 44 27,56% 2,31% 0,64%

Wood and products of wood and cork (except furniture); articles of straw and plaiting materials; pulp,

paper and paper products; printed matter and recorded media

128 140 8,63% 7,28% 0,63%

Transport equipment 58 70 17,17% 3,65% 0,63%

Chemicals, chemical products, and man-made fibres; rubber and plastic products ; nuclear fuel

131 142 7,19% 7,38% 0,53%

Other goods n.e.c. 38 43 12,38% 2,24% 0,28%

Coke and refined petroleum products 54 59 8,92% 3,08% 0,27%

Food products, beverages and tobacco 298 303 1,73% 15,81% 0,27%

Equipment and material utilized in the transport of goods

35 38 9,63% 2,01% 0,19%

Textiles and textile products; leather and leather products

20 24 14,47% 1,25% 0,18%

Coal and lignite; crude petroleum and natural gas 12 12 6,86% 0,65% 0,04%

Products of agriculture, hunting, and forestry; fish and other fishing products

180 181 0,39% 9,42% 0,04%

Secondary raw materials; municipal wastes and other wastes

64 63 -0,60% 3,30% -0,02%

Goods moved in the course of household and office removals; baggage and articles accompanying

travellers; motor vehicles being moved for repair; other non market goods n.e.c.

7 7 -6,92% 0,36% -0,03%

Mail, parcels 27 26 -4,46% 1,36% -0,06%

TOTAL 1725 1917 10,01% 100% 10,01%

Table 1: Type of goods transported by road. Data source: Eurostat 2011.

15

In respect to the type of goods transported by rail, the most affected segments were:

RANK OF CRISIS-AFFECTED GOODS (NST2007) IN RAIL TRANSPORT

2009

(Mrd.t-km)

2008

(Mrd.t-km)

Drop

09/08

Share (2008)

Drop x share

Unidentifiable goods: goods which for any reason cannot be identified and therefore cannot be assigned

to groups 01-16. (Containers) 70,5 85,5 17,50% 18,38% 3,22%

Basic metals; fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment

34,6 49,2 29,70% 10,57% 3,14%

Other non metallic mineral products 10,6 21,7 51,36% 4,67% 2,40%

Metal ores and other mining and quarrying products; peat; uranium and thorium

44,4 55,5 20,02% 11,93% 2,39%

Other goods n.e.c. 11,5 17,7 34,75% 3,80% 1,32%

Chemicals, chemical products, and man-made fibers; rubber and plastic products ; nuclear fuel

26,9 32,1 16,14% 6,90% 1,11%

Transport equipment 8,6 13,4 36,02% 2,88% 1,04%

Wood and products of wood and cork (except furniture); articles of straw and plaiting materials; pulp,

paper and paper products; printed matter and recorded media

17,4 21,7 19,78% 4,66% 0,92%

Coke and refined petroleum products 52,1 56,3 7,54% 12,11% 0,91%

Coal and lignite; crude petroleum and natural gas 48,5 52,4 7,42% 11,28% 0,84%

Secondary raw materials; municipal wastes and other wastes

8,1 11,3 28,55% 2,43% 0,69%

Products of agriculture, hunting, and forestry; fish and other fishing products

20,4 22,7 10,26% 4,88% 0,50%

Equipment and material utilized in the transport of goods

3,1 4,5 31,23% 0,96% 0,30%

Furniture; other manufactured goods n.e.c. 3,1 4,5 31,16% 0,96% 0,30%

Grouped goods: a mixture of types of goods which are transported together

3,7 4,6 19,34% 0,99% 0,19%

Food products, beverages and tobacco 9,2 10,0 7,94% 2,16% 0,17%

Machinery and equipment n.e.c.; office machinery and computers; electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c.; radio, television and communication equipment and

apparatus; medical, precision and optical instruments; watches and clocks

0,9 1,5 35,90% 0,31% 0,11%

TOTAL 373,6 465,0 19,66% 100% 19,66%

Table 2: Type of goods transported by rail. Data source: Eurostat 2011.

By looking at the type of goods affected by the crisis it seems quite clear that most of the decrease on transport demand has been due to heavy industries’ slowing down processes. As railway transportation has an important share of this segment, the crisis has had an even more devastating effect on this transport mode.

16

It has to be said though that the crisis has just confirmed a trend happening on product transport segmentation, which is that “light” transports grow at a higher pace than “heavy” ones. To substantiate this observation the cargo types and goods types transported by road in the last 10 years are shown.

Exhibit 6: a) EU 27 cargoes' share by road. b) EU27 freight road evolution by type of goods. Data source: Eurostat 2010.

EU27 cargoes' share

11,3 t/veh

11,8 t/veh

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

45,0%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Per

centa

ge

carg

o tec

hniq

ue

10,50

10,70

10,90

11,10

11,30

11,50

11,70

11,90

12,10

12,30

net

tonnag

e per

veh

icle

Palletised goods Dry bulk goods

Other cargo not elsewhere specified Liquid bulk goods

Pre-slung goods Large containers

Other containers Road mobile, self-propelled units

Road mobile, non self propelled units net tonnage per lorry with palletised goo

Miscellaneous articles

Foodstuff Textiles and Clothing

Machines and parts

Raw materials, coal, chemicals, and other heavy goods

17

The palletised goods are gaining share over other “loose” cargo configurations e.g. dry bulk, liquid bulk and big bags. And not only this, apparently the palletised cargo is becoming lighter. The averaged net weight per vehicle with palletised cargo is decreasing from 12,2 tonnes in year 2001 to 11,3 in year 2009.

If looking at the type of goods, rather than the cargo types, the miscellaneous articles group, mainly represented by consumer goods, finished and semi-finished goods, containers and general cargo (typically palletized), has dominated and gained share in the last years. In the same situation are other “light” goods as foodstuff, textiles and clothing, as well as machines and parts thereof. In contraposition, raw materials, coal, chemicals, petroleum products and other heavy products transports have lost relative share.

This goods’ segmentation is making decrease the average net weight transported in medium and long distance lorries (>150km) from 13,4 tonnes per vehicle in 1999 to 12,4 tonnes per vehicle in 2009 (about one tonne in a decade) source Eurostat 2011. There are reasons to think that this trend will continue in the next years, mainly because further technological developments of the society will imply even more transportation of finished and semi-finished products to longer distances.

There is as well an increased share of large containers. This is a manifest trend appearing in the statistics of major ports and railways in Europe, where the share of 40 ft and 45 ft containers is increasing over that of shorter units.

Freight railway transport is showing this tendency as well. As example it is shown the product class evolution in German railways since 2005 and Swedish railways since 2000. The category “Machinery, transport equipment, manufactured articles and miscellaneous articles” has experienced the major increase.

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Mio

. to

nn

es

(0

=2

00

5)

GV9 Machinery, transport equipment, manufactured articles and miscellaneous articles

GV6 Crude and manufactured minerals, building materials

GV0 Agricultural products and live animals

GV1 Foodstuffs and animal fodder

GV2 Solid mineral fuels

GV3 Petroleum products

GV4 Ores and metal waste

GV5 Metal products

GV7 Fertilizers

GV8 Chemicals

18

Exhibit 7: a) Evolution good categories on German railways. Data source: Destatis. b) Evolution good categories on Swedish railways. Data source: Eurostat

In container transportation there is a trend for the utilisation of longer units, this is, more TEUs per container unit.

Exhibit 8: Linear trend lines of No. TEU per handled container in different transport contexts. Data sources: Rotterdam port statistics bureau, Antwerp port statistics bureau, Hamburg Port Authority and DESTATIS.

1,300

1,350

1,400

1,450

1,500

1,550

1,600

1,650

1,700

1,750

Janu

arF

ebru

arM

ärz

Apr

ilM

aiJu

niJu

liA

ugus

tS

epte

mbe

rO

ktob

erN

ovem

ber

Dez

embe

rJa

nuar

Feb

ruar

Mär

zA

pril

Mai

Juni

Juli

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Okt

ober

Nov

embe

rD

ezem

ber

Janu

arF

ebru

arM

ärz

Apr

ilM

aiJu

niJu

liA

ugus

tS

epte

mbe

rO

ktob

erN

ovem

ber

Dez

embe

rJa

nuar

Feb

ruar

Mär

zA

pril

Mai

Juni

Juli

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Okt

ober

Nov

embe

rD

ezem

ber

Janu

arF

ebru

arM

ärz

Apr

ilM

aiJu

niJu

liA

ugus

tS

epte

mbe

rO

ktob

erN

ovem

ber

Dez

embe

rJa

nuar

Feb

ruar

Mär

zA

pril

Mai

Juni

Juli

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Okt

ober

Nov

embe

rD

ezem

ber

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TE

U/C

on

tain

er

Rotterdam

Hamburg

Antw erp

German railw ays

19

The standardization of the cargo facilitates many logistics operations, especially when it comes to systematising the handling processes at terminals, (un)loading ramps and warehouses. It also has advantages on safety and security, which enable better liability on transport operations. Therefore it can be said that standardization helps to increase efficiency of transportation and logistics, yet it entails more packaging. A clear example of the standardisation can be seen today with the widespread containerisation and palletisation trend.

The pallet is the mainstay of cargo loading technique in the world. The most common pallet in Europe is the EPAL whose dimensions are 1,2 m x 0,8 m.

Exhibit 9: EPAL dimensions. Source: Wikipedia.

A conventional European lorry, say the typical articulated road vehicle of 16,5 m length, has a capacity of 33 Europallets.

Exhibit 10: Mega Liner 3. Source: Krone.

Semitrailers are preferred over trailer combinations mainly because of the possibility to detach the tractor and the semitrailer and using them on different services contexts in a versatile manner.

The semitrailers also constitute an intermodal loading unit when they are loaded in intermodal trains. The amount of tkm transported in intermodal semitrailers has increased dramatically very much during the last decade. In Germany for example they represent 17% of total tkm of intermodal transports and the trend seems to indicate further growth.

20

Exhibit 11: Evolution of intermodal loading units’ utilisation in German railways (2005=0, in mio. tkm). Data source: Destatis.

In that way a VEL-Wagon should be able to transport semitrailers in accordance with the increasing demand for them.

Assuming a semitrailer maximal legal payload capacity of 22 t to 28 t (depending on configuration), the maximal payload per pallet slot is 666 kg to 800 kg. Pallets are however lighter than this.

Pallets can be also stacked if the cargo admits that, however this practise may lead to exceeding the total allowed load capacity of the semitrailer, especially if stacking dense goods, e.g. tiles.

As the available volume of a conventional semitrailer is around 88 m3 the maximal density of the cargo, if volume is fully occupied, should be around 0,3 t/m3.

Recently the discussion on Giga-liners introduction in Europe is pledging for vehicle length extension but without an increase of the allowed total mass, this is by sticking to 40 t instead of going for 60 t as for Finnish and Swedish giga-liners. This corroborates the trend towards lower cargo densities in road transportation.

Maximum densities and other characteristics of some loading units are displayed in the following table:

Length x wide (interior) No. EPAL Max. payload per pallet slot Max. density for whole volume

and payload t/m3

20’ container 5,931m x 2,35 m 11 2,89 t (pallet resistance

exceeded)) 0,95

20’ container HC (pallet wide) 5,91 m x 2,42 m 14 2 t (technical mass limit of a

pallet) 0,71

Swap body C715 7,015 m x 2,46 m 16 0,831 t 0,3

- 2

- 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

<6,15m 6,15<x<7,82 7,82<x<9,159,15<x<13,75 semitrailer accompanied

21

Swap body C745 7,315 m x 2,46 m 18 1,18 t 0,46

Swap body C782 7,685 m x 2,46 m 19 1,4 t 0,56

30’ container 8,979 m x 2,35 m 18 1,71 t 0,618

40’ container 12,027 m x 2,35 m 25 1,12 t 0,4

40’ container HC (pallet wide) 12,08 m x 2,44 m 30 1 t 0,386

Swap body A1360 13,465 m x 2,44 m 33 0,89 t 0,35

45’ container HC (pallet wide) 13,551 m x 2,44 m 33 1 t 0,386

Wagon Habbiins-14 22,6 m x 2,83 m 65 1 t 0,369

VEL-Wagon (Estimated) 25 m x 2,83 m 70 0,9 t 0,35

Standard semitrailer 13,6 m x 2,48 m 33 0,75 t 0,3

Giga-Liner (60t) (13,6+7,315) m x 2,48 m 51 0,78 t 0,33

Giga-Liner (40t) (13,6+7,315) m x 2,48 m 51 0,39 t 0,163

Table 3: Densities of various loading units.

If gigaliners were introduced this would introduce a new level of competition against the freight rail transportation.

Hence VEL-Wagon could take in account the dimensions and associated logistics of giga-liner configurations.

Exhibit 12: Gigaliner configurations. Drawing source: P. Hils / Prof. Dr.-Ing. U. Adler (FHE).

In principle combination 1 seems more simple and versatile than combination 2.

The optimal length of the VEL-wagon should be then: 13,6+7,45+7,45=28,5 m (93,5 feet), this is a semitrailer plus two swap bodies C745. In this case, a VEL-wagon would be equivalent to 4/3 (1,33) giga-liners.

Exhibit 13: Equivalent gigaliners per VEL Wagon (I).

Another possibility is to have a shorter VEL-Wagon for two semitrailers or 3 swap bodies, being necessary 10% more VEL-Wagons for the same number of giga-liners. The new

22

wagon length should then be 13,6+13,6=27,2 (89,2 feet) and the equivalency 6/5 (1,2 gigaliners per VEL-Wagon)

Exhibit 14: Equivalent gigaliners per VEL Wagon (II).

23

Exhibit 15: Net tonnage per European road vehicle on long distance transportation (>500km), type of goods and percentage thereof. Data source: Eurostat 2011.

Goods in road long-distance transportation in EU27

18

15

716

4

11

14

19

13

1210

18

17

22

2

6

93

21

20

23

24

5

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

netto t/vehicle (>500km)

% o

ver

tota

l t-k

m (

>50

0km

)

1 Cereals2 Potatoes, other fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables3 Live animals, sugar beet4 Wood and cork5 Textiles, textile articles and man-made fibres, other raw animal and vegetable materials6 Foodstuff and animal fodder7 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits and fats8 Solid minerals fuels9 Crude petroleum

10 Petroleum products11 Iron ore, iron and steel waste and blast furnace dust12 Non-ferrous ores and waste13 Metal products14 Cement, lime, manufactured building materials15 Crude and manufactured minerals16 Natural and chemical fertilizers17 Coal chemicals, tar18 Chemicals other than coal chemicals and tar19 Paper pulp and waste paper20 Transport equipment, machinery, apparatus, engines, whether or not assembled, and parts thereof21 Manufactures of metal22 Glass, glassware, ceramic products23 Leather, textile, clothing, other manufactured articles24 Miscellaneous articles

averaged 13,9

24

The lorries are not always carrying the maximum possible payload, (~28 tonnes) actually, the averaged carried net tonnage is much lower. In long distance transportation, for instance above 500 km, road vehicles carry an averaged net tonnage of 13,9 t. The graph above mirrors the averaged tonnage of lorries in long distance transportations. Noticeable is that class 24 “miscellaneous articles” prevails over other goods.

Assuming that empty runs on road transportation represent 22% of the total vehicle-km (calculated from Eurostat 2011), the averaged tonnage of a loaded long distance vehicle could be calculated as 13,9/0,78 = 17,8 t which yields about 8 t per TEU.

This can be compared to weights of loaded containers in Rotterdam, Antwerpen and on the German railways, being 9,55 t per TEU, 13,9 t per TEU and 12,9 t per TEU, respectively. (Source Rotterdam Port Authority, Antwerp Port Authority and DESTATIS, data year 2009)

Furthermore, 8 t per TEU seems to be an asymptotic limit observed in container transportation when looking at the evolution of 45 ft container mass. Percentage of 45 ft containers is growing in Rotterdam.

Exhibit 16: Weight of loaded TEUs of 45 ft containers in Rotterdam. Data source: Port of Rotterdam statistics bureau.

Exhibit 17: Percentage of container lengths in Rotterdam. Data source: Port of Rotterdam statistics bureau.

45 ft

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

9,0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009

t/loaded TEU

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Container lengths in Rotterdam

30'

20'

45'

40'

25

Looking beyond Europe, even 53 ft containers are now being exchanged between China and North America. (American President Lines)

Considering the exposed material the authors forecast further segmentation of goods in favour of lower-density transports, reducing by this the necessary payload of lorries and increasing the volume of cargo units as 45 ft containers.

Some recent arguments coming from the road industry are aligned with this position too:

„Beim Lang-Lkw werden die Module von bisher drei zu zwei Lkw-Kombinationen zusammengestellt. […] Das Konzept ergibt Sinn, weil heute bei rund 80% der Transporte das Volumen der begrenzende Faktor ist –nicht das Gewicht. Eine Erhöhung des Gesamtgewichts von Lang-Lkw gegenüber herkömmlichen Fahrzeugen ist deshalb nicht zwingend notwendig. Es bleibt bei 40 Tonnen beziehungsweise 44 Tonnen im Kombinierten Verkehr.“

“Today 80% of the transport is limited by volume, not by weight. An increase of the permissible mass on longer road vehicles, in comparison to standard road vehicles, is therefore not necessary. It stays in 40 t (44 for combined transportation)”. (Free summarized translation)

<<Matthias Wissmann President of the German automotive industry (VDA) Internationales Verkehrswesen, Heft 2 März-April 2011>>

VEL-Wagon it is already on this path.

