Intermodal rail freight Twin hub Network North West Europe = Twin hub network

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Intermodal rail freight Twin hub Network North West Europe = Twin hub network"

Transcription

1 Intermodal rail freight Twin hub Network North West Europe = Twin hub network Ekki Kreutzberger and Rob Konings Collaborate rail transport services in the hinterland of seaports to increase the market share of intermodal rail freight transport 30 August 2013, London Research Institute OTB

2 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

3 Challenge (intermodal) transport 3

4 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 In Antwerp to 15% in Commercial aims: Intermodal rail transport is a growth market for the railway sector 4

5 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

6 Illustration low quality for indicator network connectivity 6

7 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

8 The bundling challenge 8

9 Basic bundling choices Many intermodal rail flows are too small for direct train services also from and to large nodes Complex bundling is required for many relations A C LEGEND: Direct bundling Partially loaded trains Fully loaded trains Begin-and-end-terminal Kreutzberger, 1998 Complex bundling B A B D Detour and perhaps local rail transport Detour and perhaps local rail transport C A C Higher loading degree Transhipment or other type of exchange Higher loading degree Transhipment or other type of exchange More end terminals D B D Seamless, but lacking scale 9

10 Basic bundling choices Direct Hub-and-spoke Line Fork Trunk-feeder network network network network network (= BE network) (= HS network) (= L network) (= TCD network) (= TF network) Source: Kreutzberger, 2008 Only trunk rail network Trunk rail and local rail network (with full trainloads) (with full and small trainloads) 10

11 Twin hub concept 11

12 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

13 Regions that can be served by Twin hub services (in TEU) between seaports Rotterdam / Antwerp and Germany / Czech republic / Poland, 2010 Bron: Konings e.a.,

14 Regions that can be served by Twin hub services (in TEU) between seaports Rotterdam / Antwerp / Greater London and Germany / Czech republic / Poland, 2010 Bron: Konings e.a.,

15 Twin hub project: The intention of seamless 15

16 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

17 Twin hub concept, seamless 1 LEGEND = terminal = hub terminal Antwerp = hub terminal Rotterdam = services via hub Antwerp = services via hub Rotterdam = services beyond NWE 17

18 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

19 Twin hub concept, seamless 2 Train services via hub Rotterdam Amsterdam Train services via hub Rotterdam Amsterdam Rotterdam Rotterdam Vlissingen Moerdijk Moerdijk Vlissingen Zeebrugge Antwerp Zeebrugge Antwerp Train services via hub Antwerp Amsterdam Train services via hub Antwerp Amsterdam Rotterdam Rotterdam Moerdijk Vlissingen Moerdijk Vlissingen Zeebrugge Antwerp Zeebrugge Antwerp LEGEND= train services to/from European inland terminals 19

20 Seamless 3: no shunting of single wagons at the hub Shunting of wagons (formerly including containers) Crane transhipment of containers at a terminal Mainhub Antwerp Source: Interferryboats,

21 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

22 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

23 Twin hub project: Testing the idea (of seamless transport) in a pilot 23

24 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

25 Twin hub concept, seamless 2a 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 25

26 Potential locations hub terminal for Rotterdam flows MAASVLAKTE Corridor neutral hub, periphery KIJFHOEK Corridor neutral hub, centre VALBURG Corridor specific hub MOERDIJK Corridor neutral hub, periphery ANTWERP Corridor specific hub DUISBURG Corridor specific hub 26

27 Twin hub concept, seamless 2a Each train and container only visits 1 hub per journey? Seamless? YES and NO 27

28 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 participate YES: rail operators if they benefit from cooperation and are not blind by the idea od needing to go direct Difficult: customer related issues are difficult cooperation subject. 28

29 Conclusions Acknowledgement by practitioners of value added by concept Many practical ideas make it tough work to implement concept 29

30 Questions? 30