Educación Secundaria Obligatoria

Continued development of intermodal transport between the UK and Continental Europe is, of course, dependent upon a growing freight transport market throughout the EU, the rest of Western Europe, and the former Eastern Bloc countries – now, largely, part of the EU. The EU expanded from its former 15 Member States in May 2004 with the admission of the 10 so-called ‘accession’ states; namely, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, and Slovakia – increasing the potential market to some 480 million people – and is due to expand again in 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania expect to be admitted, with Turkey following at some point in the future. There is no doubt that 4 What is intermodal freight transport?

with all these new Member States, the expanded EU will provide colossal opportunities for the develop-ment of intermodal freight transport – in October 2003, European Commissioner in charge of transport, Sna Loyola de Palacio, said that goods transport would increase by 36–40 per cent in the next decade and that besides the new infrastructures needed, alternative modes of transport would also have to be developed. Certainly, if she is right, which undoubtedly she is, it would be a frightening prospect if the resultant increase in intra-European trade and consequently its transportation needs were to be funnelled onto the EU’s existing heavily congested road network.

We have, of course, already seen significant transport growth within the EU over past years, but it has not been shared equally between modes. While road transport has grown to account for roughly 75 per cent of all intra-Community goods transport activity, in the same period (i.e. 1970–2000) rail transport decreased in relative terms from 30.2 to 13.8 per cent. The inland waterways of Europe, as Figure 1.1 shows, also declined from carryings of 10.9 per cent of traffic to just 6.9 per cent, albeit since 2000 we have begun to see a reversing trend in the fortunes of this mode, while SSS now carries some 40 per cent of all trade within the EU.

The trend towards the growth of road freighting in favour of other modes as shown in the table above continues. In its 2001 White Paper, European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, the EC pre-dicted that by 2010 heavy goods vehicle traffic will have increased by nearly 50 per cent over its 1998 level. And with the strong economic growth expected in the acceding countries (i.e. the 10 countries which joined in May 2004) and better links with outlying countries it suggests that there will be further increases in traffic flows, and in particular road haulage traffic. This inexorable level of road-traffic growth is unsustainable, and everybody knows that. The EC for its part is of the opinion that road trans-port alone will not cope with the projected expansion in traffic; it suggests that it will need the combined strengths of both road and rail services to meet the challenge. In fact, the EC’s White Paper proposed some 60 specific measures to improve transport across the Community, including an action programme extending until 2010. In the context of intermodalism, the most interesting proposals are three-fold:

● revitalizing the railways;

● improving quality in the road transport sector;

● promoting transport by inland waterway (generally referred to in Europe as inland navigation) and by sea.

To relieve congestion on Europe’s roads and to protect the environment, the Commission is desperately striving to direct pressure towards a switch of more freight from road to rail and to inland waterway – it talks of achieving ‘modal shift’. Thus, through both government direction and commercial pressure, we shall see this developing trend towards intermodal transport continuing. And it has to be in everyone’s inter-est for this to happen. Undoubtedly, the continuing development of combined road–rail transport, associat-ing the economic and environmental advantages of rail and inland waterway freightassociat-ing for long-distance inter-city or international trunk hauls with the practical advantages of road haulage for local collection and delivery is a strategy which holds much promise for the future.

Year 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000

Pipeline 6.8 7.1 5.0 5.3 4.7

Inland water 10.9 8.9 7.6 7.4 6.9

Rail 30.2 24.2 18.2 14.2 13.8

Road 52.0 59.9 69.2 73.2 74.6

Fig. 1.1 EU Freight transport by mode statistics 1970–2000 (in tonne-kilometres %).

(Source: EU Energy and Transport in Figure 2003, via Internet.)

However, to be a competitive alternative to direct ‘door-to-door’ lorry transport over long distances, intermodal transport must offer frequent schedules, fast transit times, a high degree of reliability, and all at a cost that fully meets the expectations of markets with the keenest service requirements. In practice, its development is most likely to take place mainly between large industrial conurbations where the problems of road infrastructure congestion are currently most acute and operating costs are thus higher, and where air pollution from road vehicles is at its worst, as in the UK and the Northern European industrial triangle.