Concerning the growth of general transportation in absolute terms, the situation is unclear. Since the economic crisis, the forecasts on economic conjuncture, and thus on transportation demand had to be reformulated to lower levels.

The EU interim forecast of 1st March 2011- states:

“The economic recovery in the EU continues to make headway. After a strong performance in the first half of 2010, real GDP growth for both the EU and the euro area slowed down in the second half. The deceleration was expected and in line with the soft patch in global growth and trade that reflected the withdrawal of stimulus measures. Looking ahead, real GDP growth in 2011 is now forecast at 1.8% in the EU and 1.6% in the euro area, a slight upward revision compared to the autumn forecast. The improved outlook is supported by better prospects for the global economy and strong EU business sentiment. The recovery is expected to become more balanced towards domestic demand. Uncertainty remains high and developments across countries are uneven. The Commission's inflation forecast for 2011 has been revised up as compared to the autumn due mainly to higher energy and commodity prices. It now stands at 2.5% in the EU and 2.2% in the euro area.”

Exhibit 18: Three economic growth paths. Bottom figure source: EC Euroindicator 39/2011 - 14 March 2011.

26

The authors suggest a conservative growth assumption on transportation demand similar to that occurring at the beginning of 2000 decade (Path 3).

4.1 Case study: Trends of containerised cargo in Sweden (H. Boysen)

In the case of Swedish cross-border rail freight, non-containerised cargo still dominates, but intermodal freight is growing rapidly. From 2004 to 2009, the cross-border intermodal tonnage has more than doubled, see Figure below.

Exhibit 19: Swedish cross-border rail freight tonnage by type. Source: KTH (Data: Trafikanalys).

Of the intermodal freight carried by rail, the share of semitrailers and containers is growing, while that of swap bodies has been declining in recent years, see Figure 20.

Exhibit 20: Share of railway-hauled intermodal ton-km by unit type. Source: KTH (Data: Trafikverket).

27

Of containers carried by rail in Sweden, the share of 45 ft and 40 ft containers has increased in recent years, while that of 30 ft and 20 ft containers is in decline, see Figure below.

Exhibit 21: Share of railway-hauled container ton-km by container length. Source: KTH (Data: Trafikverket).

Therefore, in Sweden similar, if not a clearer, trend towards light transports is happening as well.

28

5 Overview of freight transportation supply (A. Carrillo Zanuy) The services offered in European freight railway transportation can be divided in categories depending on the kind and size of shipments carried, namely (rank by shipment size):

Trainload

Single wagonload

Intermodal transportation

Less-than-wagonload

Exhibit 22: Classification of freight railways’ offer.

5.1 Conventional rail freight

Conventional rail freight or wagonload can be divided, according to the production system, into trainloads and single wagonloads.

The traditional trainload (TL) is the simplest form of wagonload: one shipper, one consignee, one bill of lading, one train, one single commodity. Typical goods of European trainloads are coal, ores, oil, steel and products thereof, sand and earths, crude and manufactured minerals, building materials, chemicals, fertilizers, grains, forest products, etc. Then so, the overall performance of trainloads depends very much on the secondary and primary sectors of the economy. Consequently trainload performance follows the trend of the basic economy and for that reason the performance will improve as the overall basic demand of the economy improves. Additional improvement of trainloads’ performance may come along with more participation on international traffics, entering in concurrence with short sea shipping and inland navigation.

Trainloads are also termed unit trains. However companies tend more and more to utilise unit trains to connect intermodal terminals or freight consolidation stations on a regular and direct basis, being these trainloads making part of superior intermodal or multimodal production systems. Hence in the VEL-Wagon project, trainload will refer only to traditional trainloads as described more above.

The single wagonload (SWL) is the sophisticated product of wagonload by which a wagon or a coupled group thereof are shunted into the facilities of a shipper, and once loaded, they are marshalled to form trains that run over longer distances. At arrival, wagons will reach unloading facilities of consignees by similar shunting procedures. Therefore, railway sidings, auxiliary freight stations, railway junction stations and marshalling yards may be necessary for this transportation.

29

Due to the operations described above, the single wagonload needs important operational resources as shunting locomotives and personnel as well as an information and logistics network for efficient organisation of transports.

The single wagonload is very sensitive to drops in demand because the final cost per transported unit has a high proportion of indirect costs. This influences very much the offered final price, which in turn, it depends on the overall output of the system. Similarly, reduced demand also tends to lead to reduced service frequency.

Furthermore SLW tends to fail in quality, among other reasons because it has:

Decreased number of available private sidings (fail in availability)

Problems with train scheduling, especially in international traffic (fail in punctuality, transport time)

Incompatible service hours for last mile . delivering (fail in punctuality, transport time)

Uncertain timing for collecting and delivering wagons (fail in traceability, punctuality)

Still wagons at customer sidings, yards etc. (fail in transport time, flexibility, cargo security)

Cargo damage during transport operations e.g. marshalling (fail in cargo safety)

Insufficient knowledge of SWL performance level to enable accurate offer appraisal (fail in marketability, complementary servicing)

This overall quality decline weakens the SLW’s competitiveness in modern logistics contexts. Hence, markets with demanding production strategies as the JIT (Just-in-Time) will use other transport options like road-only.

Hence, big challenge of SLW is to improve quality, gain in excellence and achieve reputation. Only by this higher-value markets can be addressed and modal shift can happen.

Typical single wagonloads’ transported goods are the same as trainloads but in smaller consignments’ sizes, this is, from a single wagon to a group thereof. It addresses also general palletized cargo, mainly with wagons of class H.

In Europe, the recession derived from the financial crisis of 2007 has accentuated the decline of conventional freight (wagonload) performance, being the business area of coal, iron ore and other mining products – including mineral oil – the most damaged. Then so, turnover drops on these products of 30% between 2008 and 2009 as the case of DB Schenker Rail, <<DB Schenker, Geschäftsbericht (Activity report) 2009, 2010>> leader in rail freight in Europe, were a clear mirror of the situation on overall European wagonload.

30

Exhibit 23: Combined transport vs. Wagonload in Europe. Data source: Eurostat 2010.

Exhibit 24: Combined transport vs. Wagonload in Germany. Data source: Destatis, Eurostat, DB AG Wettbewerbsbericht 2010.

Apparently since the second quarter of 2009 a recovering trend of the German economy is taking place and this has brought about an increase on performance.

Without being extremely enthusiastic about this fact, it can be said for example that the transportation of wagonloads, especially in trainloads, in Germany, has recovered 20% in one year, enabling to reach again performance levels of 2007. In this way, 2011 will be a determinant year to know if the advance has a solid nature or it belongs to a rebound phase.

Freight rail evolution in Europe

Total

Wagonload

CT

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Mrd

. T

km

Freight rail evolution in Germany

Total

Wagonload

CTTrainload

SWL

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Mrd

. T

km

31

Exhibit 25: German rail transportation of (in tonnes): solid mineral fuel, petroleum products, ores and metal waste, metal products, crude and manufactured minerals, building materials, fertilizers and chemicals (Typical goods of

trainloads).Data source: Destatis 2011.

In respect to the recovery trend of the German economy – view of Jan 2011 –, other European countries are following with a certain delay and different growth patterns. Hence the performance of wagonload could be intuitively sensed from these figures.

Exhibit 26: Seasonally adjusted GDP at market prices in some European countries. Source: Eurostat 2011.

The trainload is the freight rail business working under the strictest price conditions overall in rail freight transportation. In so doing, quality parameters as: time for transportation, reliability and flexibility are of secondary importance with respect to final price per transported tonne. Still, trainloads usually enjoy fair quality standards since from a logistics point of view they are quite easy to program and to exploit within a given railway timetable, especially if they are domestic trainloads.

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

Okt

. 06

Jan.

07

Apr

. 07

Jul.

07

Okt

. 07

Jan.

08

Apr

. 08

Jul.

08

Okt

. 08

Jan.

09

Apr

. 09

Jul.

09

Okt

. 09

Jan.

10

Apr

. 10

Jul.

10

Okt

. 10

Jan.

11

Germany

Spain

France

Italy

SwedenUnited Kingdom

Switzerland

100,0

105,0

110,0

115,0

120,0

125,0

130,0

2007

Q1

2007

Q2

2007

Q3

2007

Q4

2008

Q1

2008

Q2

2008

Q3

2008

Q4

2009

Q1

2009

Q2

2009

Q3

2009

Q4

2010

Q1

2010

Q2

2010

Q3

Index Y

ear 2000=100

32

With the affordable raw materials and solid fuels coming from overseas, e.g. Iron ore from Brazil, coal from South Africa and Australia etc. the amount of international trainloads connecting European ports with industrial regions has grown and with them the averaged rail distance of transportation.

In western Europe, an important amount of trainloads importing coal and iron ore utilise mostly the ports of the northern range but also the ports located in southern range, namely:

Top ten EU ports ranked by dry bulk import

(mostly iron ore and coal)

% of incoming dry bulk over total EU dry bulk ports import

(EU import of ca. 600 mio tonnes/y 2009)

Rotterdam (NL) 8,6%

Amsterdam (NL) 4,5%

Grimsby (UK) 3%

Hamburg (DE) 2,5%

Taranto (IT) 2,4%

Dunkirk (FR) 2,3%

Ravenna (IT) 2%

Antwerp (BE) 1,8%

Gijon (ES) 1,8%

Ghent (BE) 1,7%

Table 4: Top ten ports ranked by dry bulk import. Data source: Eurostat 2011.

Trainloads also carry important amounts of coal originated in Poland to destinations in industrial regions of Germany (Rhine and Ruhr), these account by roughly 2 million tonnes per year (Destatis 2010).

Apart from coal and iron ore, trainloads in western Europe carry many petroleum derivates in tank wagons all over Europe. In so doing different kinds of diesel fuels, gasoline, kerosene, naphtha etc. are predominant in trainloads; only in Germany approximately 30 million tonnes per year – 11% of German rail transports and 20% of German trainloads tonnage – move at an average distance of 150 km between refineries, intermediate deposits and other facilities.

The chemical industry, mainly present along the Rhine Valley, large cities and ports’ industrial areas is also benefitting from the performance of trainloads and single wagonloads, then so companies like BASF, Henkel and DOW are destination and source of such transports, for instance, tank trains/wagons or dry-bulk trains/wagons.

The wagonload is also participating very much on the transportation of sand, earths, loose materials, gravel, raw minerals, cements, etc.. These transportations would represent about 20% of the total tonnage of wagonloads in western Europe.

Finally, the transportation of steel industry products, and machinery parts as well as finalized vehicles occupies another important share of total conventional rail freight. There is a thumb rule that says that for every produced tonne of crude steel by the industry, the trains carry four tonnes of inputs and products thereto, namely: coal, iron ore, semi-finished products, and finished products as automobiles. <<Siegmann, J, “Wege zu einer anforderungsgerechten und wirtschaftlichen Güterbahn”, 1997>>

33

Summarizing, wagonloads in Western Europe occupy a key share within total rail freight transportation of about 70% on total tkm. However single wagon load services are being rationalised due to poor productivity and some markets are being lost, f.i. SNCF announced a decrease of about 60% on SWL in order to cut back losses on this kind of traffics. <<French shippers’ organisation, AUTF, Communicate Service de wagons isolés: la dernière chance? 2010>>

The share of trainloads over total rail freight exceeds 40% in overall amount of tkm in most of the European countries; in some countries with poor performance in SWL as Spain <<European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy & Transport, A Study of Single Wagonload Rail Traffic Final Report, July 2001>> the share of trainloads is even higher. In countries with high performance in combined transportation and SWL like Switzerland the trainloads performance is much lower.

The following table depicts the share of trainloads, single wagonloads and intermodal transportation over total rail freight performance in the top 19 European rail freight performers.

2009 Mio. t-km TL SWL CT

Germany 95834 42% 27% 31%

Poland 43445 61% 31% 8%

France 32130 46% 25% 29%

United Kingdom 21168 n.a. n.a. 30%

Sweden 19155 42% 30% 28%

Latvia 18725 n.a. n.a. 1%

Italy 17791 41% 15% 44%

Austria 17767 38% 37% 26%

Czech Republic 12791 44% 43% 13%

Lithuania 11888 n.a. n.a. 0%

Romania 11088 46% 46% 8%

Switzerland 10565 23% 26% 51%

Finland 8872 60% 35% 6%

Hungary 7673 33% 48% 19%

Spain 7547 77% 1% 22%

Slovakia 6964 47% 48% 6%

Belgium 6374 40% 28% 32%

Estonia 5947 n.a. n.a. 6%

Netherlands 5578 40% 21% 39%

TOP 19 361302 ~47% ~30% 23%

34

Table 5: 2009 country-based percentages on TL, SWL and CT in Europe in t-km (calculated). Data source: Various (See below).

Since there are few dedicated statistics that address this subject particularly, the above values have been estimated from different statistical inputs (Eurostat, national statistics offices, UIC stats), recent studies examination namely: ERIM, DIOMIS, CER Business Cases Study – data of 2006 – and company consultations. An adaptation to 2009 has been done considering an averaged decrease of SWL in 20%, and increases of TL and CT in 3% and 17% respectively. This trend has been inferred from the evolution of different types of cargo transported in German railways from 2006 to 2009 and has been crosschecked with business reports of the companies Trenitalia, DB AG, SNCF and RCA.

The author acknowledges certain inaccuracy on calculated results, especially when it comes to TL and SWL percentages as they are not usually reported separately in statistics databases.

Another interesting point is the amount of train-km occurring in European networks. The following table has been estimated together with the table of tkm percentages, in this case mainly from traffic data from the CER corridors study, 2006.

2009 1000 Tr-km TL SWL CT

Germany 202294 33% 28% 40%

Poland 64176 53% 36% 11%

France 74209 36% 26% 38%

United Kingdom 36959 n.a. n.a. 39%

Sweden 37778 33% 31% 36%

Latvia 11326 n.a. n.a. 2%

Italy 46248 30% 15% 55%

Austria 49061 29% 38% 33%

Czech Republic 29811 36% 46% 18%

Lithuania 8095 n.a. n.a. 0%

Romania 17201 38% 51% 11%

Switzerland 29519 16% 24% 60%

Finland 14899 51% 41% 8%

Hungary 17076 26% 50% 25%

Spain 23331 67% 1% 32%

Slovakia 10969 39% 53% 8%

Belgium 11677 31% 29% 40%

Estonia 3226 n.a. n.a. 8%

Netherlands 9460 30% 21% 49%

35

TOP 19 697316 ~36% ~30% 33%

Table 6: Train-km occurring in European networks. Source: Various (See explanation).

As a result, an estimation of the average net tonnage transported per train in the TOP 19 countries could look as follows:

2009 Averaged TL SWL CT

Germany 474 613 457 370

Poland 677 784 585 474

France 433 553 412 334

United Kingdom 573 n.a. n.a. 444

Sweden 507 651 485 393

Latvia 1653 n.a. n.a. 1141

Italy 385 516 385 312

Austria 362 468 349 283

Czech Republic 429 529 394 319

Lithuania 1469 n.a. n.a. 1038

Romania 645 780 581 471

Switzerland 358 510 380 308

Finland 595 688 513 416

Hungary 449 580 432 350

Spain 323 372 277 225

Slovakia 635 762 568 460

Belgium 546 710 529 429

Estonia 1843 n.a. n.a. 1281

Netherlands 590 782 583 472

TOP 19 518 671 513 358

Table 7: Estimated averaged net tonnage transported per train in European countries. Source: Various (See explanation).

Due to the coupling technology – screw coupler and buffers – the European trains have technical limitations – coupler max. tension and other longitudinal dynamics constraints – to operate efficiently heavy loads on certain lines. For instance, German operating rules limit train mass to 4000 tons with screw couplers, while Sweden regularly operates trains of 3200 tons on 17‰ grades.

36

Trains with automatic central couplers, as used in the Baltic countries and Russia have this problem too but to a lesser extent, hence longer as well as heavier trains are typical there. In other parts of the world, e.g. the U.S., apart from having automatic central coupler many trains have distributed power. This is more than one working locomotive along the train, enabling it to negotiate steeper ramps. These locomotives communicate with each other via radio and deploy simultaneous efforts in different parts of the train. This improves longitudinal dynamics and reduces stresses. However these systems are not established in Europe and remain under investigation.

Typical trainload traffic utilises heavier trains than SWL trains or intermodal trains (the lightest ones). For that reason trainloads usually do not fully use the allowed train length, since they reach the mass limitation before; it is what is called a mass-constrained train. On the other hand, SWL and CT trains are more prone to be length-constrained since they use to be lighter per length unit, specially the CT trains.

