collaborate rail transport services in the hinterland of ... · research institute otb....
TRANSCRIPT
Intermodal rail freight Twin hub Network North West Europe
= Twin hub network
Collaborate rail transport services in the hinterland of seaports to increase the market share of intermodal rail freight transport
30 August 2013, London
Ekki Kreutzberger and Rob Konings
Research Institute OTB
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Content of presentation
• General intermodal challenge
• The bundling challenge
• Twin hub concept
• Twin hub concept: the intention of seamless
• Twin hub project: testing the idea (of seamless transport) in a pilot
• Conclusions
2
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 3
Challenge (intermodal) transport
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Intermodal rail transport is highly relevant
• High growth rates of freight transport (50% between 2000 and 2020)
• Impossible to accommodate growth mainly by truck transport (current share is about 75% in the EU)
• Rail transport is relatively? sustainable (e.g. climate, pollution, noise, accidents, infrastructure, space)
• Societal aims: increase share intermodal rail and barge transport In Rotterdam the aim is to increase rail share from 11% to 20% in 2033. In Antwerp to 15% in 2020.
• Commercial aims: Intermodal rail transport is a growth market for the railway sector
4
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Intermodal rail transport is only modestly competitive
• Growth share intermodal rail transport is hampering
• Good quality only (according to the European project IQ):• In corridors with large flows• From and to large nodes• In some well organized regions
• Rail is typically chosen because of low costs, but numerous railway companies / intermodal rail operators cannot cover their costs
• Capacity restrictions in rail network at large nodes, in large seaports in particular
5
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 6
Illustration low quality for indicator network connectivity
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Conclusion for intermodal transport:Operational improvements
Continuously in search for appropriate innovations:
• Network design (mainly services): • Bundling of rail flows and scale of transport• Train roundtrips• Pre- and post-haulage • Spatial organization (locations of terminals and customers)
• Node design (services and infrastructure)
• Vehicle design
• Business and organisational design
7
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 8
The bundling challenge
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Basic bundling choices
9
• Many intermodal rail flows are too small for direct train services …
• … also from and to large nodes
• “Complex bundling” is required for many relations
Direct bundling Complex bundling
AHigher loading degree
B A B
D
C D
C
LEGEND:
Partially loaded trains
Fully loaded trains
Begin-and-end-terminalKreutzberger, 1998 More end terminals
C D
BA Higher loading degree
Transhipment or other type of exchange
Transhipment or other type of exchange
Detour and perhaps local rail transport
Detour and perhaps local rail transport
Seamless, but lacking scale
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Basic bundling choices
10
Direct Hub-and-spoke Line Fork Trunk-feeder network network network network network
(= BE network) (= HS network) (= L network) (= TCD network) (= TF network)
Only trunk rail network Trunk rail and local rail network (with full trainloads) (with full and small trainloads)
Source: Kreutzberger, 2008
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 11
Twin hub concept
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept • Bundle rail flows of Rotterdam and Antwerp and of smaller seaports
• Transport Dutch load units in Antwerp trains wherever they have or could have a strong market position
• Transport Belgian load units in Rotterdam trains wherever they have or could have a strong market position
• Complementary corridors in acknowledgement of seaport competition• Move load units between inland terminals and different (“west”) seaports in the same
train
• Organize such bundling by means of hub-and-spoke- (= HS-) networks
• Two hubs, in regions Antwerp and Rotterdam (= gravity points of flows)
• The Twin hub concept enlarges the service area of each hub increasing the advantages of HS bundling
12
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 13
Regions that can be served by Twin hub services (in 1.000 TEU)
between seaports Rotterdam / Antwerp and Germany / Czech republic / Poland, 2010
Bron: Konings e.a., 2012
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 14
Regions that can be served by Twin hub services (in 1.000 TEU)
between seaports Rotterdam / Antwerp / Greater London and Germany / Czech republic / Poland, 2010
Bron: Konings e.a., 2012
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 15
Twin hub project:
The intention of seamless
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 1
• Bundling by means of HS networks (seamless: only trunk and no local rail networks, hence less interfaces)
• Hubs in gravity points of flows: regions Rotterdam and Antwerp
• Service area of both hubs overlap:• Let Dutch containers go by Antwerp trains, wherever …• Let Belgian containers go by Rotterdam trains, wherever …
16
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 1
17
LEGEND
= terminal= hub terminal Antwerp= hub terminal Rotterdam= services via hub Antwerp= services via hub
Rotterdam= services beyond NWE
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 2
• Each train and container only visits 1 hub per journey (seamless: less interfaces)
• Ideally the trains of an exchange batch visit the hub simultaneously (seamless: less exchange via terminal storage area and hence less impedance at interface)
18
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 2
19
Zeebrugge
VlissingenMoerdijk
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Train services via hub Rotterdam
LEGEND= train services to/from European inland terminals
Zeebrugge
VlissingenMoerdijk
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Train services via hub Antwerp
Zeebrugge
Vlissingen
Moerdijk
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Train services via hub Rotterdam
Zeebrugge
VlissingenMoerdijk
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Train services via hub Antwerp
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Seamless 3: no shunting of single wagons at the hub
20
Shunting of wagons (formerly including containers)
Crane transhipment of containers at a terminal
Mainhub Antwerp Source: Interferryboats, 2004
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 3
• 3 alternatives at the hub: exchange of containers between trains by:1. Shunting of single wagons (time consuming and expensive)2. Shunting of wagon groups (only suitable if flows are large
enough for wagon groups)3. Transhipment of containers
• Avoid 1. 3 is best. (seamless: lower impedance at interface)
21
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 4
• Cooperation between competitors• seaports• countries• intermodal rail operators
Currently: Intermodal hub-and-spoke bundling by train is typically restricted to:
• seaports within 1 country
• 1 rail firm or ”family” of rail firms
22
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 23
Twin hub project:
Testing the idea (of seamless transport) in a pilot
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 1 and 3
• Bundling by means of HS networks (1) seamless? YES
• No single wagon shunting. Preferably transhipment at terminal hub (2). Seamless? YES
24
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 2a
25
• Ideally the trains of an exchange batch visit the hub simultaneously ?
Seamless? NO
• No hub infrastructure suitable for the pilot available in Rotterdam
• Within short: also not in Antwerp
• Suboptimal operations: including no simultaneous, but sequential hub exchange
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Potential locations hub terminal for Rotterdam flows
26
ANTWERP Corridor specific hub
DUISBURG Corridor specific hub
VALBURG Corridor specific hub
MAASVLAKTE Corridor neutral hub,
periphery
MOERDIJK Corridor neutral hub, periphery
KIJFHOEK Corridor neutral hub, centre
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 2a
27
• Each train and container only visits 1 hub per journey ?Seamless? YES and NO
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London
Twin hub concept, seamless 4
• Cooperation between competitors• seaports• countries• intermodal rail operators
Seamless? YES and NO No: not all seaports and countries willing to participateYES: rail operators if they benefit from cooperation and are notblind by the idea od needing to go directDifficult: customer related issues are difficult cooperation subject.
28
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 29
Conclusions
Acknowledgement by practitioners of value added by concept
Many practical ideas make it tough work to implement concept
International Conference RGS IBG 2013, Session Seamless Freight Transport, London 30
Questions ?