Before venturing further into this exploration of what intermodal freight transport is about, it is useful in this opening chapter to consider a few definitions for the variety of terms used in connection with road–rail transport, and in intermodal transport in general, and the equipment needed for its operation.

Often these terms are used quite indiscriminately, resulting in people saying one thing, but yet really meaning something quite different. For example, not all containers are built to the international (ISO) standards, or are of the type with which we are principally concerned in the context of this book, and demountable bodies used in domestic transport operations are not to be confused with ISO standard intermodal swap bodies, which often they are. To fully set the scene, we should also examine in this chapter the pressures that have brought about renewed interest in intermodal freight transport, and finally, in summary, what the future holds.

1.4 Definitions

Although this book contains a glossary of terms some of the key components and systems that are encountered in intermodal operations are described here.

1.4.1 Unit loads and loading units

A unit load is a consignment of freight – invariably, but not always, comprising a combination of small consignments, as in a groupage load, which is unitized to save trans-shipment and repacking time and cost at each individual stage of the journey, and also for ease of handling. Such loads are usually consoli-dated into an ISO container or a swap body built to internationally recognized and accepted standards or into an articulated lorry semi-trailer. Unitization of freight into standard loading units in this manner is a vital element of the intermodal transport concept providing speed and efficiency in handling, security for the load in transit and reduced risk of damage.

1.4.2 Intermodal transport

The term ‘intermodal’ and the practice of ‘intermodalism’ are relatively new, being absent, for example, from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary of 1980, although, as we have already seen, intermodalism was far from a new concept even at that time. However, by 1993 the terminology was included, being defined as:

a vehicle/container system, etc. employing, suitable for, or able to adapt or be conveyed by two or more modes of transport.

By the 10th (1999) edition of the same Dictionary it was obviously felt unnecessary to credit the word

‘intermodal’ with a more detailed definition than:

involving two or more different modes of transport.

The term ‘intermodalism’ may thus be taken to mean the practice or activity of conveying freight in unit loads by two or more transport modes such as, for example, by road and rail, by road and inland waterway, or by road and air. Invariably a road element is necessary to make the initial collection of the goods from the consignor’s premises and to make final delivery to the consignee since in the majority of 6 What is intermodal freight transport?

cases, there is no direct connection or access between the loading/unloading point and the rail, inland waterway, sea, or air transport system.

1.4.3 Multimodal transport

This term means much the same as intermodal transport, namely the use of a variety of different trans-port modes for the movement of unitized freight from its place of origin to the final destination. Its more specific use, however, should be confined solely to the situations where more than just two transport modes are employed to complete a freight journey.

1.4.4 Bimodal transport

Bi, meaning two, when used with the term ‘modal’, correctly implies the employment of just two modes of transport to complete a freight movement, for example the use of road and rail, or road and inland waterway. However, there is an increasingly individualized use of this term to refer specifically to an established system whereby specially strengthened road-going articulated semi-trailers are converted, by being directly attached to rail bogies at the terminal, to run directly on rail either in conjunction with other forms of intermodal rail freight traffic or in combination to form complete bimodal trains.

‘RoadRailer’ is a brand name for an interchangeable, bimodal road–rail trailer system of this type con-ceived in the USA by Wabash National Inc. of Indiana. It is based on the use of a road-going semi-trailer with a six-wheel undercarriage that is pneumatically raised allowing the front and rear ends of the trailer to be mounted on rail bogies and formed into a train for rail transit. Road-trailer manufacturer, Fruehauf, and rail-wagon builder, Talbot of Germany, jointly pioneered a similar concept, known as ‘Kombirail’.

Yet another system similar in concept is in use by Canadian National Railways.

1.4.5 Combined transport

The term combined transport, as with bimodal transport described above, invariably means the use of just two transport modes in combination, such as road and rail or road and inland waterway. Referring to inter-modal transport generally as combined transport is not incorrect, although obviously not so precise in cir-cumstances where more than two modes are involved in a multimodal operation and tradition that the term

‘combined’ transport means just road–rail transport rather than any two other modes in combination.