Empty runs of wagons decrease the averaged net tonnage transported in TLs (in SWL and CT too). It is estimated that about 40% of the total wagon-km are done in empty runs (Eurostat 2010). It is assumed that the percentage of empty km done by conventional wagons of TLs is higher than the average. A 50% empty usage for wagons of TL seems quite realistic. In SWL, due to re-routing of the wagons to find backloads, the percentage of empty runs should be sensibly lower than the average; from 30 to 35% could be a plausible range. In CT, the empty run percentage could be even lower – around 15% – however it has to be bore in mind that there is an important transportation of empty containers – 25% according to Eurostat 2010 – which from an operative standpoint are not considered empty runs.

Loaded trains of TL are the heaviest trains circulating on the networks. In countries with automatic central coupling, trains can be more than twice as heavy and twice as long as in countries with screw coupler and buffers. Typical train weights of loaded TL in countries with screw coupling can be around 2500 tonnes if the topography is flat, being reduced to about 1500 tonnes or less if the topography is more adverse. In some sections the topography is so adverse that an uncoupled push locomotive has to be added behind the train to negotiate a particular ramp.

The loaded trainloads do not usually exhaust the allowed train length since they reach a weight limitation before. Typical lengths of loaded trains on the trainload segment should be below 450m if they do not have upgraded rolling stock (more and/or more powerful locomotives, central coupler, distributed power, etc). Trains with metal products (e.g. steel coils) are usually shorter, around 200m.

The wagons’ length of TLs varies between 12 m (Shimmnss) and 15 m being most of them 4-axled bogie wagons, there are as well 6-axled wagons for the transportation of steel products and heavy materials and there are wagons with central coupling for the transportation of large consignments of iron ore in Germany. Remarkable exceptions as the 4-axle wagons for the transportation of iron ore along the Malmbanan can be found in Sweden, with 30 t/axle and central coupler too, in trains of normally 8600 tons.

The following graph could have a signification for trainloads length and weight; it has been produced following the idea of Voges and Sachse. <<Voges und Sachse, Neue Dimensionen für den Güterverkehr, ETR. October 1998>>

37

Exhibit 27: Train length - Cargo density graph (I). Source: A. Carrillo Zanuy.

The graph is a representation of the train length over the cargo density and it has the following assumptions:

The maximal train length is 740m

The maximal axle load is 22,5 tonnes

The maximal train gross weight is 2500 tonnes

The wagon lengths, tares and loading cross sections are (Data from TVP):

Talns=15m, 25t and 5,1 m3/m

Sgns 60’=19m, 19t and 5,4 m3/m

VEL 80’=25m, 22t and 5,4 m3/m

The graph has a secondary Y-axis (to the right) for representing the gross tonnage of the train and its available volume.

Main observations:

Axle load increase is significant for dense materials but it has to be accompanied by extended train weight to make better use of rail slots. Without extended train weight it would lead to fewer wagons (and axles) per train which would imply an important saving on wagons’ costs. However, infrastructure charges, locomotive, energy and indirect costs of the train would remain more or less the same.

Train weight increase, say up to 4000 t, without axle load extension would mean trainloads fully using the available max. length (700m), further weights increases would need axle load increases for having a meaning, for example 5000 t of train

50,0

150,0

250,0

350,0

450,0

550,0

650,0

750,0

Empty wago

ns

Empty co

ntainers

Automob

iles

Avera

ged loaded

container

Apples'

boxes

Bottled b

eer

Wood

trunk

s

Gasolin

eW

heat

olive oil

Tar

Heavie

st pos

sible

containe

r

Hard C

oal

Hydro

chloric

acid 4

0%

Gypsu

m

Grave

ls

Limesto

ne bro

ken

Ballast

Sand

Copper

ore

iron ore

Tra

in L

en

gth

No

. Ax

les

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

40000,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2,0

t/m3

Tra

in g

ros

s t

vo

lum

e m

3

Talns

Sgns 60'

VEL 80'

No Axles

38

weight should need 25 t/axle, 6000 t should need 30t/axle (or more axles per wagon), in any case upgraded rolling stock and/or improved train dynamics should be necessary (central or reinforced coupler, distributed traction and/or more powerful locomotives). Infrastructure charges should be higher by higher axle loads and also because increased train weight, the power consumption should be higher too, however some indirect costs would remain the same and that would mean lower unitary costs per transported tonne (economies of scale).

Train length extension, say up to 1500 m, would be useful for light transports, e.g. containers, automobiles, paper, but it should be as well accompanied by a train weight increase in order to take advantage of the length.

A rough concept of VEL-Wagon, VEL80’ as described above, under the current conditions, would offer a capable multipurpose platform for a number of commodities categorized in the light segment, taking advantage of the available length and with lower number of axles and thus a cost saving.

The following graph proposes a coordinated extension of some parameters:

Train length from 740 to 1500 m

Train weight from 2500 to 5000 t

Axle load from 22,5 to 25 t

Exhibit 28: Train leght - Cargo density graph (II). Source: A. Carrillo Zanuy.

Although not shown in the graph, larger loading gauges will also increase wagon loading and train mass, even without increasing train length. Many lines in Sweden and even the Øresund link to Denmark are cleared for intermodal gauge P/C 450 (4.83 m tall), which is useful not only to intermodal load units but also to e.g. packaged lumber.

50,0

250,0

450,0

650,0

850,0

1050,0

1250,0

1450,0

1650,0

Empty

wagons

Empty

conta

iners

Autom

obile

s

Avera

ged loaded

conta

iner

Apples'

boxes

Bottled

beer

Wood

trunk

s

Gasolin

e

Wheat

olive o

ilTar

Heavie

st p

ossib

le co

ntaine

r

Hard C

oal

Hydro

chloric

acid

40%

Gypsu

m

Grave

ls

Limesto

ne br

oken

Ballast

Sand

Copper

ore

iron o

re

Tra

in le

ng

th m

No

. Ax

les

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

90000,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2,0

t/m3

Tra

in g

ros

s t

vo

lum

e m

3

Talns

Sgns 60'

VEL 80'

No. Axles = No. Wagons/4

39

In a future situation where longer and heavier trains may be more frequent, wagonloads could cut costs in infrastructure charges by making better use of rail slots.

An overview of cost categories’ percentages for a typical European trainload is provided in the following graph:

Exhibit 29: Costs percentages example of a domestic trainload in Germany. Source: TUB internal knowledge based on previous projects calculations.

A graphical representation of typical SWL trains’ costs would be too inaccurate in the sense that it would not include correctly the proportional part of the fixed costs involved, which are very dependent on overall traffic output. However, Prof. Siegmann indicates that an efficient SWL transport would have 60% of the costs related to the long rail haul (as represented in the above exhibit) and 40% for the rest, including marshalling and last kilometre transport.

In any case, by looking at the costs’ distribution of conventional freight trainloads it is possible to see that wagons do not represent the biggest share overall, but “infrastructure”, “other” and “energy” do. Hence, an investment in wagons that would improve the overall efficiency of the system, in terms of availability, energy consumption, capacity utilisation, etc. would have an important effect with little proportional cost.

The less-than-wagonload, also known as part-load traffic, LCL (Less-than-Carload), LTL (Less-than-Truckload) is a minor segment in freight railways that competes directly with pure road in the medium distances and with the air freight in the long distances. The users of these products require for example the transportation of mail and parcels under very strict

Loco Depreciation10%

Energy22%

Personnel6%

Other 23%

Loco Maintenance7%

Infrastructure Charges25%

Wagon Depreciation4%

Wagon Maintenance3%

40

time conditions, or in other cases, the transportation of small containers, pallets and other cargos’ forms, that do not make up a full wagon or an ITU, under given time conditions.

The railways have created some product offers that match with these demand requirements, then so, for example there are fast trains (TGV postal, Parcel Intercity) that carry mail and parcels overnight. However these transports are marginal if compared to total rail freight transports.

Recently there are in Europe trains that carry consolidated LCLs between multimodal freight stations where lorries and trains interchange cargo after little or no intermediate storage. The logistics term for this production system is cross-docking, the German company DB Schenker utilizes the commercial name Railport© for a similar concept. Apparently the system is functioning well.

Exhibit 30: Railports© in Europe. Source: DB Schenker.

Conventional wagons supply.

The conventional freight wagons employed in trainload traffic and single wagonload traffic present a wide diversity on wagon classes. The following table is based on the UIC classification of goods wagons:

Class Wagon type Main cargo

E Ordinary open high-sided wagon Coal, scrap, minerals

F Special open high-sided wagon, (bottom-dump) Loose materials, minerals

G Ordinary covered wagon General cargo -Old-

H Special covered wagon General & Palletised cargo

I Refrigerated wagon Temperature-sensitive cargo,

-not representative-

41

K* Ordinary flat wagon with separate wheelsets General cargo, lumber –old-

L* Special flat wagon with separate wheelsets Automotive, forest products,

containers

O Open multi-purpose wagon (composite open high-sided flat wagon) Loose materials -old-

R* Ordinary flat wagon with bogies General, long cargo

S* Special flat wagon with bogies Sdg and Sg Intermodal, Sa, Sh for heavy steel products

T Goods wagon with opening roof Loose materials

U Special wagons Various

Z Tank wagon Liquids

* With denomination “g”, for intermodal transport, in majority “Sg”

Table 8: Classification of goods wagons. Source: UIC.

In Germany for example, the wagon classes’ distribution could looks as follows (Based on VPI and DBAG estimations, stand 2008):

Exhibit 31: Wagon classes in Germany 2008. Data source: VPI and DBAG.

In the diagram, the clear-coloured wagon classes indicate light wagons (tare <1,2 t/m; rank: L,H,S,R); exceptions are “Sa” and “Sh” which are heavy duty wagons for the transportation of steel products, e.g. plates and coils.

~200.000 units (Private+DBAG)

Other5%

L 7%

R 9%

F 11%

E 8%

T 6%

Z22%

S 21%

H 11%

Heavy wagons

Light wagons

42

H wagons are usually employed for the transportation of general, packaged, rolled and palletized cargo that is moisture-sensitive. In comparison with their predecessors -G-wagons with sliding doors – they have sliding walls to enable an easier (un)loading process with forklifts or other handling equipment.

These wagons are the conventional wagons closest to be “road competitors” since they can address similar markets as the road does. As an example, in the below figure is shown a latest-generation temperature-controlled wagon employed nowadays by the Swiss railways.

Exhibit 32: Hbbills-uy for temperature-controlled cargo, for 38 Europallets. Photo source: SBB.

It has to be said though that Swiss policy is very favourable towards the use of environmentally-friendly transportation modes as railways. Hence single wagonloads that would not be economically viable in other parts of Europe are possible there.

Furthermore, H-wagons are widely employed in most of European countries, one of the largest ones is the Habbiins, with loading length of 22m, loading width of 2,84m and a capacity for 63 Europallets (payload ~1 t/pallet slot).

Exhibit 33: 63-Pallet loading schema of Habbiins. Source: A. Carrillo Zanuy.

Exhibit 34: 61-pallet loading schema of Habbiins if intermediate walls are used. Source: A. Carrillo Zanuy.

In order to address similar cargo as the H-wagons, VEL-Wagon loading surface could be dimensioned for a capacity of 70 pallets and 4 intermediate walls (detachable superstructure and floor would be necessary too). This would be equivalent to the capacity of two

43

semitrailers (33 pallets each). Required loading length should be >25 m, loading width ~2,84 m. Estimated payload per pallet slot would be around 900 kg (with 22,5 t/axle).

Exhibit 35: 70-pallet loading schema of a VEL-wagon concept. Source: A. Carrillo Zanuy.

An equivalent two-axle wagon type “L” would be the Laaiis, with a loading length of ~25m, and a capacity for 36x2 Europallets (payload per pallet slot 880 kg).

Exhibit 36. two-axle wagon type “L”

Exhibit 37: 7 Loading schema of a Laaiis, left with 36 Europallets, right with 30 industry pallets. Picture source: Transwaggon.

To be able to accommodate three rows of industry pallets (1x1,2m) this wagon is more than 3 m wide.

Conventional light wagons L, R can be employed for the transportation of cargo that is not moisture-sensitive and therefore it can be transported at open-air, e.g. logs, lumber, automobiles, trucks, plastic pipes etc.

44

Exhibit 38: Laas, 27m, tare 26t. Source: Transwaggon.

Exhibit 39: Laadks, 27m, tare 24,5t, loading height 0,8m. Source: Transwaggon.

Exhibit 40. Laekk(q)s, 26,2m, tare:25,5t, loading height 0,64m. Source: atglogistik.com.

A concept for the VEL-Wagon design could include a lowered loading surface for the transportation of high units, say Jumbo boxes, trucks, cars on two levels etc.. In so doing a gentle ramp between bogie top and lowered surface should be necessary to enable Ro-Ro loading.

Exhibit 41: VEL-Wagon concept with a lowered floor between the bogies and in-between the exterior beams. Source: A. Carrillo Zanuy.

45

Finally in the last times there are more and more examples of conventional rail freights that are being containerised and/or standardized in detachable units. Some examples are shown below.

Exhibit 42: Tank containers onto 60’ wagons being humped at Seddin (nearby Berlin). Photo: TUB, Schienenfahrwege und Bahnbetrieb.

Exhibit 43: WoodTainer XXL of Innofreight. Source: Innofreight.

46

Exhibit 44: Australian 40 foot / 64.4m3 'CFCLA 400xx' container on wagon and on the ground showing quad discharge doors. Source: Wongm’s Rail Gallery.

Exhibit 45: Round wood pallet of Innofreight. Source: Innofreight.

47

Exhibit 46: Neska 30-foot Black Boxx for ThyssenKrupp MinEnergy. Source: Duisport Magazin 2/2010.

Exhibit 47: WASCOSA flex freight system, 60’ E-box. Source: Wascosa.

48

Exhibit 48: Rexwals Dualwagen generation 1. Source: DVZ 28.08.2007.

Exhibit 49: Rexwals Dualwagen generation 2. Source: Bahnonline.ch 2009.

Exhibit 50: House section with dimensions adapted to intermodal transportation. Source: Bengt Dahlberg.

49

Exhibit 51: Laaiilps (Transwaggon for VW) with detachable superstructure. Source: drehscheibe-foren.de, user: Michael K.

Exhibit 52: Containers designed for loading by forklift. Source: Anders.K

50

5.2 Intermodal rail freight

According to the United Nations (Economic Commission for Europe), the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the European Commission (EC):

“Intermodal transport is the movement of goods in one and the same loading unit or road vehicle, which uses successively two or more modes of transport without handling the goods themselves in changing modes.”

The concept of intermodal freight transport was introduced with great expectations in the 1960s. It should:

transfer a large portion of road transport to railways, reduce traffic congestions on roads, improve the environment by more environmental friendly railway and water transport, increase the quality and speed of transport, improve the safety of transported goods, reduce costs and time in material handling during the transportation process.

Exhibit 53: Types of intermodal transport (rail/road). Source: UNIZA

5.2.1 ILUs characteristics in intermodal transport

In the European transport market, there are many kinds of intermodal loading units (ILU). The use of these ILUs depends on different factors, e.g. the specific relation served and the transport mode used for this relation. Then so, ILUs exist in different variations regarding features like design type (tank, open/closed top…), dimensions (length, width, and height), strength, or stackability.

51

The most utilized ILUs in European intermodal transport market are the ISO containers, followed by swap bodies and semi-trailers. The objective of the “VEL-wagon” project is to devise a universal rail wagon able to carry a great variety of such units.

The current utilisation of ILUs in EU27 looks as follows:

Exhibit 54: Intermodal techniques in EU27. Data source: Eurostat (Note: Semitrailers and trailers each represent 2TEUs).

And the 6-year series indicate a steady advance of the semitrailer segment. This advance is even clearer in the German case. (See demand chapter)

Exhibit 55: Intermodal techniques trend in EU27 (right) (TEUs) and Germany (left) (mio tkm). Data source: Eurostat and Destatis (Note: Semitrailers and trailers each represent 2TEUs).

Intermodal techniques 2010EU27 (TEUs)

Containers76%

Semitrailers10%

Ro-la14%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Mio

. TE

Us

(200

4=0)

Containers Semitrailers Ro-la

- 2

- 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

<6,15m 6,15<x<7,82 7,82<x<9,159,15<x<13,75 semitrailer accompanied

EU27 Germany

52

The following table gives an overview of the principal characteristics of the standard intermodal loading units employed in Europe. There are also many other, non-standard units used for specific commodities or by specific shippers.

Table 9: Characteristics of various intermodal units. Source: Economic Analysis of Proposed Standardisation and Harmonisation Requirements. ICF 2003.

53

5.2.2 Unaccompanied intermodal transport

As stated by the UIRR. “A characteristic element of the unaccompanied intermodal transport is that the loading units are usually loaded vertically between the different modes of transport.”

Intermodal operators tend more and more to specialize themselves either:

in the carriage of ILUs only between terminals (terminal-to-terminal) without including door-to-door services, or

to specialize themselves in the whole commercialization of a finished door-to-door product.

