Swiss Split—a holistic approach to the distribution of containers to private sidings

Again, there is not much literature analysing rolling stock improvements to facilitate the final distribution of containers to sidings due to the limited market for this type of service. One exception is the description of Swiss Split by the authors of this paper [3]. However, others have described general rolling stock improvements designed to improve the competitiveness of freight transport by rail. Their results are relevant for this research. Especially important are the results of König and Hecht [4] who describe a strategy for the further development of rolling stock in general as well as those of Eschweiler and Hecht [5] who analyse the influence of rolling stock on the market share of rail freight.

Notteboom [6] states that bundling of container flows in consolidation terminals is one of the key driving forces of container network dynamics. Thus, a terminal network consisting of a few consolidation terminals is much more efficient than a structure of dispersed terminals (as it currently exists in Switzerland).

The EU research project TERMINET developed a model to optimize terminal locations and capacities [7]. Arnold et al. [8] evaluated a different methodology using a linear 0–1 approach. However, since these methods assume a final distribution of containers by truck, neither model fully addresses the optimization of rail-rail terminals since the network and cost structure of rail distribution is very different from the one of road distribution.

There is no explicit mentioning of a transport chain vertical integration of the distribution of maritime containers by rail, but there are several papers on the vertical integration and collaboration within the overall supply chain (e.g., [9, 10]). These papers find that integrating the entire transport chain leads to benefits. Bock [11] estimates the benefits of a real-time control of forwarder transportation networks as they are planned for New Swiss Split.

Some papers (e.g., [12, 13]) address optimisations due to a collaboration of competing freight forwarders. These approaches are not applicable to Swiss Split since there are no competitors for the SWL service in Switzerland to cooperate with. Therefore, for Swiss Split, the vertical integration of several actors in the transport chain appears more promising than a horizontal integration. Furthermore, Moll [14] has already addressed an optimisation by an integrated planning of freight transports including a collaboration of shippers and railway freight operators He stated that collaboration generates a large potential to increase the efficieny of rail transport. But nowadays due to a lack of communication and missing information this potential cannot be leveraged. Thus, an integrated approach as planned in New Swiss Split is a feasible approach to improve the competitiveness of rail transport.

Wittenbrink et al. [15] suggested a vertical disintegration of SWL to improve the competition in the market. This approach is unlikely to improve the container distribution for Swiss Split because there is insufficient demand to operate a second similar distribution network.

The quality of rail transport is significantly improved when the product design considers the requirements of the entire door to door service [16]. This approach generally leads to the development of multimodal transport chains and a final distribution by truck. However, the single wagonload rail service is a form of door-to-door transport, too. General approaches towards an optimisation of SWL production schemes are mentioned by Marin and Salmeron [17, 18]. Following these publications several authors have described SWL optimization approaches using operations research methods. For example, Ceselli et al. [19] optimized the Cargo Express Service as a part of the Swiss SWL network. Bruckmann [20] evaluated the containerization of the conventional SWL and the replacement of conventional shunting yards by container terminals.

The weakness of all existing optimization algorithms is that they do not take railway network capacity restrictions into account. This is especially problematic in densely used rail networks where limited train-paths are available [21]. Therefore, infrastructure capacity restrictions must be considered in the development of an optimized SWL production scheme.

Today two general types of rolling stock are used for Swiss Split: standard flat wagons with wooden floors and conventional container wagons. Both types include two and four axle versions. The big difference between these vehicle types is that container wagons have no floor. This means loading and unloading equipment (e.g., forklifts) is unable to operate on these container wagons. Thus, additional equipment such as moveable ramps is required to load/unload the containers. Therefore a moveable ramp replaces the missing floor of the container wagons.

More specifically, the following types of wagons are currently being used for Swiss Split:

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of wagon types at Swiss Split for the year 2013. As shown, approximately 59 % of the Swiss Split wagons are standard container ones, but about 41 % are still old wooden floor flat wagons.

The type of wagon which is used depends on the technical equipment that is available for the unloading of containers at the destination sidings. Larger sidings are generally equipped with specific loading equipment to load and unload the containers. These sidings can be served with container wagons. On the other hand, smaller sidings often only have forklifts or industrial trucks available to unload containers. These vehicles need a continuous floor to operate on the wagon. Therefore, these sidings can only be served by conventional flat wagons.

Today, the flat wagons with wooden floors have become uneconomical and this is why SBB Cargo would like to develop more efficient wagons for Swiss Split. Since containers are fixed by nailed wooden blocks, it is complicated to secure them. So the main idea was to replace the flat wagons by modified container wagons. The next section describes the development of these new wagons.

As part of the ViWaS project, new wagon designs were developed for Swiss Split. The new wagons were designed to improve both the loading/unloading process on sidings and the transhipment process in terminals. The goal was to improve the service without increasing wagon-costs.

