IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/transj/v46y2007i4p5-20.html

Modeling Rail‐Rail Exchange Operations: An Analysis of Conventional and New‐Generation Terminals

Author

Listed:
  • Bart W. Wiegmans
  • D.T. Stekelenburg
  • C. Versteegt
  • Y.M. Bontekoning

Abstract

Hub‐and‐spoke bundling networks in intermodal rail freight transport are suggested as a potential solution to help increase the intermodal rail market share. In Europe, three intermodal hub‐and‐spoke networks became operational in the 1990s. Trains are shunted or load units transshipped at the hubs in these networks. Shunting or transshipment is relatively time‐consuming and cuts back on the advantages of hub‐and‐spoke networks. A new type of terminal, specifically designed for hubs in hub‐and‐spoke networks, has been suggested for introduction. At these terminals, standardized load units are transshipped efficiently from one train to another, instead of shunting rail wagons. Explorative evaluation studies give rise to the expectation that these new‐generation terminals‐under certain conditions‐might perform more efficiently than conventional shunting yards and road‐rail terminals. We still know very little about exchange operations at new‐generation terminals and the differences from conventional road‐rail terminals and shunting yards. The goal of our research is to obtain a thorough understanding of the operations and to compare performances of different exchange facilities. To reach this objective, dynamic simulation models were built in ARENA. The typical features of, and performance differences between, conventional road‐rail terminals, shunting yards, and new‐generation terminal operations are presented in this article.

Suggested Citation

  • Bart W. Wiegmans & D.T. Stekelenburg & C. Versteegt & Y.M. Bontekoning, 2007. "Modeling Rail‐Rail Exchange Operations: An Analysis of Conventional and New‐Generation Terminals," Transportation Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(4), pages 5-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:transj:v:46:y:2007:i:4:p:5-20
    DOI: 10.2307/20713685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/20713685
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/20713685?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ballis, Athanasios & Golias, John, 2002. "Comparative evaluation of existing and innovative rail-road freight transport terminals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 593-611, August.
    2. Alexandra M. Newman & Candace Arai Yano, 2000. "Scheduling Direct and Indirect Trains and Containers in an Intermodal Setting," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 256-270, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nils Boysen & Malte Fliedner & Florian Jaehn & Erwin Pesch, 2013. "A Survey on Container Processing in Railway Yards," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(3), pages 312-329, August.
    2. Smid, Martijn & Dekker, Sander & Wiegmans, Bart, 2016. "Modeling the cost sensitivity of intermodal inland waterway terminals: A scenario based approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 112-122.
    3. Casavant, Ken & Jessup, Eric, 2005. "What Makes them Viable? Determining the Attributes that Offer Potential Viability to Inter-Modal Truck-Rail Facilities in Washington State," 46th Annual Transportation Research Forum, Washington, D.C., March 6-8, 2005 208221, Transportation Research Forum.
    4. Peterson, Steven, 2005. "Factors Influencing Inter-Modal Facility Location Decisions: Comparison of Different Empirical Estimation Procedures," 46th Annual Transportation Research Forum, Washington, D.C., March 6-8, 2005 208177, Transportation Research Forum.
    5. Ballis, Athanasios & Golias, John, 2004. "Towards the improvement of a combined transport chain performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(2), pages 420-436, January.
    6. Boysen, Nils & Briskorn, Dirk & Meisel, Frank, 2017. "A generalized classification scheme for crane scheduling with interference," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 343-357.
    7. Steven K. Peterson & Richard L. Church, 2008. "A Framework for Modeling Rail Transport Vulnerability," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 617-641, December.
    8. Bart Wiegmans & Behzad Behdani, 2018. "A review and analysis of the investment in, and cost structure of, intermodal rail terminals," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 33-51, January.
    9. Gharehgozli, A.H. & Roy, D. & de Koster, M.B.M., 2014. "Sea Container Terminals," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2014-009-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight transport," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    11. Mariia OLKHOVA & Yurii DAVIDICH & Dmytro ROSLAVTSEV & Nataliia DAVIDICH, 2017. "The Efficiency Of Transportating Perishable Goods By Road And Rail," Transport Problems, Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Transport, vol. 12(4), pages 37-50, December.
    12. Verma, Manish & Verter, Vedat, 2010. "A lead-time based approach for planning rail-truck intermodal transportation of dangerous goods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 696-706, May.
    13. Abacoumkin, Constantinos & Ballis, Athanasios, 2004. "Development of an expert system for the evaluation of conventional and innovative technologies in the intermodal transport area," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(2), pages 410-419, January.
    14. Ferrari, Paolo, 2014. "The dynamics of modal split for freight transport," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 163-176.
    15. Snežana Tadić & Mladen Krstić & Violeta Roso & Nikolina Brnjac, 2019. "Planning an Intermodal Terminal for the Sustainable Transport Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    16. Kirschstein, Thomas, 2018. "Rail transportation planning in the chemical industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 142-160.
    17. Martina Jakara & Nikolina Brnjac, 2023. "Foliated Transport Networks in Intermodal Freight Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, April.
    18. Macharis, C. & Bontekoning, Y. M., 2004. "Opportunities for OR in intermodal freight transport research: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 400-416, March.
    19. Nils Boysen & Simon Emde & Malte Fliedner, 2016. "The basic train makeup problem in shunting yards," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 38(1), pages 207-233, January.
    20. Janic, Milan, 2008. "An assessment of the performance of the European long intermodal freight trains (LIFTS)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1326-1339, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:transj:v:46:y:2007:i:4:p:5-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.