development of small-scale intermodal freight transportation in a ...

Doctoral thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Report 34
DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE
INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION
IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT
by
Johan Woxenius
Submitted to the
School of Technology Management and Economics,
Chalmers University of Technology,
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Transportation and Logistics
Chalmers University of Technology
S-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Göteborg 1998

Report 34
DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE INTERMODAL FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT
© Johan Woxenius
ISBN: 91-7197-630-2
ISSN: 0283-3611
ISSN: 0346-718X
Published by:
Department of Transportation and Logistics
Chalmers University of Technology
S-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Bibliotekets Reproservice CTHB, Göteborg 1998

DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE INTERMODAL
FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT
Johan WOXENIUS
Department of Transportation and Logistics
Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden.
ABSTRACT
An intermodal freight transportation system is characterised by the subsequent use of different
transportation modes for moving goods stowed into unit loads from the consignor to
the consignee. Typically, it involves a wide variety of activities, actors and resources,
which implies a certain degree of technological as well as organisational complexity. Other
distinctive features are dependency on surrounding systems and a general lack of formal
systems management as well as of objectives shared among all actors.
This dissertation focuses the need for a renewal of the European intermodal transportation
system that has not yet been able to fulfil the high expectations from society. Most of the
commercial problems are directly or indirectly related to the complexity of the system and
the scale in which the services are produced in. The solution foreseen and advocated in this
dissertation is to divide the operations between the layers direct shuttle trains, corridor
trains and locally adapted small-scale network modules, of which the latter layer is especially
treated. Special attention is paid to the issue of connecting the layers as well as the
different network modules.
An outspoken systems approach is applied and a framework model is chiselled out from
theories on general systems, transportation systems as well as on intermodal transportation
systems. The object of study is successively narrowed, focusing technical matters and
small-scale operations on lower system levels.
The complexity and lack of systems management implies that implementing new technical
resources involves distinctive barriers that are described and classified. Approaches for reducing
the effects of barriers include to conform to standards, to create closed systems and
to implement new resources gradually.
Another issue addressed is the suitability of transshipment technologies for different network
operation principles and national preconditions. Small-scale transshipment technologies
– all of which are described in a detached appendix – are evaluated against an outlined
list of requirements. The argumentation is finally applied to the intermodal freight system
that received the highest score in the evaluation – Swedish State Railways’ Light-combi
project.
Key words: Barrier, Combined Transport, Conceptual Modelling, Gateway Terminal, Intermodal
Freight Transportation, Technology Implementation, Transport Chain, Transport Network, Transportation
system, Transshipment Technology.
i

”Like all young men I set out to be a genius,
but mercifully laughter intervened”
Lawrence Durrell, Clea, 1960
i

DISSERTATION
This dissertation – Development of Small-scale Intermodal Freight Transportation in a
Systems Context – is based upon the integrated text presented in this binding (referred to as
this dissertation) with its detached appendix 1 named Intermodal Transshipment Technologies
– An Overview (referred to as the detached appendix) and the licentiate thesis named
Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial System (referred to as the licentiate
thesis). The doctoral work also includes a number of own reports and articles listed in
the reference list. The three reports and the articles are available in separate bindings from
the Department of Transportation and Logistics 2 at Chalmers University of Technology
1 The detached appendix of descriptions of a large number of intermodal transshipment technologies, which
are roughly the same as those presented in chapter 4 of the report: WOXENIUS, J. (1998) Inventory of Transshipment
Technologies in Intermodal Transport, Study for the International Road Transport Union (IRU), Geneva.
Hence, also that report can serve the purpose of being a technical reference to this dissertation.
2 Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Göteborg,
Sweden. Tel: +46-31-772 1324, Fax: +46-31-772 1337, E-mail: transport@mot.chalmers.se.
i