The new wagons had to be able to meet all customers’ needs when serving a siding with a container. The main requirements for the new wagons were:

The main concept was to modify standard container wagons for a new use in the Swiss Split service. Therefore the authors developed specifications for two prototype wagons:

One of the main problems when replacing conventional flat wagons with standard container wagons is that container wagons (width: 2438 mm; height: 1155 mm) are narrower and lower than flat wagons (width: 2650 mm; height: 1230 to 1260 mm). Since the new wagons had to be designed to meet customers’ needs, the authors visited 18 Swiss Split customer sidings in Switzerland to measure the ramp height and vertical distance on site. They also studied operations and discussed the wagon requirements with company logistic managers.

The standards for the design of transhipment facilities recommend a ramp height of 1200 mm over track and a vertical distance between the track axis and the ramp edge of 1700 mm [22]. As shown in Fig. 9, most ramps in Switzerland have a height of approximately 1200 mm. Only very few ramps in Switzerland are slightly lower or higher.

As shown in Fig. 10, the vertical distances between track axes and ramps are between 1500 and 1950 mm.

Thus, the platform alternative could generally be used in all sidings similar to conventional flat wagons. However, the inlay alternative, since it is narrower and lower in height than the existing flat wagons, would require additional equipment (e.g., bridging plates) on the sidings to cover the distance between wagon and ram. So there is either the opportunity of choosing the lightweight inlay alternative which requires additional equipment at the siding or the platform alternative with higher tare.

Once the specifications had been checked with regards to the dimensions of different customer sidings, they were used by SBB Cargo and Wascosa (a rail transport operator) to develop two different prototype wagons. These prototypes are now being tested in real Swiss Split transport operations and the results will be used to further improve the wagon design. The first results have shown already that both solutions are generally suitable to replace the existing flat wagons.

The on-board intelligence of the wagons will include a GPS location module and a data logger, so that the wagons can be located easily. Due to the exact information about the position of the wagons, they can be dispatched more easily. Thus, together with the new integrated business model, the round trip times of the wagons from nowadays approximately 3 days shall be reduced to 2 days. Furthermore the mileage counting will facilitate a mileage-based maintenance of the wagons.

In the next steps additional modules like a surveillance of the load status of the wagon, sensors to detect condition of the payload, weight sensors to measure the axle loads or equipment for automatic brake tests will be integrated. This will support the goal to reduce the staff required at sidings and regional stations. The loading platform will be equipped with a GPS module, too. Thus, the risk of a loss or theft of the platforms is reduced by far.

The overall feasibility of the improved Swiss Split service was tested using a cost model. The authors developed railway production data to model the proposed improvements in rolling stock, terminal structure, the Swiss Split business model and SWL production improvements. For example they developed a modal-split model for the container distribution in Switzerland and assigned container flows to specific terminals. The resulting container flows were integrated into the cost model by changing the transport distances between terminals and shunting yards and by revising the average train length to account for the improved bundling of container flows. The effects of the business model improvements proposed by SBB Cargo were integrated directly into the model (improved efficiency of the wagon usage by shorter round-trip times, decreasing transhipment costs in hinterland terminals). The improvements from rolling stock, production schemes were integrated by changing the input data for the railway production processes (e.g., number of wagons per train, transport distances, shunting times etc.). The model used a three step approach to estimate the costs for the transport of one container on its entire trip.

In step 1, the total costs for a single transport segment (per train / per barge / per truck) were calculated. Then the segment costs for a single container were worked out by dividing the total segment cost by the number of containers. In the final step, the total trip costs for a single container were calculated by adding the costs for all transport segments. In rail transport, each shunting process was considered as a new transport segment (the shunting segments consisted of: collection: siding -> shunting yard; mainline operation: shunting yard -> shunting yard; distribution: shunting yard -> siding).

Table 1 presents the elements of the transport chan influenced by the specific improvements and Table 2 presents the components of the transport cost model used in this research.

The authors defined the basic input data including production schemes, train formation, the time needed for shunting etc. The cost rates and calculations were made by hwh Consulting using their transport cost model [27, 28]. The authors then used the cost model results to evaluate the cost reductions for New Swiss Split compared to today’s Swiss Split. As a part of this evaluation, the effects of these improvements on the break even distance between truck-distribution and rail-distribution were also estimated.

The cost model was used to analyse the total costs for the transport of a single container from the port of Rotterdam to Switzerland. The transport costs for the shuttle train from Rotterdam to the Swiss hinterland terminal remained unaffected as Swiss Split does not cover or influence this part of the transport chain. Thus five alternatives for a container distribution to Switzerland remain.

Four of them include a shuttle-train transport to Basel:

One of them does not include a Shuttle train:

The round trip transport costs of an average maritime container (1.5 TEU, 16 t) from Rotterdam to two example destinations: Lausen (approximately 30 km from Basel) and Orbe (approximately 200 km from Basel) were considered. The analysis was completed using a transport cost model developed by hwh Consulting. Figures 16 and 17 present the results of the cost analysis.

The costs for the container distribution within the Swiss SWL network are quite high compared to the shuttle train transports from Rotterdam to Basel. Two main reasons for the differences in cost could be identified:

The authors also calculated the break even distance between Swiss Split and truck distribution by interpolating the results for the Lausen and Orbe case studies. The break even distance was found to decrease from 140 to 70 km (Fig. 18). As shown in Fig. 18, even for quite short distances like Lausen (30 km), the improved Swiss Split becomes quite competitive to truck distribution.