Innovative Intermodal Terminals Future concepts TRB Newport Beach California June 2010 Bob Histon Gottwald Port Technology
Content Ojectives of innovative intermodal terminals Development of rail terminals (lessons learnt from sea terminals) Innovative intermodal concept - layout proposal Variety of different layout applications of the GPT cranes and the terminal systems concepts ASC crane movie Conclusions 2
Objective for Innovative Intermodal Terminal Operation Improved service for connecting modalities (short train turn around times ( 3 hours) Scalability into different terminal scenarios High area utilization Capability to expand in line with volume development Flexible terminal layout design Low labor impact Economy of scales to reduce labor cost 3 08 July 2010
Content Ojectives of innovative intermodal terminals Development of rail terminals (lessons learnt from sea terminals) 5
Development of the Sea Terminal 6 08 July 2010
All Functionalities within one Type of Equipment (Crane) Type 1 1 waterside 2 3 transportation storage 1 2 3 4 4 landside 1 system type (1 crane) 8 08 July 2010
One Step Further: Quay Crane and Yard Operation have been Separated 1 Type 2 waterside 1 2 3 4 2 transportation 3 storage 4 landside 2 system type 9 08 July 2010
The Modern Approach: Specialization stands for Automation and Performance Type 3 1 2 3 4 waterside transportation storage landside 1 3 system type 2 3 4 10 08 July 2010
Sea Terminals have specialized: Focus on Service and Productivity Service and productivity increase from dedicated functionalities Type 1 waterside transportation storage landside Type 2 waterside transportation storage landside Type 3 waterside transportation storage landside 1 system type 2 system type 3 system type 11 08 July 2010
Development of the Intermodal Terminal Type 1 Type 2 Type 3? How is the situation in intermodal terminals? 12 08 July 2010
Idea of a Combined Mixed Hub for all three Modalities (road, rail, barge) 13 08 July 2010
Existing Railroad Terminals compared with Type 1 of the Sea Terminals Type 1 1 railside 2 transportation 3 4 storage landside 2 1 system type (1 crane) 1 3 4 14 08 July 2010
Cross Section Type 1 of an Intermodal Railroad Terminal Type 1 1 railside 2 2 transportation 3 4 storage landside 1 4 3 1 system type (1 crane) The crane has to handle the trains The crane has to handle the trucks The crane has to handle the stack (buffer) 15 08 July 2010
A more Modern Approach is the Type 2 as implemented in Rotterdam Type 2 1 railside 2 transportation 3 storage 4 landside 2 system type 2 3 4 1 16 08 July 2010
Cross Section Type 2 of an American Intermodal Terminal Type 2 1 2 railside transportation 2 3 4 storage landside 2 system type 4 4 3 3 1 17
Creating a High Performance and fully Automated Terminal Type 3 Concept Type 3 1 railside 2 transportation 3 4 storage landside 2 1 3 system type 3 4 18 08 July 2010
Exemplary Container Flow Train unloading by ASC Deposition of container on railside rack Taking over of the container by Lift AGV 19 Deposition of container on stackside rack
Exemplary Container Flow Taking over of the container by railside ASC Storage of the container in stack 20 Transfer on the truck Taking over by landside ASC
Intermodal Rail Terminals may follow Sea Terminals Developments Type 1 waterside transportation storage landside Type 2 waterside transportation storage landside Type 3 waterside transportation storage landside 1 system type 2 system type 3 system type Productivity increase through specializing railside 8 mph transportation storage landside railside 25 mph transportation storage landside railside 40 mph transportation storage landside 21
Content Ojectives of innovative intermodal terminals Development of rail terminals (lessons learnt from sea terminals) Innovative intermodal concept - layout proposal 22
Projection of the Type 3 Concept on an Existing Site De-coupling between railroad crane and transportation (Lift AGV) De-coupling of Lift AGV and rail side stacking ASC Second ASC per stacking module for high performance of the truck handling 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 railside 40 mph transportation storage landside 23
Terminal Functionality can be expanded with Value Added Services (Distri Park) Flexible adjustment to existing sites Flexible integration of service centers Increased area utilization Fast integration of customer needs 2 1 3 4 Warehouse / Distri Park 24
Comparison of Expansion Potential for the Three Terminal Types Type 1 2 3 ASC 1 + 4 WSG 5 2 AGV 4 RS 8 1 Equipment for 40 productive train moves, 200,000 TEU/year For logistic reasons it is not recommended to have more than 5 cranes on one track bundle # of productive train mph 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Type 3: 40 mph Logistic boundary Type 2: 25 mph Type 1: 8 mph 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of rail cranes 25 08 July 2010