Exhibit 56: Intermodal service providers’ business segments. Source: UIC 2010 report on Combined Transport in Europe.

In contraposition to this specialisation, the intermodal service providers are addressing more and more all kind of traffic alike, without specializing on only a given kind of traffic, namely: international, domestic, hinterland maritime or continental traffic.

54

Exhibit 57: Intermodal service providers’ business segments. Source: UIC 2010 report on Combined Transport in Europe.

The broader portfolio a company has the more possibilities this company needs versatile rolling stock to be able to serve different intermodal traffic (different ILUs). In that sense the VEL-wagon intends to align with this tendency.

55

Key (for information given in the boxes): Type of Loading Unit (percentage of total TEU carried in this type of unit (%), average gross weight of a loaded unit (t)) (45’ containers included in 40’ denomination)

Exhibit 58: The European Intermodal market 2008. Source: Carrillo, Troche, FERRMED wagon study.

The typical intermodal wagon fleet in Europe looked in 2008 as follows:

Exhibit 59: Structure of European intermodal wagon fleet 2008. Source: Carrillo, Troche, FERRMED wagon study.

Nowadays the percentage of articulated bogie wagons has increased, whereas the amount of 40 ft 2-axle intermodal wagons has decreased.

Intermodal road-rail door-to-door transportation needs distances of more than 400 km to be competitive against road. Shorter distances in hinterland container transportation may be

Port-HinterlandContinental

Domestic

International

ROLLING ROAD (41%, 34t)SWAP BODIES (40%, 13t)SEMITRAILERS (16%, 27t)ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,16t)

ISO-CONTAINERS- 40’ (75%, 22t)- 20’ (25%,18t)

SWAP BODIES (62%, 18t)

ROLLING ROAD (21%, 33t)

SEMITRAILERS (14%, 25t)

ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,18t)

ISO-CONTAINERS- 40’ (75%, 22t) - 20’ (25%,18t)

Port-HinterlandPort-HinterlandContinentalContinental

DomesticDomestic

InternationalInternational

ROLLING ROAD (41%, 34t)SWAP BODIES (40%, 13t)SEMITRAILERS (16%, 27t)ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,16t)

ROLLING ROAD (41%, 34t)SWAP BODIES (40%, 13t)SEMITRAILERS (16%, 27t)ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,16t)

ROLLING ROAD (41%, 34t)SWAP BODIES (40%, 13t)SEMITRAILERS (16%, 27t)ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,16t)

ISO-CONTAINERS- 40’ (75%, 22t)- 20’ (25%,18t)

ISO-CONTAINERS- 40’ (75%, 22t)- 20’ (25%,18t)

ISO-CONTAINERS- 40’ (75%, 22t)- 20’ (25%,18t)

SWAP BODIES (62%, 18t)

ROLLING ROAD (21%, 33t)

SEMITRAILERS (14%, 25t)

ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,18t)

SWAP BODIES (62%, 18t)

ROLLING ROAD (21%, 33t)

SEMITRAILERS (14%, 25t)

ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,18t)

SWAP BODIES (62%, 18t)

ROLLING ROAD (21%, 33t)

SEMITRAILERS (14%, 25t)

ISO-CONTAINERS (3%,18t)

ISO-CONTAINERS- 40’ (75%, 22t) - 20’ (25%,18t)

ISO-CONTAINERS- 40’ (75%, 22t) - 20’ (25%,18t)

Intermodal Wagon Distribution(Excluding RR Wagons)

24%

47%

17%

9%3%

40' Two Axle Wagons60' Bogie Wagons>60' Articulated Bogie Wagons Pocket WagonsLow-Floor Wagons (No RR)

56

productive too. The average distance covered by an unaccompanied intermodal transport consignment in Europe is between 700 and 800 km. With this distance, the cost share between road (pre and post haulage), rail (main haulage) and transhipment would look as follows (except overheads):

Exhibit 60: Cost model of an intermodal service. Source: A. Carrillo Zanuy.

5.2.3 Accompanied intermodal transport

The volume of accompanied road/rail transport market in Europe is significantly lower than the unaccompanied segment. Furthermore, this sector is concentrated to two main operators, Ökombi and RAlpin, which together handle up to 75 per cent of all accompanied shipments in 2007 and over 83 per cent by 2009.

Accompanied intermodal transport by volume

2002 2005 2007 2009

Tonnes 14.600.000 10.200.000 13.600.000 15.100.000

Road vehicles 546.850 323.050 410.303 438.596

TEUs 1.274.161 752.707 956.006 1.021.929

In this table the evolution of this segment can be observed:

6 day shuttle 11%

39%

50%

Transhipments Road costsCosts Rail

57

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

0

2.000.000

4.000.000

6.000.000

8.000.000

10.000.000

12.000.000

14.000.000

16.000.000

2002 2005 2007 2009

Road

 vehicles, TEU

s

Tonnes

Años

Volume accompanied intermodal transport

Tonnes

Road vehicles

TEUs

Exhibit 61: Volume of accompanied intermodal transport. Data source: UIC Report on Combined Transport 2010.

58

6 Overview of infrastructure limitations (H. Boysen)

6.1 Dimensions for road vehicles

Larger and heavier loads have the potential to further transport efficiency and economy per unit volume and unit mass, but are subject to national regulatory limitations of maximum dimensions and mass. The limitations in effect as of 2010 are shown in table below.

Nation Max. vehicle height Max. vehicle width

France, Norway, Sweden, UK No defined limit 2.60 m

Ireland 4.65 m 2.60 m

Finland, Iceland 4.20 m 2.60 m

Armenia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia 4.00 m 2.50 m

Macedonia 4.10 m 2.60 m

Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Greece, Liechtenstein

4.00 m 2.55 m

Others 4.00 m 2.60 m

Table 10: Permissible maximum vehicle dimensions on the highway in Europe and the Caucasus. Source: ITF.

As shown in the table above, the permissible maximum width is fairly uniform, ranging from 2,50 m to 2,60 m.

The maximum height varies more, generally 4,00 m in most of Europe, but higher permissible maximum heights apply in Macedonia, Finland, Iceland and Ireland, ranging from 4,10 m to 4,65 m. Moreover, in France, Norway, Sweden and the UK there is no defined maximum legal height. Here, the practical heights are instead determined by the available highway clearances, which in France, Norway and Sweden generally accommodate vehicles of 4,50 m and in the UK 4,95 m (16 ft 3 in). Accordingly, many modern box-type trucks and trailers are built to make full use of these practical vehicle heights.

Limits are not necessarily static. Between 2003 and 2010 the permissible height in Ireland was raised from 4,00 m, initially to 4,25 m and then to the present 4,65 m, while the limit in Macedonia was raised in 2010 from 4,00 m to 4,10 m. The distribution of permissible or practical vehicle heights is shown graphically (exhibit below).

In the UK, beyond the general practical vehicle height of 4,95 m, a network of designated roads named the High Load Grid is cleared for vehicles as tall as 5,49 m (18 ft) or 6,10 m (20 ft).

59

Exhibit 62 : Geographical distribution of maximum vehicle heights on highways in Europe and the Caucasus. Source: KTH.

6.1.1 Vehicle mass

Mass limits on European highways are differentiated depending on vehicle configuration. For a 5-axle tractor-trailer combination, as is commonly used for intermodal transportation, mass limits range from 38 tons in Russia and Ukraine to 60 tons in Finland and Sweden, but are typically within 40 tons to 44 tons.

Beyond the permissible maximum vehicle dimensions and masses shown, high-wide or heavy oversize loads are accepted in some cases but may require special permits, markings or accompanying escort vehicles.

60

6.2 Overview of railway infrastructure and limitations

6.2.1 Loading gauge

The maximum permissible cross section of a railway vehicle and its load are defined by the loading gauge, which applies under static conditions. The maximum height and width of European mainline loading gauges are shown in table below, which was extracted from the respective network statements.

Nation or region Max. vehicle height above top

of rail Max. vehicle width

Finland 5,30 m (KU) 3,40 m (KU)

ex-Soviet Union 5,30 m 3,25 m

Sweden 4,83 m (C)

4,65 m (A)

3,60 m (C)

3,40 m (A)

High Speed 1, Eurotunnel, Betuwe, Øresund, Lötschberg Base Tunnel etc.

4,65 m (GC) 3,15 m (GC)

Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands,

Poland, Romania, Slovakia, ex-Yugoslavia 4,65 m (G2) 3,15 m (G2)

Belgium 4,602 (GB-M6) 3,15 m (GB-M6)

Switzerland 4,60 (EBV O2)

4,50 (EBV O1) 3,15 (EBV O1, O2)

Norway 4,595 m (M) 3,40 m (U)

Portugal 4,50 m (Cpb+) 3,44 m (Cpb+)

Spain 4,33 m (Iberian) 3,44 m (Iberian)

France 4,32 m (GA, GB, GB1) 3,15 m (GA, GB, GB1)

Italy 4,28 m (G1) 3,15 m (G1)

Ireland 4,039 m (wagons) 2,90 m (wagons)

Great Britain 3,890 (UK1) 2,844 m (UK1)

Table 11: Railway loading gauge maximum dimensions in Europe and the Caucasus. Source: KTH.

As seen in the table above, European mainline railway loading gauges range in maximum height from 3,89 m (UK, loading gauge UK1) to 5,30 m (Finland and the former Soviet Union), and in maximum width from 2,84 m (UK, loading gauge UK1) to 3,60 m (Sweden, loading gauge C).

Thus, compared to the size limitations in effect on the highway, the railway loading gauges are wider and in most cases taller as well, with few exceptions.

The geographical distribution of railway loading gauges in Europe is shown below. On the European standard track gauge network, the most prevalent loading gauge is the German G2 gauge, which applies in a contiguous belt from Denmark and the Netherlands in the northwest to Turkey in the southeast.

61

Exhibit 63: Geographical distribution of railway loading gauges in Europe and the Caucasus. Source: KTH.

However, the usefulness of the railway loading gauges is reduced by the typically tapered or rounded shape of their upper portion, whereas the majority of intermodal load units are of rectangular cross section.

6.2.2 Intermodal gauge

For the purpose of intermodality with highway and seaway transportation, railway intermodal gauges of rectangular cross section are defined by the International Union of Railways (UIC) for widths approximating marine standards and highway limits, up to 2,50 m and up to 2,60 m, respectively. Discussion here will be confined to 2,60 m width only, as being the more demanding.

UIC code 571-4 sets the maximum heights of container mounts to 1.175 m and trailer pockets to 0,33 m above top of rail (ATOR), in accordance with early container and trailer wagon designs (“types 1a and 1b”). Based on these standard heights, coding of intermodal load units for 2,60 m width is as follows:

Trailers of extreme height ### cm on the ground are coded P ### (P=pocket), and reach up to ###+33 cm ATOR when loaded onto a standard pocket wagon;

Containers and swap bodies of extreme height ### cm on the ground are coded C ###+85 (≈ 84.5) (C=container), and reach up to ###+85+33 cm (≈ +117.5 cm) ATOR when loaded onto a standard container wagon.

Railway line intermodal gauges are coded P/C. The height relationships are shown below for an example of P/C 450.

62

Exhibit 64: Definition of intermodal gauge P/C 450. Source: KTH.

In practice, most modern container and trailer wagons are lower at approximately 1.15 m and 0,27 m, respectively, thereby enabling slightly taller loads than the nominal wagon heights. Low-floor container wagons with 0,825 m floor height are also available. Examples of intermodal load unit heights that can be handled within P/C 450 are given in Table 24.

Wagon container mount height ATOR Wagon type, examples Max. container/swap body height

within P/C 450

1,175 m UIC 571-4 3,655 m

1,150 m Sdggmrss-t 3,680 m

0,825 m Sffggmrrss 4,005 m

Wagon pocket height ATOR Wagon type, examples Max. trailer height within P/C 450

0,330 m UIC 571-4 4,500 m

0,270 m Sdggmrss, Sdgmns 4,560 m

Table 12: Maximum load unit height in P/C 450 as a function of actual wagon height. Source: KTH.

The available clearances for intermodal gauges are being enlarged gradually, by removing existing obstacles, particularly at the “top corners”. The prevalent intermodal gauges in continental Europe are as follows:

P/C 410, 422, 432, 450 in Sweden

P/C 410 in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway

P/C 400 in Belgium, Poland

P/C 384, 405 in Switzerland

P/C 377 in Czechia, Slovakia

P/C 364 in Portugal, Spain

P/C 359, 385 in France

63

P/C 351, 364, 410 in Italy.

Thus, semi-trailers of 4,00 m height and containers and swap bodies of 3,15 m height are able to travel through much of northern Europe on lines cleared for P/C 400 or higher, using standard wagons. In much of southern Europe, in contrast, low-floor wagons must be used, or load heights must be restricted further.

Volume is a real constraint, as many railway lines in northern and southern Europe have insufficient clearances to carry intermodal loads up to the same heights as permitted on the highways in the same region.

To enable the unimpeded movement of all standard intermodal load units, including hi-cube containers and tall semitrailers, the continued raising of railway clearances is important, but low-floor and well wagons can also help.

6.2.3 Meter load

The railway track and substructure is classified according to its meter load capacity, which is the maximum permissible mass per meter of length of passing trains. The permissible meter load depends especially to the strength of bridge spans. Standard meter load classifications are listed below.

Meter load Class Application examples

12,0 t/m Norway, Sweden: Narvik-Kiruna-Luleå

10,0 t/m Germany: Hamburg-Uelzen-Lehrte-Beddingen. Rostock-Berlin being upgraded.

Sweden: Design limit for upgraded or new lines, e.g. Boden-Haparanda.

8.8 t/m UIC 5

8,3 t/m Norway: Oslo-Kornsjø

8,0 t/m UIC 4 Many mainlines throughout Europe.

7,2 t/m UIC 3 Denmark: many lines

6,6 t/m Norway: many lines

6,4 t/m UIC 2 Germany: Rendsburg (until 2013)

Sweden: many lines in the south

5,0 t/m UIC 1

Table 13: Meter load classifications. Source: KTH.

Lines rated below 6,4 t/m are almost nonexistent.

Intermodal wagons and intermodal loads normally have meter loads well below 6,4 t/m. Their practical movement is therefore not restricted by meter loads.

6.2.4 Axle load

The railway track and substructure is classified according to its axle load capacity, which is the maximum permissible mass per wheelset of passing trains. The permissible axle load is determined especially by the cross tie spacing and rail strength. Standard axle load classifications are listed below.

64

Axle load Class Application examples

32 t Great Britain: strategic goal

30,0 t UIC G Norway, Sweden: Narvik-Kiruna-Luleå. Design limit for upgraded or new lines, e.g. Boden-Haparanda.

27,5 t UIC F

26 t Estonia: many lines

25,4 t RA10 Great Britain: selected mainlines

25,0 t UIC E Germany: Hamburg-Uelzen-Lehrte-Beddingen. Rostock-Berlin being upgraded.

Finland, Norway: selected lines

Netherlands: Rotterdam-Zevenaar (Betuwe route)

Sweden: many lines

24,1 t RA7-RA9 Great Britain: most mainlines

23,5 t Russia: many mainlines

22.5 t UIC D Europe: most mainlines

21,0 t UIC CM

20,0 t UIC C Germany: Rendsburg (until 2013)

18,0 t UIC B

16,0 t UIC A

Table 14: Axle load classifications. Source: KTH

The trend is for axle loads to be raised. For newly constructed wagons, 25 t axle load is becoming increasingly common. In recent years 25 t-axle load wagons have been produced for Austria, Finland (all new wagons), Germany, Norway, Sweden, UK, etc.

The higher axle loads are useful not only for heavy loads or high-density commodities, but a high axle load needs fewer axles and thus saves on investment as well as operating cost for the wagon owner and operator. In some cases, a higher axle load makes substitution of 2-axle for 4-axle wagons feasible.

Mass limits depend on the combination of permitted axle load and wagon design. While axle load limits depend on wheel diameter, operating speed and track construction, intermodal wagons are available with two, four or six axles. As an example, modern two-trailer wagons are available for load limits of 243 tons at 120 km/h, well above the highway mass limits per trailer. Thus, the mass limits of modern intermodal wagons do not restrict the lading in the trailers, but wagon mass limits may be reached with heavy containers. At higher speeds, axle loads may be restricted depending on brake system performance.

65

7 Overview of wagon market (F. Janíček, J. Karabin)

7.1 Pertinent list of rules (selection):

TSI – Wag:

Technical Specification of Interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘Rolling stock — Freight wagons’ of the trans-European conventional rail system notified under document number C(2006) 3345, text with EEA relevance 2006/861/EC) (Lex 334)

1. Modules for the verification procedures:

For the verification procedure of the requirements of Freight wagons the contracting entity or its authorised representative established within the Community may chose the following modules:

a) the Type Examination procedure (module SB) for the design and development phase, in combination with a module for the production phase either:

- the Production Quality Management System procedure (module SD),

- or the Product Verification (module SF);

or

b) the Full quality Management System with Design Examination procedure (module SH2).