1.4.6 Rolling motorway systems

A rolling motorway system is one where complete road vehicles are driven onto specially built rail wagons for the rail transit. The system gets its name because, in effect, vehicles are driven straight off the motorway onto the rail wagon at one end of the journey, then off again and onto the motorway at the other end of the trunk leg, the driver travelling on the train accompanying his vehicle. Hence the rail link is seen as a continuation of the motorway journey. Eurotunnel’s freight shuttle service through the Channel Tunnel between the UK and France is a rolling motorway system, having special transfer wagons enabling vehicles to be driven onto the train from the platform, and off again at the other end of the through-Tunnel journey. By this means loading and unloading are both easily and rapidly accomplished reducing journey delays to an absolute minimum; one of its main advantages over RO-RO ferry-ship operation where there are often delays in loading and unloading.

1.4.7 Piggyback transport

Unaccompanied articulated semi-trailers are carried on certain UK and European rail services by a method known as ‘piggyback’ transport. The semi-trailers are either lifted onto special low-height rail

wagons by container crane or by straddle carriers fitted with grapple arms which locate into strengthened pockets in the trailer under frame or are shunted, by a terminal tractor, onto special rail wagons with a swivelling, tilting, load-bed, which rotates and lowers to form a ramp. Neither the tractive unit nor the driver travels on the train, the unaccompanied semi-trailer being picked up from a rail terminal at the other end of the journey by another tractive unit and driver for final delivery to its destination.

Piggyback was at one time seen in many circles to be one of the most promising methods of switch-ing long-haul freight from road to rail, and a number of major studies have been carried out in connec-tion with its potential development. For example, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) issued a report in 1992 on improvements in so-called piggyback links across Europe, while in the UK a consortium of consultants and operators, among others, studied and for a while vigorously pro-moted this particular concept of road–rail transport (as discussed further in Chapter 3). However, for its development to progress in the UK, substantial and very costly infrastructure works are needed to increase the rail loading gauge to provide both top corner and platform clearance for the passage of nor-mal height semi-trailers and 9-foot 6-inch-high ISO containers.

Two new developments gaining currency in 2003 that could have led to further development of the piggyback concept were first, the Modalohr system (described later in the book, but currently still in its experimental stages), and second, the ‘Trailers on Trains’ study project undertaken jointly by the Dutch Rail Users Platform, the Netherlands Ministry of Transport and the Port of Rotterdam authority. The pur-pose of this latter study being to find a suitable solution to overcome the traffic congestion and environ-mental problems caused by some 2.2 million unaccompanied semi-trailers passing through Rotterdam annually (700 000 of them incidentally being en-route to and from the UK) of which, at present, only some 2000 are carried on trains. It is interesting to note, in this connection, that the study initially iden-tified some 80 different techniques that have so far been developed to put trailers on trains.

Overall, however, it has to be said that current (2004) thinking is veering away from further develop-ment of the piggyback concept on the basis that it is just not economical to keep lifting and carrying wheeled units when shipping containers and swap bodies can do the same job just as effectively. And it is not just the weight of the wheels that is the problem, heavy though they are; it is the case that piggy-back-type semi-trailers need to be purpose-built with strengthened under frames and lifting pockets.

1.4.8 Articulated vehicles

For readers unfamiliar with the technicalities of road vehicles, an articulated vehicle is one comprising a towing vehicle, correctly called the tractive unit, but often referred to as the cab or towing unit or incor-rectly as the tractor unit, and a load-carrying trailer, the semi-trailer. They are hitched together with the front end of the semi-trailer superimposed on the rear of the tractive unit (transferring at least 20 per cent of the weight of the load carried by the semi-trailer onto the drawing vehicle, to meet legal require-ments), being attached by means of a kingpin on the semi-trailer engaging in a ‘fifth-wheel’ turntable on the tractive unit. When detached from the tractive unit a semi-trailer is supported on forward-mounted landing legs (or landing gear) that are raised or folded away for travel.