Content Ojectives of innovative intermodal terminals Development of rail terminals (lessons learnt from sea terminals) Innovative intermodal concept - layout proposal Variety of different layout applications of the cranes and the terminal systems 26
28 Intermodal Crane based on ASC Crane Concept (Modular Design)
29 Modular Design ASC with Rotating Trolley
30 Modular Design ASC with Rotating Trolley
The Classical Intermodal Terminal Layout Type 1 31
32 Köln Eifeltor 330.000 Cont/Year, 6 RMGs, 8 + 1 Tracks
Type 1 Intermodal Rail Terminal Gottwald WSG at HUPAC, Galarate, Italy Terminal area cranes railway tracks handling capacity 242800 sqm 11 portal cranes max. 41 t lifting capacity 3 tracks à 540 m useable length 2 tracks à 630 m useable length 3 tracks à 710 m useable length 3 tracks à 760 m useable length about 550.000 boxes per year 33
Rail Terminals Terminals for Combined Traffic Wide Span Gantry cranes HUPAC, Gallarate, Italy Semi-automated operation Transhipment of containers from road to rail and vice versa Handling rate per crane: 30 loading units per hour 34 08 July 2010
Classical Layout with internal Buffer Extension Type 2 35
36 Type 2 Intermodal Terminal with Gottwald s MSC-Crane
37 Type 2 Intermodal Terminal with Gottwald s MSC-Crane
38 Type 2 - Layout for Intermodal Terminal (Gottwald 2005 for BNSF)
39 Type 2 - Layout for Intermodal Terminal based on ASC Modular Design
Automated Intermodal Terminal Layout with AGVs and ASC Stack Extension Type 3 41
42 Intermodal Rail Terminal Gottwald s WSG and ASC
43 Intermodal Rail Terminal Gottwald s WSG and ASC
Type 3 Automation in Intermodal Terminals Short train turn-around time High degree of automation Reduced labor cost Reduced labor dependency 44
45 Innovative Intermodal Terminal Type 3
RSC - Konzepte für verschiedene Ladeeinheiten 46 08 July 2010
Railsprinter Concept Beispiel Applikationen 47 08 July 2010
Railsprinter Concept Beispiel Applikationen Railsprinter Concept kann auch auf gemischten Betrieb angewendet werden, wobei der Automatisierungsgrad angepasst werden muss. 48 08 July 2010
Railsprinter Concept Beispiel Applikationen Skalierbarkeit der geplanten Gesamtanlage Hier Layout für eine Anlage mit Bedarf an Speicherkapazität und kurzen Zugstandzeiten (separates horizontales Transportsystem) 49 08 July 2010
Applications: 3D-Rail Terminal for 1,800,000 TEU/Year, Buffer Capacity up to 8,000 TEU 50 08 July 2010
Present Day Concept RMGs + TT for housekeeping and int. transport 8 stack lanes required! Stack capacity: Crane speeds: Housekeeping: Gate operation: simulated with 8 1 stack lanes (3000feet long), 6 x (1 over 4) gantry travel 120m/min trolley travel 120m/min hoisting 36 72m/min (load dependant) 6 tractors for housekeeping/internal transport 3 tractors for road trailer handling 1 simulation results showed that 8 stack lanes are required, see next slide 52
Rail Sprinter Concept (RSC) RSCs + ASCs for housekeeping and int. transport Stack capacity: 9 stack lanes (3000feet long), 9 x (1 over 3) Crane speeds: gantry travel 240m/min trolley travel 60m/min hoisting 36 72m/min (load dependant) Housekeeping: 2 ASCs for housekeeping/internal transport Gate operation: 3 tractors for road trailer handling 53
Concept Comparison Results Stack Capacity Stack demand in 2010: average 715 boxes/peak 1300 boxes Operational workable stack capacity: Present day concept (1 over 4, 6 lanes) 75% utilization RSC concept (1 over 3, 9 lanes) 85% utilization 1080 boxes (50 slots) 1377 boxes (50 slots) Conclusions: In RSC concept 27.5% more operational stack capacity available Already in 2010 the present day concept layout must be lengthened in order to accommodate the peak stack capacity demands 54
Conclusions Existing railroad terminals (type 1) are not able to follow modern train operation schemes. Most terminal demands can be served by the flexible GPT crane and system portfolio. There is a concept available (type 3, innovative intermodal terminal concept) that offers short train handling times, high degree of automation up to full automation under optimized conditions (de-coupling), low labor dependency. The type 3 concept is based on the use of ASC Cranes and Lift AGV for the separated handling operations in the intermodal terminal. 55 08 July 2010
New AGV Drive Concepts Battery-AGV (Prototype planned for 2009) Same chassis Control cabinet Control cabinet Batteries 60 08 July 2010
Vehicle Design Lead-Acid Battery Battery pack 2V-cells 61 08 July 2010
62 08 July 2010