2. Innovative solutions of freight wagon

When a freight wagon includes an innovative solution the manufacturer or the contracting entity shall state the deviation from the relevant section of the TSI – Wag.

The European Railway Agency shall finalise the appropriate functional and interface specifications of this solution and develop the assessment methods.

UIC 530-2 Wagons – Running safety:

4. Conditions specific to wagons with two-axle bogies

4.1.2 It is recommended that the distance between bogie pins be greater than 6,5 m.

4.1.4 It is recommended that wherever constructional features of the wagon permit, the overhang should be:

- 2,520 m between bogie pins and buffer heads, or 2,545 m between bogie pins and the coupling plane of the automatic coupler, for wagon ends without a crossover walkway or a footboard,

- 2,770 m between bogie pins and buffer heads, or 2,795 m between bogie pins and the coupling plane of the automatic coupler, for wagon ends with a crossover walkway or a footboard.

Wagon safety:

Conditions for execution of S-curve transition (annex F)

* Relationship of wagon tare, distance over buffers and torsional stiffness

- Safety of the wagon against derailment as described in TSI WAG as well as in EN 14 363

* at quasi-static conditions Y/Q=1,2

* during operation Y/Q=0,8

66

TSI relating to the subsystem control-command and signalling of the trans- European conventional rail system (COMMISSION DECISION 2006/679/EC), Appendix 1

Maximal distance between internal wheel-sets of wagon 17,5m

EN 14363: Railway applications ― Testing for the acceptance of running characteristics of railway vehicles ― Testingof running behaviour and stationary tests

7.2 Technical challenges

The previous evaluation of technical constraints for VEL-wagon yields the following interpretations:

Exhibit 65: Critical points of VEL-wagon design. Source: TVP

It is concluded that the challenging situation from a technical point of view commences from 80 feet onwards.

An initial analysis of the loading cases, comparing the articulated version of 80’ wagon against non-articulated version 80’ yields the following schemas.

Exhibit 66: Loading schemas of 80’ wagons. Source: TVP.

Concluding that:

VEL-Wagon 80 ft (non-articulated)

Pros:

- lower tare mass

- fewer bogies

- effective for light transports 20 ft, 30 ft and 40ft units

Cons:

- low mass loading capacity

- inefficiency for heavy 20 ft units, mainly up to 22 t

- many design challenges

- structural strength,

Articulated 80 ft wagon

Pros:

- big mass loading capacity, i.e. high load limit

- technical and design parameters

- effective for loading by all 20 ft and 40 ft units

Cons:

- higher tare mass

- higher investment cost

- inefficiency for loading by light 20 ft units and in combination with 30 ft and 40 ft units

67

- sag of skeleton wagon,

- Natural frequency of vertical bending oscillation

7.3 Wagon production trends (TVP perspective)

Excluding the production for the CIS market, the evolution of the wagon production of TVP has been the following:

Exhibit 67: TVP 5-year production (total wagons without CIS market). Source: TVP.

And the production of intermodal and container wagons has been:

68

Exhibit 68: TVP 5-year production (intermodal wagons). Source: TVP.

7.4 State of the art in long wagons (A. Carrillo Zanuy)

Non-articulated long wagons, say longer than 25 m, are present in North America. There, 93-foot long wagons (90 ft -27 m- loading length) can be employed for transporting two semitrailers of 45 ft. There are as well 90 ft long wagons (85 ft -26 m-loading length) with a payload of 102 t for the transportation of containers.

Exhibit 69: North American flatcar. Source: G.Troche.

As a result of the very high allowed axle load - 32,4 t/axle - on North American tracks, the 85 ft cars can carry 25,5 t per TEU. This is about 2 t more per TEU than the standard wagon in Europe, the 60 ft wagon, and about 3 t less per TEU than the European articulated 80 ft wagon.

Exhibit 70: North American heavy duty 85 ft flat car. Source: Greenbrier.

However in North America the basis for the intermodal transportation has shifted from the above presented flatcars to the double stack cars, which make use of the tall loading gauge existing there to transport more containers per axle. Double stack cars have superior dimensions for the transportation of containers.

In the following figure is presented a heavy duty, stand-alone double stack car. It can transport multiple combinations of container lengths from 20 ft to 53 ft.

69

Exhibit 71: North American heavy duty double stack car. Source: Greenbrier.

The capacity of this car is 5,3 TEU (considering a 53 ft container equivalent to 2,65 TEUs) and the tare of the wagon is 23 t, hence the technical payload should be 32,5 x 4 – 23= 107 t, which gives about 20 t/TEU.

However typically, double stack cars are used in articulated multiple units, reducing by this the amount of necessary axles and hence reducing the averaged payload per well.

Exhibit 72: 5-unit double stack car. Source: Greenbrier.

Tare of the 5-unit combination is 53 t; technically max. gross load 390 t (=32,5 x 12); theoretical max. payload 337 t; max. payload per well 67,4 t; capacity per well 4,65 TEUs (40 ft plus 53 ft); This yields ~14,5 tonnes per TEU (17 t/TEU if considering only 4 TEUs per well). (Note: The manufacturer of the 5-unit double stack car declares an averaged load limit of only 124.700lbs per well which gives only 10,7 t/TEU)

Hence these multi-unit double stack cars would not be appropriate for 20’ containers, especially if heavy. However container techniques in the U.S. favour the utilisation of longer units, which are more appropriate for lower density commodities. The domestic unit of 53 ft long and 8,5 ft wide represents an important gain in productivity of North American intermodal logistics.

Exhibit 73: Container techniques in North American intermodal transportation, 2007. Data source: Intermodal Association of North America.

20'21%

53'22%

28'0,2%

40'49%

48'5%

45'3%

70

In Europe the share of 20 ft containers is similar and there is an important utilisation of short swap bodies (>20 ft to 25 ft). However the trend is to employ more and more longer units, namely 40 ft and recently 45 ft.

Exhibit 74: Container techniques in German intermodal transportation, 2010 (arrows indicate trend). Data source: Destatis 2011.

In Australia and CIS countries longer wagons, >25m, are widely utilized, for instance the CQMY and 13-7024 respectively.

Exhibit 75: 13-7024 flat car, JSC Kryukov Car Building Works, 25,6 m, tare 22,3 t. Source: Hekmat GmbH.

Hilmola P-O concludes in his 2008 report “Railway Wagon Market Analysis and New Multi-Purpose Wagon Solution for Freight Transports –Finnish Manufacturing Perspective” with:

Currently forty foot containers are favoured over twenty foot ones – this should be driving factor in freight wagons. In one side it favours really long wagons, but on the other hand wagons having length of one 40 foot container. Wagons being stuck in between seem to hold considerable disadvantage.

>25' to 30' 7%

20'19%

>20' to 25'30%

>30' to 45'44%

71

(The author analyses in the report mainly non-articulated platforms)

In Finland the wagon Sdggnqss-w has a loading length of 24,8 m and a payload of 68,5 t (25 t/axle) it can be employed for transporting trucks and semitrailers (similarly to North American flatcars).

Exhibit 76: Sdggnqss-w, 26m, tare 31,2t. Picture source: vaunut.org.

The SAIL project, Semitrailers in advanced intermodal logistics, of year 2000, had a preliminary discussion on the ideal length and capacity for an intermodal wagon for semitrailers. In principle a wagon concept should accommodate two semitrailers over 4 axles. However the payload of a 4-axle wagon would not be enough for two loaded semitrailers - 36 t each -, hence an articulated version was preferred. Nowadays an increase of axle load to 25 t would allow the more compact 2-semitrailers-in-4-axle solution.

Swedish State Railways (SJ) in the 70’s procured a longer wagon able to carry 4x20 ft containers or two semitrailers. Its payload was quite low, only 52 t, line class C (21 t/axle).

Exhibit 77: SJF 636.1, 26m long, tare 28t. Picture source: stinsensforum.se, user BJ.

In mid of the 1990s Hupac and Talbot developed a long wagon with a loading length of 22,6 m that is able to transport different combinations of containers and swap bodies (up to 3x C745) with a maximum payload of 68 t. However this wagon is not long enough to transport 2x40 ft containers.

Exhibit 78: Sggns 73’, 23,9 m, tare 22 t. Picture source: Goederenwagens.nl.

72

Longer-than-25 m wagons do exist in Europe; however they are not typically employed for intermodal transportation.

An example is the Rbns with 25 m of loading length employed for the transportation of long cargo units, e.g. rails, steel profiles, pipes etc. Payload is 63 t, loading height (without wood floor) is 1,25 m (7,5 cm more than the UIC intermodal standard). This wagon is hump-able and has a minimum turning radius of 75 m.

Exhibit 79: Rbns, 26,3 m, tare 27 t . Picture source: Dybas.

Another example was the Habbiks 340'' produced in the 1970s for the car manufacturer Opel. It had 22,4 m of loading length and a very low payload of only 25 t, the volume was 195 m3, hence the optimal cargo density was 0,13 t/m3 (air freight levels). The wheel diameter was small too, 680 mm.

Exhibit 80: Habbiks 340, 25,2m, tare 31t. Picture source: Dybas.

Recently a Sggns 80 ft has been manufactured by the Polish company TABOR M. Dybowski S.J.

Payload is 66 t and it can transport 2x40 ft in its 24,9 m of loading length. It has interoperable loading gauge UIC505-1 (G1).

73

Exhibit 81: Sggns 80 ft flatcar, 25,9 m, tare 24 t. Source: TABOR M. Dybowski S.J.

The shipping company Ignazio Messina & C. S.p.A. utilizes purpose built 80 ft long container wagons.

Exhibit 82: Sggs 80 ft. Source: trenomania.org, user marcoclaudio.

74

Exhibit 83: Sggs 80 ft, loading length 24,6 m, tare 21,4 t. Source: Ignazio Messina & C.S.p.A.

In 2008 Diomis project issued a report on wagons for intermodal transportation entitled “Assessing new technologies in the wagon field”. It analyzed the actual wagon fleet for combined transportation and looked at aspects of efficiency, more in concrete:

Utilisation of loading units for combined transportation

Wagon types

Utilisation of train length

Utilisation of wagon weight and total train weight

Train speed

Wagon handling in terminals

The report concludes with recommendations on wagon lengths and types:

Short single wagon for heavy tank swap bodies

60’ and 80’ wagon for maritime traffic (80’ = 4x20’)

104’ and 90’ wagon for continental traffic (90’ = 2 x 45’)

Articulated wagon having a good length and weight balance

Pocket wagon for the growing demand of semi-trailers

Unfortunately the study does not present any statistical figure on averaged container weights nor distribution thereof nor trend thereof; rather it works with maximum possible container weights to discuss about the optimal wagon weight performance. Apparently, to have wagons optimized for the heaviest possible combination of containers (e.g. heavy 20 ft) is a criterion of usability for wagon users.

An interesting point of this report was the discussion about weight of a CT train. It works with a value of 1500 t for a CT train running at 100 km/h on an easy topography. If considering a 600 m long train with capacity up to 90 TEUs, this would entail about 900 t of payload per train, which means about 10 t per TEU. To be able to transport for instance 25 t/TEU - as articulated 80 ft wagons can do - the train should be able to carry 2800 t (or to be much shorter), which is a quite high value for a CT train.

Hence apparently, CT wagons are being designed for much more payload than averaged CT trains.

75

With regards to operating speeds, due to the high congestion on many mainlines and the prevalence of higher-speed passenger trains during daytime, there is an increasing need for freight trains to travel at higher speeds than 100 km/h – as is common today – to be able to increase the number of freight train paths by slotting more freight trains between passenger trains during daytime.

76

8 Conclusions and recommendations for first wagon concepts (H. Boysen)

Market trends:

Intermodal traffic is increasing, needing additional capacity and investment in additional cars.

Semitrailers by rail are increasing, so there is need for additional pocket wagons handling standard semitrailer length of 13,6 m to 13,7 m. Longer containers of 40 ft and 45 ft are also increasing, so there is need for additional wagons. 45 ft does not fit with the more common lengths of 20 ft and 40 ft, but matches 13.7 m closely.

Thus, there is a need for new pocket wagons able to carry 13.7 m semitrailers as well as 40 ft and 45 ft containers and swap bodies.

Car efficiency comparison:

Efficiency of common trailer cars and envisaged VEL wagons.

In terms of length utilization:

o 4-axle pocket wagon Sdgmns: 13,6 m / 18,34 m = 0,74

o 6-axle articulated pocket wagon Sdggmrss: 2 x 13,6 m / 34,03 m = 0,80

o VEL 90: 2 x 13,6 m / 28,7 m = 0,95 i.e. very high efficiency.

In terms of trailers to tare mass:

o 4-axle pocket wagon Sdgmns: 1 trailer / 21 t

o 6-axle articulated pocket wagon Sdggmrss: 2 trailers / 35 t = 1 trailer / 17,5 t

o VEL 90: 2 trailers / 22 t = 1 trailer / 11 t i.e. very high efficiency.

In terms of capacity to gross mass:

o 4-axle pocket wagon Sdgmns: 69 t / 90 t = 0,77

o 6-axle articulated pocket wagon Sdggmrss: 2 x 50 t / 135 t = 0,74

o VEL 90: 2 x 39 t / 100 t = 0,78

40 ft containers can be loaded efficiently on 40 ft 2-axle wagons and on 80 ft 4-axle wagons (recently developed). In contrast, 45 ft containers do not mix efficiently with 20 ft, 30 ft and 40 ft containers, but correspond in length to 13,6 m semitrailers.

Thus, 2 x 45 ft load length is valuable for containers and semitrailers and swap bodies (Tellibox). 2 x 40 ft is valuable for containers.

Other loads:

Many loads, including logs, do not need the whole volume of a 25 m car due to their high density. E.g.: V=25 m x 2,8 m x 3,1 m = 217 m3. Ld. Lmt. = 78 t. Ld. Lmt./V = 0,36 t/m3. Or: Ld. Lmt. = 68 t. Ld. Lmt./V = 0,31 t/m3. But the density of stacked logs is higher at about 0,54 t/m3 to 0.58 t/m3. Thus, for logs and other high-density commodities, a shorter car is better.

For some other loads, in contrast, the uninterrupted length of a 25 m car is valuable. Finished products: poles, masts, roof beams, bridge girders. Materials that have to be joined: metal plates, metal shapes (rolled beams). For such long continuous loads, a few cross members, a few side stakes (not necessarily tall) and a low end plate are needed, foldable or removable. There should at least be a few stake pockets on the side and end sills.

Capacity:

77

2 x 39 t capacity is desirable for the operator, as heavy containers would not need to be placed only in the center position, but could then be loaded onto the car in any position.

Bogies:

Existing, proven bogies should be used. It is envisaged 920 mm wheel diameter (new) to allow 25 t axle load, and standard 1,8 m axle spacing for normal curving performance. Bogie mass needs to be low to achieve the desired car capacity of 2 x 39 t, if possible.

Loading height:

Important factor, as intermodal clearances are still low on many mainlines, particularly in southern/western Europe. The goal should be to carry not only ISO hi-cube (2,896 m) containers but also swap bodies, e.g. Tellibox (<3,2 m) on most European mainlines. UIC standard height of 1,175 m ATOR for container mounts would result in 1,175 m + 3,2 m = 4,375 m ATOR for the top corners, i.e. corresponding to P/C 405 intermodal gauge.

Many lines in southern Europe (France, Italy and Spain) are from P/C 351 to P/C 364. Some loading heights are calculated for the following two suppositions:

Pedestal height needed to carry ISO hi-cubes (2,9 m) and Telliboxes (3,2 m) within P/C 351 (e.g. South France)

o Case 1 hi-cube:

Intermodal gauge P/C 351

Top corner height 3,84 m ATOR

Load unit height 2,896 m

Pedestal height 0,94 m ATOR

o Case 2 Tellibox:

Intermodal gauge P/C 351

Top corner height 3,84 m

Load unit height 3,20 m

Pedestal height 0,64 m ATOR

Intermodal gauges needed to carry ISO hi-cubes (2,9 m) and Telliboxes (3,2 m) on UIC standard pedestal height, 1,175 m ATOR.

o Case 3:

Intermodal gauge P/C 45 (Spain)

Load unit height 2,896 m

Pedestal height 1,175 m ATOR

o Case 4:

Intermodal gauge P/C 80 (Germany)

Load unit height 3,20 m

Pedestal height 1,175 m ATOR

In the case of container widths above 2,55 m. until 2,60 m the situation is more unfavourable.

Thus, a pocket (well) for tall swap bodies should be 0,64 m ATOR or less. (A pocket for semitrailer bogies should be <0,33 m ATOR.)