Articulated semi-trailers used in intermodal transport have two (tandem) or three (tri-) axles depend-ing on legal gross weight requirements and tractive unit/semi-trailer axle configuration choices (e.g.

2 axles
3 axles or 3 axles
2 axles) – mainly determined by weight distribution and traction require-ments. A minimum of five axles is needed for 38 tonne and six axles (i.e. 3
3 configurations) for 44-tonne operation in the UK. Most semi-trailers are built to the current maximum permitted overall length of 13.6 metres (to operate within the European 16.5 metres maximum overall length limit for complete articulated vehicles). They are usually fitted with either general-purpose platform bodies or, if used exclusively in container transport, they have skeletal frames (which offer reduced tare weight and increased payload), and are equipped with twist-lock attachments designed for securing standard length 8 What is intermodal freight transport?

containers and swap bodies. Normally such vehicles carry one 40- or 45-foot or two 20-foot ISO con-tainers, or a single, standard, 13.6-metre-long swap body.

1.4.9 Lorry and trailer (Drawbar) combinations

These vehicles comprise a combination of a conventional freight-carrying rigid vehicle towing a separate load-carrying trailer, known as a ‘road train’ in European terminology. The combination may also have a four-, five-, or six-axle configuration (i.e. 2
2, 2
3 or 3
3), again depending on weight requirements.

In the case of the trailer axles, one axle at the front is steerable, and a single- or double-axle (tandem) bogie is fitted at the rear so that when separated from the towing vehicle the trailer stands alone on its wheels rather than being supported at the front by landing legs as with an articulated semi-trailer. An alternative design has two or three closely spaced (non-steerable) axles located centrally along the length of the trailer.

A conventional articulated semi-trailer, as described above, may be converted into a ‘composite’

trailer suitable for towing by a rigid goods vehicle by the use of what is known as a ‘towing dolly’. This is a single independent vehicle axle surmounted by a fifth-wheel turntable, which connects into the cou-pling of the semi-trailer and supports the semi-trailer.

Drawbar combinations, as these vehicles are commonly called in the UK, when used in international oper-ations are invariably designed to carry either a standard 20-foot ISO container or a standard, 7.15- or 7.45-metre swap body on the drawing vehicle and another on the trailer. This is accomplished within the current legal maximum overall length of 18.75 metres, which allows a total available load space between the draw-ing vehicle and the trailer of 15.65 metres. Vehicle bodywork is, similarly to articulated vehicles, either a conventional platform or a skeletal frame equipped with twist locks for securing containers or swap bodies.

1.4.10 Rail freight

In the context of this book, rail freight relies on the use of a variety of intermodal wagons specifically designed to carry ISO containers, standard swap bodies, or whole vehicle combinations (e.g. piggyback-style). The former are usually skeletal-framed flat wagons, often built to provide a low-loading height to accommodate 9-foot 6-inch-tall ISO containers and are fitted with twist locks at 20- and 40-foot centres.

Vehicular traffic (i.e. semi-trailers and whole vehicle combinations) is carried on special pocket wagons or on spine wagons which provide safe and secure accommodation for vehicles in transit, their road wheels sitting low on the wagon to provide adequate overhead clearance for bridges and tunnels (known as ‘load-ing-gauge’ clearance). Depending on the system being used, the vehicles are either lifted on and off the rail wagon or are driven on/off via special loading ramps built into the wagon (e.g. as with the Modalohr system described in Chapter 12). The Channel Tunnel freight shuttle also uses a direct drive-on system.

1.4.11 Inland waterways

Intermodal freight traffic on the inland waterways is carried on barges equipped to accommodate either complete road vehicles, but more usually ISO containers stacked both in the cargo hold and on deck.

Rarely are such vessels seen on UK inland waterways, but they are a common sight on European rivers, such as the Rhine, the Elbe, and the Danube which, along with other inland navigations, carry a great

Rarely are such vessels seen on UK inland waterways, but they are a common sight on European rivers, such as the Rhine, the Elbe, and the Danube which, along with other inland navigations, carry a great