In conclusion, there is a need for both of the following concepts, in order of priority:

78

1) 90 ft skeleton with

- deep pocket (well) (<0,33 m ATOR) for two semitrailers, - mounts for swap bodies and containers, and - a few crossbeams other long loads;

2) 80 ft skeleton with:

- shallow pocket (well) (<0,33 m ATOR) for one semitrailer, Tellibox swap bodies and hi-cube containers,

- enough width (2,8 m) for enabling the loading of three rows of pallets (one of them 90° turned)

- mounts for normal-height swap bodies and containers, and - a few crossbeams for other long loads

3) Compromised solution 85 ft

- shallow pocket (well) (<0,33 m ATOR) for one semitrailer, Tellibox swap bodies and hi-cube containers,

- enough width (2,8 m) for enabling the loading of three rows of pallets (one of them 90° turned)

- mounts for normal-height swap bodies and containers, and - a few crossbeams for other long loads

79

9 VEL-Wagon concept drafting (J. Mašek, M. Buda) The previous sections have presented an overview on demand and supply of the rail freight market in Europe. Considering this, the purpose of this part is to agree on concept layout and rough dimensions of a VEL-Wagon.

Each partner is presenting few concepts in accordance with his opinion on how VEL-Wagon should look like. A list of basic car features is attached to every purpose.

In the first part a general overview of freight railway wagons is presented.

Following section is a short explanation of concept´s requirements in pursuance of demand in railway transport.

The third section is dedicated to concepts, their technical features and the explanation of use.

Fourth section is evaluating the concepts, methodology and final selection of best concept is presented.

The final section is overall conclusion of Task 1.3.

80

9.1 Presentation of freight railway wagons in use

The following exhibits and tables provide a graphical overview of today’s wagon fleet characteristics.

Exhibit 84: Wagon fleet by technical construction. Source: UNIZA, http://www.fsz.bme.hu/traffic/indexe.htm.

81

Commodity/

Type of wagon Gases Liquids Bulk

Loading

units

Dangerous

goods

Intermodal

consignment

Oversized

load

Frame (skeletal) x

Flat x x x x

Low sides x x x

High sides x x x

Covered x x

Tank x x x

Special x x x x x x x

Table 15: Wagon fleet by transportation of goods. Source: UNIZA.

The first digit

of type

number

Class Wagon type (specification) Ordinary

(Universal)

Special

0 T opening roof (goods wagon)

1 G covered

2 H covered

3 O multi-purpose (composite high-sided)

3 K flat

3 R flat

4 L flat

4 S flat

5 E high sided

6 F high sided

7 Z tank

8 I insulated or refrigerated

9 U special

Table 16: Classification of freight wagons by UIC numbering. Source: UNIZA.

Class Wagon type Main cargo

E Ordinary open high-sided wagon Coal, scrap, minerals

F Special open high-sided wagon Loose materials, minerals

82

G Ordinary covered wagon General cargo -Old-

H Special covered wagon General & Palletised cargo

I Refrigerated van Temperature-sensitive cargo,

-not representative-

K* Ordinary flat wagon with separate axles General cargo –old-

L* Special flat wagon with separate axles Automotive, forest products,

containers

O Open multi-purpose wagon (composite open high-sided flat wagon) Loose materials -old-

R* Ordinary flat wagon with bogies General, long cargo

S* Special flat wagon with bogies Sg Intermodal, Sa, Sh for

heavy steel products

T Goods wagon with opening roof Loose materials

U Special wagons Various

Z Tank wagon Liquids

* With denomination “g”, for intermodal transport, in majority “Sg”

Table 17: List of freight wagons sorted by class letter. Source: TUB.

Wagon fleet by possibility of usage

(commodity classification)

Commodities Ordinary

(Universal)

Special

Intermodal consignment K, R E, L, S

Wood E, K, R L, S

Pressurized gases Z

Liquids Z

Chemical products Z

Bulk - powders E, G F, H, T

Bulk - metals, minerals... E F, T

Loading units G, O, R H, T

Automotive L

Oversize load U

Other - unspecified G, K, R H, L, S, T

Table 18: Wagon fleet by possibility of usage. Source: UNIZA.

83

The following statistics of EUROSTAT show volumes of each commodity in 2009. Separately the container´s transport volume is shown for comparison purposes; note that group 19 “Unidentifiable goods” are represented mainly by containerized cargo.

Exhibit 85: Volume of transported goods 2009. Data source: EUROSTAT.

Commodities with highest volumes are:

Commodity Nr. 2 – Coal and lignite; crude petroleum and natural gas

Commodity Nr. 19 – Unidentifiable goods (Mainly containers, swap bodies and semitrailers)

Commodity Nr. 7 – Coke and refined petroleum products

Commodity Nr. 3 – Metal ores and other mining and quarrying products; peat; uranium and thorium

Commodity Nr. 10 – Basic metals; fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment

Commodity Nr. 8 – Chemicals, chemical products, and man-made fibers; rubber and plastic products; nuclear fuel

Commodity Nr. 1 – Products of agriculture, hunting, and forestry; fish and other fishing products

Commodity Nr. 2 19 7 3 10 8 1 Containers

Proportion 18,14% 16,55% 15,49% 14,28% 9,07% 7,19% 4,98% 13,75%

Table 19: Proportion of selected commodities on total transport tonnage in 2009. Source: UNIZA.

The distance of transportation is very important for railway performance and therefore for wagon utilization. The performance is measured in tkm. The following chart gives an overview of railway performance according to commodity group.

Volume of goods 2009 (summary for 26 european countries)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

220000

240000

260000

2 19 7 3 10 8 1 6 9 14 20 12 4 16 18 11 13 17 5 15 CON

commodity number

tho

usa

nd

s o

f to

nn

es

84

Exhibit 86: Railway transport performance in 27 EU countries. Data source: EUROSTAT.

It is possible to see that group 19 “Unidentified goods” (Containerized cargo) is the largest one, followed by group 7 “Coke and petroleum products”, group 2 “Coal” and 3 “Metal ores and other”.

On the basis of these observations and considering the previous sections of the report it is possible to produce a few rough VEL WAGON concepts for further analysis:

Flat wagon is the most versatile proposal of VEL-WAGON. It is able to carry many types of commodities. For the use in intermodal transport it should have a pocket for semi-trailers. A detachable continuous floor should provide the loading surface for palletized cargo, machines, metal products etc., however a detachable cover would be necessary. Disadvantage of the floor is that it has an additional weight and it collects snow. The wagon should have removable stakes and end plates for transport of long beams, poles and other cargos.

Summarizing, the commodities which can be transported in this type of wagon are:

- ISO containers

- swap bodies

- semi-trailers

- poles

- long metal shapes, beams

- palletized cargo – detachable floor and a cover with side walls necessary/rolling-

sheet roof (see figure 1 – flat wagons)

- wood trunks and timber

- Other

For the specification of general loading dimensions of VEL-Wagon the following upper values apply:

85

Container 45´ PW HC: length: 13,72 m width: 2,500 m height: 2,896 m

Common semi-trailer: length: 13,67 m width: 2,55 m to 2,60 m (insulated) height: 4,00 m to 4,50 m (incl. chassis)

The loading dimensions of the wagon should be drawn according to this data. Other wagon dimensions, such as inner wheelset distance or bogie type, will be the objective of research in subsequent tasks.

86

9.2 VEL Wagon Concepts

Basic info for all concepts:

Length of semitrailer < 13,7m

Max. length of container: 45´

Overall height of semitrailer – 4000 mm to 4500 mm

Height of container: 2896mm

Loading width at least 2,60 m (semi trailer width = 2,55 m to 2,60 m) 2,90 m desirable (open-top bulk containers “Innofreight Woodtainer XXL”)

Mass capacity of container – max 38,9 t

Mass capacity of semitrailer – 39 t

Axle load – 25 t

Drawgear – screw couplers and buffers at both ends

87

Concept 1: Flat wagon (UNIZA)

Parameter Requirements

Intermodal loads,

type

ISO1 containers, swap bodies, semitrailers

Other loads, type Flat sheet metal, metal shapes (beams), lumber, building materials,

machinery, agriculture vehicles, …

Load length 2 x 45 ft (2 x containers, or 2 x semitrailers)

Configuration Pocket for semitrailer bogies

Continuous floor should be removable for accessibility of pocket

Side sills compatible with megatrailer and reach stacker

Foldable or removable vertical side stanchions

Foldable or removable vertical end plate

Container mounts

Table 20. Flat wagon UNIZA (concept 1). Source: UNIZA

Exhibit 87: Flat wagon UNIZA (concept 1). Source: UNIZA.

88

Concept 2: High-sided wagon (UNIZA)

Parameter Requirements

Intermodal loads,

type

ISO1 containers

Other loads, type Coal, metal ores, lumber, building materials, palletised goods,…

Load length 2 x 45 ft (2 x containers)

Configuration Side doors for access to loading palletized goods

Rolling roof for coverage (closed roof only without container –

covered wagon)

Foldable or removable container mounts

Table 21. High sided wagon UNIZA (concept 2). Source: UNIZA

Exhibit 88: High sided wagon UNIZA (concept 2). Source: UNIZA.

89

Concept 3: Twin flat wagon (UNIZA)

Parameter Requirements

Intermodal loads,

type

ISO1 containers, swap bodies, semitrailers

Other loads, type Flat sheet metal, metal shapes (beams), lumber, building materials,

machinery, agriculture vehicles, …

Load length 2 x 45 ft (2 x containers, or 2 x semitrailers)

Configuration Pocket for semitrailer bogies

Continuous floor should be removable for accessibility of pocket

Side sills compatible with megatrailer and reach stacker

Foldable or removable vertical side stanchions

Foldable or removable vertical end plate

Container mounts

Two single axles

Table 22. Twin flat wagon UNIZA (concept 3). Source: UNIZA

Exhibit 89: Twin flat wagon UNIZA (concept 3). Source: UNIZA.

90

Concept 4: Twin high-sided wagon (UNIZA)

Parameter Requirements

Intermodal loads,

type

ISO1 containers

Other loads, type Coal, metal ores, lumber, building materials, palletized goods,…

Load length 2 x 45 ft (2 x containers)

Configuration Side doors for access to loading pallets

Rolling roof for coverage

Foldable or removable container mounts

Two single axles

Table 23. Twin high-sided wagon UNIZA (concept 4). Source: UNIZA

Exhibit 90: Twin high-sided wagon UNIZA (concept 4). Source: UNIZA.

91

Concept 5A: Frame wagon with pocket for semitrailers, hi-cube

containers and long loads (KTH)

Parameter Requirement or target

Intermodal loads,

type

ISO containers, swap bodies, semitrailers

Other loads, type Masts, poles, flat sheet metal, metal shapes (beams), pipes,

packaged lumber, building materials

Load length 2 x 13.716 m (2 x 45 ft), containers

2 x 13.68 m, semitrailers

Overall length 2 x 13.716 m + 2 x 0.62 m 28.7 m over buffers

Max. mass capacity 2 x 39 t, semitrailers

2 x 38.9 t, Green Cargo 45 ft containers

(2 x 33.02 t, APL 45 ft containers)

Tare mass ≤22 t, target

Axle load 25 t

Wheel diameter 920 mm, new

Brake performance ≥80 % brake ratio (≥SS)

Brake gear options Disk brake

Tread brake

Body configuration Container mounts, h1.15 m to 1.175 m ATOR, to fit various

container and swap body lengths, e.g. 6.058 m (20 ft), 7.15 m, 7.45

m, 7.82 m, 9.125 m (30 ft), 12.192 m (40 ft), 13.716 m (45 ft)

Pocket for semitrailer bogies, h0.27 m to 0.33 m ATOR, l>12.2 m,

w>2.55 m

Pocket for hi-cube containers, h<0.88 m ATOR, l>13.716 m,

92

w>2.60 m

Side sills compatible with megatrailer and reach stacker (grapple

arms)

Foldable or removable vertical side and end stakes

Foldable or removable vertical end plate

Foldable or removable cross beams

No continuous floor, pocket floor minimised (to minimise collection

of snow)

Drawgear Screw couplers and buffers at both ends

Table 24: Frame wagon with pocket for semitrailers, hi-cube containers and long loads (concept 5A). Source: KTH.

Exhibit 91: Frame wagon with pocket for semitrailers, hi-cube containers and long loads (concept 5A). Source: KTH.

93

Concept 5B: Twin short coupled VEL-Wagon (TU Berlin)

Exhibit 92: 2 short coupled Frame wagons with pocket for semitrailers, hi-cube containers and long loads (concept 5B). Source: TU Berlin.

Concept 5C: Twin articulated Vel wagon 6-axle (for light goods)

(TU Berlin)

Exhibit 93: 2 short coupled Frame wagons with pocket for semitrailers, hi-cube containers and long loads 25 t axle load (concept 5C). Source: TU Berlin.

Payload per TEU~ 12 t

Capacity 4x45 ft containers, 4xSemitrailers (Light)

94

Concept 6A: Frame wagon with pocket VEL-Wagon 25 (82 ft) (TU

Berlin)

VEL-Wagon 25 (82’) multipurpose RIV-compliant (2010) (17,5m between inner wheelsets, RIV compliant)

Loading length 25 m

(Length over buffers 26,24 m)

Loading height:

~ 1m (Level 1) Top of bogies ~ 0,8 m (Level 2) Top of side sill between bogies ~0,6 m (Level 3) Between the side sills ~0,3 m (Level 4) Wagon Bottom

Loading width:

Level 1: 2,84 m (Surface capacity for 70 Euro-pallets)

Exhibit 94: Pallets scheme. Source: TU Berlin

Level 2: container head pins at 2,259 m

Level 3: container headpins at 2,259 (IMPORTANT in level 3 the space between the side sills should have enough clearance for the grapple arm of the spreader)

Level 4: For semitrailers (bottom lift) and bodies (only top lift)

Wheel diameter: 920 mm

Max axle load:22,5 t – 25 t

Tare objective:20 t

Capacity:

Loading unit Quantity Note

20 ft 4 Up to 17t per container

30 ft 2 34t per container, still room for a 20’

40 ft 2 34t per container

45 ft 1 Still room for a small container or

95

swap body (<30’)

C745 3 22t per body

C780 3 22t per body

Boxes with internal height >3m

2 High C782, 1 Tellibox, Megaboxes, Jumbo Swapbodies etc.

16,5m of low level between bogies.

Semitrailer 1 Still room for a small container or swap body (<30 ft)

Pallets 70 (volume ~190 m2) It needs a detachable structure (e.g. Floor + Cover)

Automobiles n.a. It is necessary a floor with a ramp and a detachable second floor

Logs and pulpwood n.a. Detachable cross beams with stanchions can be fixed on container pins.

Long beams (e.g. steel) n.a. Detachable cross beams with wooden surface and stanchions can be fixed on the container pins.

Other n.a. Customized detachable superstructure necessary.

Table 25: Frame wagon with pocket (TU Berlin) – concept 6A, Loading length 82´. Source: RIV Compliant

96

Exhibit 95: Frame wagon with pocket VEL-Wagon 25 (82 ft). Source: TU Berlin.

97

Concept 6B: VEL-Wagon 26 (85 ft) (TU Berlin)

Loading length 26m

(Main difference with previous one is the capacity for 45 (or semitrailer) + 40 ft container

(Length over buffers 27,24 m)

Loading height:

~ 1m (Level 1) Top of bogies

~ 0,8m (Level 2) Top of side sills between bogies

~0,6m (Level 3) Between the side sills (maybe not necessary)

~0,3m (Level 4) Wagon pocket floor

Loading width:

Level 1: min 2,6m

Level 2: container head pins at 2,259 m min 2,6 m

Level 3: container headpins at 2,259 (Min 2,5m Only top lift)

Level 4: For semitrailers (bottom lift) and bodies (only top lift)

Wheel diameter: 920 mm

Max axle load: 25 t

Tara objective: 21 t

Capacity:

Loading unit Amount Note

20’ 4 Up to 17t per container

30’ 2 34t per container, still room for a 20’

40’ 2 34t per container

45’ 1 Still room for a container >40’

C745 3 22t per body

98

C780 3 22t per body

Boxes with internal height >3m

2 High C782, 1 Tellibox, Megaboxes, Jumbo Swapbodies etc.

17,5m of low level between bogies.

Semitrailer 1 Still room for a container <40’

Pallets 70 (volume ~190m2) It needs a detachable structure (e.g. Floor + Cover)

Automobiles n.a. It is necessary a floor with a ramp and a detachable second floor

Logs and pulpwood n.a. Detachable cross beams with stanchions can be fixed on container pins.

Long steel elements n.a. Detachable cross beams with wooden surface and stanchions can be fixed on the container pins.

Other n.a. Customized detachable superstructure necessary.

Table 26: Frame wagon with pocket (TU Berlin) – concept 6B, Loading length 85 ft. Source: TU Berlin.

99

Exhibit 96: VEL-Wagon 26 (85 ft). Source: TU Berlin.

100

Concept 6C: VEL-Wagon 27 (90’), 2 Semitrailer compact (TU Berlin)

Loading length 27,432m

(Main difference with previous one is the capacity for 2x45’(or 2 semitrailers)

(Length over buffers 28,672)

Loading height:

~ 1m (Level 1) Top of bogies ~ 0,8m (Level 2) Top of side sill between bogies ~0,6m (Level 3) Between the side sills (maybe not necessary) ~0,3m (Level 4) Wagon Bottom

Loading width:

Level 1: min 2,6m

Level 2: container head pins at 2,259m min 2,6m

Level 3: container headpins at 2,259 (Min 2,5m Only top lift)

Level 4: For semitrailers (bottom lift) and bodies (only top lift)

Wheel diameter: 920mm

Max axle load: 25t

Tara objective: 22t

Capacity:

Loading unit Amount Note

20’ 4 Up to 17t per container

30’ 3 22t per container

40’ 2 34t per container

45’ 2 34t per container

C745 3 22t per body

C780 3 22t per body

Boxes with internal height >3m

2 High C782, 1 Tellibox, Megaboxes, Jumbo

19m of low level between bogies.

101

Swapbodies etc.

Semitrailer 2 34t each

Pallets 77 (volume ~200m2) It needs a detachable structure (e.g. Floor + Cover)

Automobiles n.a. It is necessary a floor with a ramp and a detachable second floor

Logs and pulpwood n.a. Detachable cross beams with stanchions can be fixed on container pins.

Long steel elements n.a. Detachable cross beams with wooden surface and stanchions can be fixed on the container pins.

Other n.a. Customized detachable superstructure necessary.

Table 27: Frame wagon with pocket (TU Berlin) – concept 6C, Loading length 90´. Source: TU Berlin.

102

Exhibit 97: VEL-Wagon 27 (90’). Source:TUB.

103

9.3 Concept evaluation

9.3.1 Methodology of evaluation

On the basis of car concepts purposed by Brainstorming and Braindrawing, it is necessary to evaluate the most appropriate VEL Wagon concept. Methodology of linear programming MEA (Multicriteria Evaluation of Options) was chosen for this objective. Within the Brainwriting required criteria were set. With the same method they were ranked ascending from the most important to the least important. The outcomes were processed by the method of sequence. This means the criteria in the number of 12 were set. These criteria means the VEL Wagon´s most important features. Each of this criteria was valuated with the rank from 1 to 12, where 1 means the most important (1st in the chart) and the 12 means the least important (12th in the chart). Here, the principle of uniqueness had to be maintained. Objective valuation was achieved by valuating the criteria (features) by each of partners. The final chart of features was made subsequently – into the table xy aritmetical averages of each criteria´s values were filled. Following, bi a was counted by counting the averages of

each criteria out from the number 12. After that, with the formula we set appropriate wight to each criteria. After that we multiplied three different variants (ranking by UNIZA, by TUB and by KTH) of appropriate criteria with each weight. Following calculations gave us most preferred VEL Wagon concept.

Feature

Feature´s rating Average

value KTH TUB UNIZA TVP

1 loading length 1 1 1 2 1,25

2 loading width 8 4 4 8 6

3 possibility to carry 2 semitrailers 2 2 3 4 2,75

4 possibility to carry HighCube Container 3 7 5 6 5,25

5 ability to pass marshalling hump 11 9 7 10 9,25

6 versatility 7 5 2 9 5,75

7 inner wheels distance 12 10 11 1 8,5

8 mass capacity (load limit) 6 3 6 3 4,5

9 ability to handle intermodal units using top twistlocks 4 6 9 5 6

10 ability to handle intermodal units using grapple arms 5 8 8 7 7

11 ability to handle intermodal units using forklift 10 11 10 11 10,5

12 minimise floor area (to minimise snow accumulation) 9 12 12 12 11,25

Table 28: List of VEL Wagon´s features. Source: VEL Wagon partners.

104

Nr. Feature

Average of

feature´s rating (chart)

bi

Weight of criteria (feature)

1 loading length 1,25 10,75 0,162878788

2 loading width 6 6 0,090909091

3 possibility to carry 2 semitrailers 2,75 9,25 0,140151515

4 possibility to carry megabox HighCube Container

5,25 6,75 0,102272727

5 ability to pass marshalling hump 9,25 2,75 0,041666667

6 versatility (the more commodities can be carried the more versatility the wagon has)

5,75 6,25 0,09469697

7 inner wheels distance 8,5 3,5 0,053030303

8 mass capacity (load limit) 4,5 7,5 0,113636364

9 ability to handle intermodal units using top twistlocks

6 6 0,090909091

10 ability to handle intermodal units using grapple arms

7 5 0,075757576

11 ability to handle intermodal units using forklift

10,5 1,5 0,022727273

12 minimise floor area (to minimise snow accumulation)

11,25 0,75 0,011363636

total 78 - 1

Table 29: Weight of criteria (feature). Source: UNIZA.

105

Exhibit 98: Weights of each feature (criteria). Source: UNIZA.

106

9.3.2 Ranking VEL Wagon´s features

This ranking is based on partner´s opinion on how well does each feature in each concept meet the requirements. This means that if partner´s opinion is the feature meets the requirement on 100% level, he evaluate this feature with value 1. If the feature does not meet the requirements the evaluation has value 0. There is also possibility to valuate with scale of numbers from 0 to 1 if there is not clear YES or NO (i.e. meet or does not meet the requirements). Three partners participated on this part – UNIZA, TUB, KTH. Their evaluation forms are shown below.

UNIZA ranking:

Nr.

Concept number

UNIZA 1

UNIZA 2

UNIZA 3

UNIZA 4

KTH 5A

KTH 5B

KTH 5C

TUB 6A

TUB 6B

TUB 6C

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0,5 0,5 1

4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0,8 0,8 0

6 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6

7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

11 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 30: Features ranked by UNIZA

107

TUB ranking:

Nr.

CONCEPT NUMBER

UNIZA 1

UNIZA 2

UNIZA 3

UNIZA 4

KTH 5A

KTH 5B

KTH 5C

TUB 6A

TUB 6B

TUB 6C

1 1 1 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 0,7 0,8 1

2 0,5 0,5 1 1 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,7 0,6 0,5

3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0,5 0,5 1

4 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 0,5 0,5 1 1 0,5 0,7 0,2 0,9 0,8 0,5

6 0,8 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,8 0,8 0,4 0,8 0,7 0,7

7 0,2 0,2 1 1 0,2 0,5 0 0,9 0,7 0,2

8 0,5 0,4 0,7 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,7 0,6 0,5

9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

11 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 0 0 0,5 0,3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 31: Features ranked by TUB.

108

KTH ranking:

Nr. CONCEPT NUMBER

UNIZA 1 UNIZA 2 UNIZA 3 UNIZA 4 KTH 5A KTH 5B KTH 5C TUB 6A TUB 6B TUB 6C

1 1 1 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 0,6 0,8 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 0 0,5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0,8 0

6 1 1 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,6

7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

8 0,8 0,5 0,8 0,6 1 1 0 1 1 1

9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

11 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 32: Features ranked by KTH.

In the next figure (figure 14) there is an overview of concepts evaluation. The figure represents each partner’s evaluation of each concept. On the horizontal axis there are names of concepts with the letter A, B or C. These letters represent each partner. Letter A represent evaluation made by UNIZA, letter B represent evaluation made by TUB, letter C represent evaluation by KTH. In this figure only evaluation points are shown, none the weight of each feature. Therefore the concept TUB 6A has most evaluation points which were given by the partner KTH.

In general this figure show each partners opinions on concepts.

109

Exhibit 99: Overview of concepts evaluation. Source: UNIZA

110

Concept number

UNIZA

1

UNIZA

2

UNIZA

3

UNIZA

4

KTH

5A

KTH

5B

KTH

5C

TUB

6A

TUB

6B

TUB

6C

1 0,489 0,489 0,326 0,326 0,489 0,489 0,489 0,212 0,261 0,489

2 0,227 0,227 0,273 0,273 0,227 0,236 0,127 0,245 0,236 0,227

3 0,420 0,000 0,350 0,000 0,420 0,420 0,420 0,280 0,280 0,420

4 0,051 0,051 0,153 0,051 0,307 0,307 0,307 0,307 0,307 0,307

5 0,021 0,104 0,083 0,125 0,021 0,029 0,008 0,113 0,100 0,021

6 0,246 0,227 0,199 0,189 0,199 0,199 0,161 0,189 0,180 0,180

7 0,011 0,011 0,159 0,159 0,011 0,027 0,000 0,154 0,037 0,011

8 0,261 0,216 0,284 0,239 0,284 0,295 0,148 0,307 0,295 0,284

9 0,273 0,273 0,273 0,273 0,273 0,273 0,273 0,273 0,273 0,273

10 0,227 0,000 0,227 0,000 0,227 0,227 0,227 0,227 0,227 0,227

11 0,068 0,000 0,068 0,000 0,068 0,068 0,068 0,068 0,068 0,068

12 0,000 0,000 0,006 0,003 0,034 0,034 0,034 0,034 0,034 0,034

SUM 2,295 1,598 2,402 1,638 2,560 2,605 2,263 2,409 2,299 2,541

Table 33: Matrix of concepts evaluation. Source: UNIZA.

This is the final evaluation matrix. Each particular achievement is summarized in the last line of the matrix. Particular points are computed with the formula:

UNIZA 1 line 1 = (Feature 1 ranked by UNIZA + Feature 1 ranked by TUB + Feature 1 ranked by KTH) x Weight of feature 1;

where: - Weight of feature 1 = table 7, column “Weight of criteria”, line 1

- Feature 1 ranked by UNIZA = table 8, column “UNIZA 1”, line 1

- Feature 1 ranked by TUB = table 9, column “UNIZA 1”, line 1

- Feature 1 ranked by KTH = table 10, column “UNIZA 1”, line 1

That is: 0,489 = (1+1+1) x 0,162878788

In following chart we can see clearly the final results for each concept. The differences between first three concepts are very low, greatest gap in achieved points has two concepts UNIZA 4 and UNIZA 2.

111

Exhibit 100: Final concepts evaluation chart. Source: UNIZA.

1,50

1,70

1,90

2,10

2,30

2,50

2,70

KTH 5B KTH 5A TUB 6C TUB 6A UNIZA 3 TUB 6B UNIZA 1 KTH 5C UNIZA 4 UNIZA 2

112

9.4 Conclusion

From the statistic preview of most frequent quantity by indicator “weight,” the most transported commodity is: bulk substrates of solid, coarse-grained material like coal and lignite together with crude petroleum and natural gas. It is caused mainly by economical and historical reason, whereas necessary infrastructure for quick load/unload is already constructed. Well, the transport distances between the places of consumption (i.e. processing plants, reservoirs) and the places of minig are not too long (for this commodity, transport performance is even third). Similar situation is by bulk commodity coke and refined petroleum products or commodity metal ores and other mining and quarrying products. Therefore it is not necessary to deal with these commodities in the project.

However the potential of access of railway transport into various logistic chains is growing constantly. Railway transport has favorable support of European transport policy and it is able to substitute road transport on a number of routes. But this will be possible only when railway transport is oriented on intermodal transport, however in this transport there is less efficiency of reverse-runs. Reason of this situation is mainly the trend of globalization, i.e. the transports on longer distances in bigger, standardized transport units. This has impact especially on the network capacity and wagon load usage, when the wagons with empty ITU are not fully loaded, but they are busy. In this case it is necessary to deal with lower number of lighter wagons with the possibility of better load usage by empty ITU.

These reasons were taken into account when creating key features of new VEL Wagon railway car. An optimum variant of new railway car was chosen after application of mathematical methods of choosing optimum variant from number of variants.

From introduced concepts, the winner is the concept KTH 5B. Considering logical reasons the best variant shall be the concept KTH 5A. This decision was made because the most important feature of new wagon is loading length and KTH 5B is articulated concept of KTH 5A. If we consider achieved points in evaluation and concept features we can also deal with the concept TUB 6C. Other concepts do not achieve more significant results for required criteria.

These concepts will be developed continually in the next parts of the project.

113

List of exhibits EXHIBIT 1: FREIGHT RAILWAYS’ PERFORMANCE IN EUROPE (MRD. TKM). SOURCE: UIC 2009. .............................................................. 8

EXHIBIT 2: EXAMPLE OF A MODAL SHARE IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION (>600KM). ........................................................................... 10

EXHIBIT 3: AMOUNT OF WAGONS VS. FREIGHT RAIL PERFORMANCE. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT AND UIC 2011. .................................. 11

EXHIBIT 4: EUROPEAN WAGON PRODUCTIVITY. SOURCE: EUROSTAT, UIC 2010, DB REPORTS AND INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE. ................ 12

EXHIBIT 5: MODAL SHARE IN EU25. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT 2011. ............................................................................................... 13

EXHIBIT 6: A) EU 27 CARGOES' SHARE BY ROAD. B) EU27 FREIGHT ROAD EVOLUTION BY TYPE OF GOODS. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT

2010. .................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

EXHIBIT 7: A) EVOLUTION GOOD CATEGORIES ON GERMAN RAILWAYS. DATA SOURCE: DESTATIS. B) EVOLUTION GOOD CATEGORIES ON

SWEDISH RAILWAYS. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT ..................................................................................................................... 18

EXHIBIT 8: LINEAR TREND LINES OF NO. TEU PER HANDLED CONTAINER IN DIFFERENT TRANSPORT CONTEXTS. DATA SOURCES: ROTTERDAM PORT STATISTICS BUREAU, ANTWERP PORT STATISTICS BUREAU, HAMBURG PORT AUTHORITY AND DESTATIS. .. 18

EXHIBIT 9: EPAL DIMENSIONS. SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA. ........................................................................................................................ 19

EXHIBIT 10: MEGA LINER 3. SOURCE: KRONE. .................................................................................................................................. 19

EXHIBIT 11: EVOLUTION OF INTERMODAL LOADING UNITS’ UTILISATION IN GERMAN RAILWAYS (2005=0, IN MIO. TKM). DATA SOURCE: DESTATIS. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20

EXHIBIT 12: GIGALINER CONFIGURATIONS. DRAWING SOURCE: P. HILS / PROF. DR.-ING. U. ADLER (FHE). ........................................ 21

EXHIBIT 13: EQUIVALENT GIGALINERS PER VEL WAGON (I). .............................................................................................................. 21

EXHIBIT 14: EQUIVALENT GIGALINERS PER VEL WAGON (II). ............................................................................................................. 22

EXHIBIT 15: NET TONNAGE PER EUROPEAN ROAD VEHICLE ON LONG DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION (>500KM), TYPE OF GOODS AND

PERCENTAGE THEREOF. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT 2011. ...................................................................................................... 23

EXHIBIT 16: WEIGHT OF LOADED TEUS OF 45 FT CONTAINERS IN ROTTERDAM. DATA SOURCE: PORT OF ROTTERDAM STATISTICS

BUREAU. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 24

EXHIBIT 17: PERCENTAGE OF CONTAINER LENGTHS IN ROTTERDAM. DATA SOURCE: PORT OF ROTTERDAM STATISTICS BUREAU. ........ 24

EXHIBIT 18: THREE ECONOMIC GROWTH PATHS. BOTTOM FIGURE SOURCE: EC EUROINDICATOR 39/2011 - 14 MARCH 2011. ............. 25

EXHIBIT 19: SWEDISH CROSS-BORDER RAIL FREIGHT TONNAGE BY TYPE. SOURCE: KTH (DATA: TRAFIKANALYS). ............................... 26

EXHIBIT 20: SHARE OF RAILWAY-HAULED INTERMODAL TON-KM BY UNIT TYPE. SOURCE: KTH (DATA: TRAFIKVERKET). ........................ 26

EXHIBIT 21: SHARE OF RAILWAY-HAULED CONTAINER TON-KM BY CONTAINER LENGTH. SOURCE: KTH (DATA: TRAFIKVERKET). ........... 27

EXHIBIT 22: CLASSIFICATION OF FREIGHT RAILWAYS’ OFFER. ............................................................................................................. 28

EXHIBIT 23: COMBINED TRANSPORT VS. WAGONLOAD IN EUROPE. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT 2010. .................................................. 30

EXHIBIT 24: COMBINED TRANSPORT VS. WAGONLOAD IN GERMANY. DATA SOURCE: DESTATIS, EUROSTAT, DB AG

WETTBEWERBSBERICHT 2010................................................................................................................................................ 30

EXHIBIT 25: GERMAN RAIL TRANSPORTATION OF (IN TONNES): SOLID MINERAL FUEL, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, ORES AND METAL WASTE, METAL PRODUCTS, CRUDE AND MANUFACTURED MINERALS, BUILDING MATERIALS, FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS (TYPICAL GOODS

OF TRAINLOADS).DATA SOURCE: DESTATIS 2011. ................................................................................................................... 31

EXHIBIT 26: SEASONALLY ADJUSTED GDP AT MARKET PRICES IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. SOURCE: EUROSTAT 2011................ 31

EXHIBIT 27: TRAIN LENGTH - CARGO DENSITY GRAPH (I). SOURCE: A. CARRILLO ZANUY. ................................................................... 37

EXHIBIT 28: TRAIN LEGHT - CARGO DENSITY GRAPH (II). SOURCE: A. CARRILLO ZANUY. .................................................................... 38

EXHIBIT 29: COSTS PERCENTAGES EXAMPLE OF A DOMESTIC TRAINLOAD IN GERMANY. SOURCE: TUB INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE BASED ON

PREVIOUS PROJECTS CALCULATIONS. ..................................................................................................................................... 39

EXHIBIT 30: RAILPORTS© IN EUROPE. SOURCE: DB SCHENKER. ....................................................................................................... 40

EXHIBIT 31: WAGON CLASSES IN GERMANY 2008. DATA SOURCE: VPI AND DBAG. ........................................................................... 41

EXHIBIT 32: HBBILLS-UY FOR TEMPERATURE-CONTROLLED CARGO, FOR 38 EUROPALLETS. PHOTO SOURCE: SBB. ............................ 42

EXHIBIT 33: 63-PALLET LOADING SCHEMA OF HABBIINS. SOURCE: A. CARRILLO ZANUY. .................................................................... 42

EXHIBIT 34: 61-PALLET LOADING SCHEMA OF HABBIINS IF INTERMEDIATE WALLS ARE USED. SOURCE: A. CARRILLO ZANUY. ................ 42

EXHIBIT 35: 70-PALLET LOADING SCHEMA OF A VEL-WAGON CONCEPT. SOURCE: A. CARRILLO ZANUY. .............................................. 43

EXHIBIT 36. TWO-AXLE WAGON TYPE “L” ........................................................................................................................................... 43

EXHIBIT 37: 7 LOADING SCHEMA OF A LAAIIS, LEFT WITH 36 EUROPALLETS, RIGHT WITH 30 INDUSTRY PALLETS. PICTURE SOURCE: TRANSWAGGON. .................................................................................................................................................................... 43

114

EXHIBIT 38: LAAS, 27M, TARE 26T. SOURCE: TRANSWAGGON. .......................................................................................................... 44

EXHIBIT 39: LAADKS, 27M, TARE 24,5T, LOADING HEIGHT 0,8M. SOURCE: TRANSWAGGON. ................................................................ 44

EXHIBIT 40. LAEKK(Q)S, 26,2M, TARE:25,5T, LOADING HEIGHT 0,64M. SOURCE: ATGLOGISTIK.COM. ................................................... 44

EXHIBIT 41: VEL-WAGON CONCEPT WITH A LOWERED FLOOR BETWEEN THE BOGIES AND IN-BETWEEN THE EXTERIOR BEAMS. SOURCE: A. CARRILLO ZANUY. ............................................................................................................................................................. 44

EXHIBIT 42: TANK CONTAINERS ONTO 60’ WAGONS BEING HUMPED AT SEDDIN (NEARBY BERLIN). PHOTO: TUB, SCHIENENFAHRWEGE

UND BAHNBETRIEB................................................................................................................................................................. 45

EXHIBIT 43: WOODTAINER XXL OF INNOFREIGHT. SOURCE: INNOFREIGHT. ....................................................................................... 45

EXHIBIT 44: AUSTRALIAN 40 FOOT / 64.4M3 'CFCLA 400XX' CONTAINER ON WAGON AND ON THE GROUND SHOWING QUAD DISCHARGE

DOORS. SOURCE: WONGM’S RAIL GALLERY............................................................................................................................ 46

EXHIBIT 45: ROUND WOOD PALLET OF INNOFREIGHT. SOURCE: INNOFREIGHT. ................................................................................... 46

EXHIBIT 46: NESKA 30-FOOT BLACK BOXX FOR THYSSENKRUPP MINENERGY. SOURCE: DUISPORT MAGAZIN 2/2010. ....................... 47

EXHIBIT 47: WASCOSA FLEX FREIGHT SYSTEM, 60’ E-BOX. SOURCE: WASCOSA. ............................................................................. 47

EXHIBIT 48: REXWALS DUALWAGEN GENERATION 1. SOURCE: DVZ 28.08.2007. ............................................................................... 48

EXHIBIT 49: REXWALS DUALWAGEN GENERATION 2. SOURCE: BAHNONLINE.CH 2009. ....................................................................... 48

EXHIBIT 50: HOUSE SECTION WITH DIMENSIONS ADAPTED TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION. SOURCE: BENGT DAHLBERG. ............... 48

EXHIBIT 51: LAAIILPS (TRANSWAGGON FOR VW) WITH DETACHABLE SUPERSTRUCTURE. SOURCE: DREHSCHEIBE-FOREN.DE, USER: MICHAEL K. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 49

EXHIBIT 52: CONTAINERS DESIGNED FOR LOADING BY FORKLIFT. SOURCE: ANDERS.K ....................................................................... 49

EXHIBIT 53: TYPES OF INTERMODAL TRANSPORT (RAIL/ROAD). SOURCE: UNIZA ................................................................................ 50

EXHIBIT 54: INTERMODAL TECHNIQUES IN EU27. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT (NOTE: SEMITRAILERS AND TRAILERS EACH REPRESENT

2TEUS). ............................................................................................................................................................................... 51

EXHIBIT 55: INTERMODAL TECHNIQUES TREND IN EU27 (RIGHT) (TEUS) AND GERMANY (LEFT) (MIO TKM). DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT

AND DESTATIS (NOTE: SEMITRAILERS AND TRAILERS EACH REPRESENT 2TEUS). ..................................................................... 51

EXHIBIT 56: INTERMODAL SERVICE PROVIDERS’ BUSINESS SEGMENTS. SOURCE: UIC 2010 REPORT ON COMBINED TRANSPORT IN

EUROPE. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 53

EXHIBIT 57: INTERMODAL SERVICE PROVIDERS’ BUSINESS SEGMENTS. SOURCE: UIC 2010 REPORT ON COMBINED TRANSPORT IN

EUROPE. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 54

EXHIBIT 58: THE EUROPEAN INTERMODAL MARKET 2008. SOURCE: CARRILLO, TROCHE, FERRMED WAGON STUDY. ........................ 55

EXHIBIT 59: STRUCTURE OF EUROPEAN INTERMODAL WAGON FLEET 2008. SOURCE: CARRILLO, TROCHE, FERRMED WAGON STUDY. ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 55

EXHIBIT 60: COST MODEL OF AN INTERMODAL SERVICE. SOURCE: A. CARRILLO ZANUY. ..................................................................... 56

EXHIBIT 61: VOLUME OF ACCOMPANIED INTERMODAL TRANSPORT. DATA SOURCE: UIC REPORT ON COMBINED TRANSPORT 2010. ..... 57

EXHIBIT 62 : GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAXIMUM VEHICLE HEIGHTS ON HIGHWAYS IN EUROPE AND THE CAUCASUS. SOURCE: KTH. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

EXHIBIT 63: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RAILWAY LOADING GAUGES IN EUROPE AND THE CAUCASUS. SOURCE: KTH. ............... 61

EXHIBIT 64: DEFINITION OF INTERMODAL GAUGE P/C 450. SOURCE: KTH. ........................................................................................ 62

EXHIBIT 65: CRITICAL POINTS OF VEL-WAGON DESIGN. SOURCE: TVP .............................................................................................. 66

EXHIBIT 66: LOADING SCHEMAS OF 80’ WAGONS. SOURCE: TVP. ...................................................................................................... 66

EXHIBIT 67: TVP 5-YEAR PRODUCTION (TOTAL WAGONS WITHOUT CIS MARKET). SOURCE: TVP. ....................................................... 67

EXHIBIT 68: TVP 5-YEAR PRODUCTION (INTERMODAL WAGONS). SOURCE: TVP. ................................................................................ 68

EXHIBIT 69: NORTH AMERICAN FLATCAR. SOURCE: G.TROCHE. ....................................................................................................... 68

EXHIBIT 70: NORTH AMERICAN HEAVY DUTY 85 FT FLAT CAR. SOURCE: GREENBRIER. ....................................................................... 68

EXHIBIT 71: NORTH AMERICAN HEAVY DUTY DOUBLE STACK CAR. SOURCE: GREENBRIER. ................................................................. 69

EXHIBIT 72: 5-UNIT DOUBLE STACK CAR. SOURCE: GREENBRIER. ...................................................................................................... 69

EXHIBIT 73: CONTAINER TECHNIQUES IN NORTH AMERICAN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION, 2007. DATA SOURCE: INTERMODAL

ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA. ........................................................................................................................................ 69

EXHIBIT 74: CONTAINER TECHNIQUES IN GERMAN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION, 2010 (ARROWS INDICATE TREND). DATA SOURCE: DESTATIS 2011. .................................................................................................................................................................... 70

EXHIBIT 75: 13-7024 FLAT CAR, JSC KRYUKOV CAR BUILDING WORKS, 25,6 M, TARE 22,3 T. SOURCE: HEKMAT GMBH. .................... 70

115

EXHIBIT 76: SDGGNQSS-W, 26M, TARE 31,2T. PICTURE SOURCE: VAUNUT.ORG. ................................................................................ 71

EXHIBIT 77: SJF 636.1, 26M LONG, TARE 28T. PICTURE SOURCE: STINSENSFORUM.SE, USER BJ. ...................................................... 71

EXHIBIT 78: SGGNS 73’, 23,9 M, TARE 22 T. PICTURE SOURCE: GOEDERENWAGENS.NL. .................................................................... 71

EXHIBIT 79: RBNS, 26,3 M, TARE 27 T . PICTURE SOURCE: DYBAS. .................................................................................................... 72

EXHIBIT 80: HABBIKS 340, 25,2M, TARE 31T. PICTURE SOURCE: DYBAS. ........................................................................................... 72

EXHIBIT 81: SGGNS 80 FT FLATCAR, 25,9 M, TARE 24 T. SOURCE: TABOR M. DYBOWSKI S.J. ........................................................... 73

EXHIBIT 82: SGGS 80 FT. SOURCE: TRENOMANIA.ORG, USER MARCOCLAUDIO. ................................................................................... 73

EXHIBIT 83: SGGS 80 FT, LOADING LENGTH 24,6 M, TARE 21,4 T. SOURCE: IGNAZIO MESSINA & C.S.P.A............................................ 74

EXHIBIT 84: WAGON FLEET BY TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION. SOURCE: UNIZA, HTTP://WWW.FSZ.BME.HU/TRAFFIC/INDEXE.HTM. ........... 80

EXHIBIT 85: VOLUME OF TRANSPORTED GOODS 2009. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT. ......................................................................... 83

EXHIBIT 86: RAILWAY TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE IN 27 EU COUNTRIES. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT. .............................................. 84

EXHIBIT 87: FLAT WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 1). SOURCE: UNIZA. .................................................................................................... 87

EXHIBIT 88: HIGH SIDED WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 2). SOURCE: UNIZA. .......................................................................................... 88

EXHIBIT 89: TWIN FLAT WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 3). SOURCE: UNIZA. ............................................................................................ 89

EXHIBIT 90: TWIN HIGH-SIDED WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 4). SOURCE: UNIZA. ................................................................................. 90

EXHIBIT 91: FRAME WAGON WITH POCKET FOR SEMITRAILERS, HI-CUBE CONTAINERS AND LONG LOADS (CONCEPT 5A). SOURCE: KTH. ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 92

EXHIBIT 92: 2 SHORT COUPLED FRAME WAGONS WITH POCKET FOR SEMITRAILERS, HI-CUBE CONTAINERS AND LONG LOADS (CONCEPT

5B). SOURCE: TU BERLIN. ..................................................................................................................................................... 93

EXHIBIT 93: 2 SHORT COUPLED FRAME WAGONS WITH POCKET FOR SEMITRAILERS, HI-CUBE CONTAINERS AND LONG LOADS 25 T AXLE

LOAD (CONCEPT 5C). SOURCE: TU BERLIN. ............................................................................................................................ 93

EXHIBIT 94: PALLETS SCHEME. SOURCE: TU BERLIN ........................................................................................................................ 94

EXHIBIT 95: FRAME WAGON WITH POCKET VEL-WAGON 25 (82 FT). SOURCE: TU BERLIN. ................................................................. 96

EXHIBIT 96: VEL-WAGON 26 (85 FT). SOURCE: TU BERLIN............................................................................................................... 99

EXHIBIT 97: VEL-WAGON 27 (90’). SOURCE:TUB. ......................................................................................................................... 102

EXHIBIT 98: WEIGHTS OF EACH FEATURE (CRITERIA). SOURCE: UNIZA. .......................................................................................... 105

EXHIBIT 99: OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTS EVALUATION. SOURCE: UNIZA ............................................................................................. 109

EXHIBIT 100: FINAL CONCEPTS EVALUATION CHART. SOURCE: UNIZA. ............................................................................................ 111

116

List of tables TABLE 1: TYPE OF GOODS TRANSPORTED BY ROAD. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT 2011. ....................................................................... 14

TABLE 2: TYPE OF GOODS TRANSPORTED BY RAIL. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT 2011. ......................................................................... 15

TABLE 3: DENSITIES OF VARIOUS LOADING UNITS. ............................................................................................................................. 21

TABLE 4: TOP TEN PORTS RANKED BY DRY BULK IMPORT. DATA SOURCE: EUROSTAT 2011................................................................. 32

TABLE 5: 2009 COUNTRY-BASED PERCENTAGES ON TL, SWL AND CT IN EUROPE IN T-KM (CALCULATED). DATA SOURCE: VARIOUS (SEE

BELOW). ................................................................................................................................................................................ 34

TABLE 6: TRAIN-KM OCCURRING IN EUROPEAN NETWORKS. SOURCE: VARIOUS (SEE EXPLANATION). ................................................. 35

TABLE 7: ESTIMATED AVERAGED NET TONNAGE TRANSPORTED PER TRAIN IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. SOURCE: VARIOUS (SEE

EXPLANATION). ...................................................................................................................................................................... 35

TABLE 8: CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS WAGONS. SOURCE: UIC. ......................................................................................................... 41

TABLE 9: CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS INTERMODAL UNITS. SOURCE: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED STANDARDISATION AND

HARMONISATION REQUIREMENTS. ICF 2003. ......................................................................................................................... 52

TABLE 10: PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUM VEHICLE DIMENSIONS ON THE HIGHWAY IN EUROPE AND THE CAUCASUS. SOURCE: ITF. ................ 58

TABLE 11: RAILWAY LOADING GAUGE MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS IN EUROPE AND THE CAUCASUS. SOURCE: KTH. .................................... 60

TABLE 12: MAXIMUM LOAD UNIT HEIGHT IN P/C 450 AS A FUNCTION OF ACTUAL WAGON HEIGHT. SOURCE: KTH. ................................ 62

TABLE 13: METER LOAD CLASSIFICATIONS. SOURCE: KTH. ............................................................................................................... 63

TABLE 14: AXLE LOAD CLASSIFICATIONS. SOURCE: KTH ................................................................................................................... 64

TABLE 15: WAGON FLEET BY TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. SOURCE: UNIZA. ................................................................................... 81

TABLE 16: CLASSIFICATION OF FREIGHT WAGONS BY UIC NUMBERING. SOURCE: UNIZA. .................................................................. 81

TABLE 17: LIST OF FREIGHT WAGONS SORTED BY CLASS LETTER. SOURCE: TUB. .............................................................................. 82

TABLE 18: WAGON FLEET BY POSSIBILITY OF USAGE. SOURCE: UNIZA. ............................................................................................. 82

TABLE 19: PROPORTION OF SELECTED COMMODITIES ON TOTAL TRANSPORT TONNAGE IN 2009. SOURCE: UNIZA. ............................. 83

TABLE 20. FLAT WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 1). SOURCE: UNIZA ....................................................................................................... 87

TABLE 21. HIGH SIDED WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 2). SOURCE: UNIZA ............................................................................................. 88

TABLE 22. TWIN FLAT WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 3). SOURCE: UNIZA ............................................................................................... 89

TABLE 23. TWIN HIGH-SIDED WAGON UNIZA (CONCEPT 4). SOURCE: UNIZA ..................................................................................... 90

TABLE 24: FRAME WAGON WITH POCKET FOR SEMITRAILERS, HI-CUBE CONTAINERS AND LONG LOADS (CONCEPT 5A). SOURCE: KTH. . 92

TABLE 25: FRAME WAGON WITH POCKET (TU BERLIN) – CONCEPT 6A, LOADING LENGTH 82´. SOURCE: RIV COMPLIANT .................... 95

TABLE 26: FRAME WAGON WITH POCKET (TU BERLIN) – CONCEPT 6B, LOADING LENGTH 85 FT. SOURCE: TU BERLIN. ........................ 98

TABLE 27: FRAME WAGON WITH POCKET (TU BERLIN) – CONCEPT 6C, LOADING LENGTH 90´. SOURCE: TU BERLIN. ......................... 101

TABLE 28: LIST OF VEL WAGON´S FEATURES. SOURCE: VEL WAGON PARTNERS. ........................................................................... 103

TABLE 29: WEIGHT OF CRITERIA (FEATURE). SOURCE: UNIZA. ....................................................................................................... 104

TABLE 30: FEATURES RANKED BY UNIZA ....................................................................................................................................... 106

TABLE 31: FEATURES RANKED BY TUB. .......................................................................................................................................... 107

TABLE 32: FEATURES RANKED BY KTH. .......................................................................................................................................... 108

TABLE 33: MATRIX OF CONCEPTS EVALUATION. SOURCE: UNIZA. ................................................................................................... 110