PREFACE
This dissertation should be read together with its detached appendix called Intermodal
Transshipment Technologies – An Overview and preferably also with the licentiate thesis
called Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial System, both available in
separate bindings from the Department of Transportation and Logistics. Numerous references
to the reports and to other own articles make it possible for the interested reader to
deepen the understanding of the research field, yet avoiding a “brick-sized” report.
The reports are written for readers experienced in the transportation field meaning that
terms and technical matters are not explained on the “beginner’s level”. The reader that
finds himself unfamiliar with terms and abbreviations in the text is recommended to first
consult the terminology and abbreviation sections and then the reference list for basic reading.
Literature advice for certain subjects is given in footnotes throughout the report.
A fellow researcher in the field is for obvious reasons recommended to read the three reports
following the references while a researcher interested purely in the academic implications
could limit the reading to the text in this binding. I sincerely hope that my work can
contribute also to the intermodal world outside the universities. Readers representing the
industrial or political sphere might, however, find the first three or four chapters boring and
can consult the Contents section for interesting topics. A reader experienced in the intermodal
transport field that wants an overview or facts about new technologies is recommended
to start with the detached appendix and then read the two analyses in chapter 7.
Finally, it should be stated that this is obviously not an engineering effort intended to solve
all problems perceived by intermodal operators. It is, however, my hope that the produced
knowledge can trigger some good ideas on how the intermodal transportation system can be
changed in order to challenge all-road transportation better in the future.
Göteborg, April 1998
Johan Woxenius
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are a lot of people that have helped me to finish my PhD studies with a dissertation
rather than with a desertion. First, I am grateful to Swedish State Railways for generously
funding my research project. Contributions from the Curt NICOLIN CN70-foundation and
the International Road Transport Union (IRU) also made the writing process easier for
which I am truly grateful.
Moreover, I want to express my deepest thanks to professor Lars SJÖSTEDT who has
acted as head supervisor for my research. The supervision and all the late night discussions
on the subject of this dissertation as well as on other subjects have been very fruitful to me,
primarily as a researcher but also as a human being. I am also grateful to professor Dag
BJÖRNLAND and Dr. Anna DUBOIS for giving kind remarks and suggestions for improvement.
Dag and Lars are also the originators of the research project as such.
I am also sincerely grateful to lecturing professor Kenth LUMSDEN for making the practical
matters easier during my time as doctoral student, but also for inspiration and for being
a friend and fellow traveller. Kenth’s thinking on barriers (or thresholds as he wants to call
them) is the seed to chapter 5 that is worked up from articles written together with Kenth.
Also the analysis of requirements for new intermodal technologies in section 7.1 was originally
developed together with Kenth. Co-authors of other material used in the dissertation
are acknowledged throughout the report.
A special “thank you” goes to Dr. Stefan SJÖGREN at School of Economics and Commercial
Law at the University of Göteborg for enjoyable co-operation and for informal lessons
on how to pick up women. My gratitude also extends to the industry officials that have endured
my questions and also supplied intelligent answers and material for the study. I am
especially greatful to Jan-Ola WEDE at Swedish State Railways who let me study “his”
Light-combi project from the inside.
I would also like to thank Per Olof ARNÄS for scanning and editing the numerous pictures
in the detached appendix, and for helping me out when the mysteries of the computer world
became too frustrating. I am also grateful to his mother Lille-Mor who indefatigably has
corrected the language despite the tight schedule. All linguistic errors remaining are caused
by late changes from my keyboard.
A university department is dynamic place of work. Doctoral candidates come and go. Now
it’s my turn to choose whether to stay or to try my fortune outside the walls of the university.
If I choose to stay it is thanks to all the kind colleagues and the nice atmosphere at
work. Thanks for these years and let’s add some more!
iii

Traditionally, and pathetically, I finally like to thank my beloved wife Anna and our fat cat
Elsa for being such a support during my agony of finishing the dissertation.
Johan
iv

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................... I
DISSERTATION................................................................................................................................. III
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................. III
CONTENTS.............................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
TABLE OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................XV
TABLE OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................XVII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................VIX
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 What is intermodal freight transport? ........................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Why studying intermodal transport? ............................................................................ 6
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS .............................................................................................................. 8
1.2.1 The cradle of intermodal transport ............................................................................... 8
1.2.2 Current operational principles.................................................................................... 13
1.2.3 The changing environment ........................................................................................ 16
1.2.4 Small is beautiful? ..................................................................................................... 18
1.2.5 The main research theme.......................................................................................... 20
1.3 RESEARCH PROCESS AND PURPOSES ...................................................................................... 21
1.4 METHOD................................................................................................................................. 23
1.4.1 General research approach ....................................................................................... 23
1.4.2 Data and information gathering.................................................................................. 27
1.5 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................. 29
1.6 READER’S GUIDE .................................................................................................................... 34
1.6.1 Dissertation outline.................................................................................................... 34
1.6.2 A hierarchical system model showing the outline....................................................... 35
1.6.3 Writing style............................................................................................................... 37
1.6.4 Cross-references ....................................................................................................... 37
1.6.5 Reading suggestions ................................................................................................. 39
1.6.6 The reference and note system ................................................................................. 39
v

2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 41
2.1 GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY.................................................................................................... 42
2.2 THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 44
2.2.1 Tools for systems design........................................................................................... 45
2.2.2 Descriptive and analytical tools ................................................................................. 47
2.3 THE NETWORK CHARACTER OF SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 50
2.3.1 Large technical systems – LTS.................................................................................. 51
2.3.2 The Network Approach according to the Uppsala school of thought.......................... 53
2.4 CHANNELS AND CHAINS IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT ....................................................................... 56
2.4.1 Marketing and distribution channels .......................................................................... 57
2.4.2 Supply chain management ........................................................................................ 58
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 60
3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 63
3.1 THE SCIENTIFIC FIELD OF TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................. 63
3.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE.................................................. 65
3.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A NETWORK PERSPECTIVE ................................................... 67
3.3.1 Networks of links and nodes...................................................................................... 67
3.3.2 Transportation systems as actor networks ................................................................ 70
3.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A CHANNEL OR CHAIN PERSPECTIVE ..................................... 72
3.4.1 Flows of goods, system resources, information and capital...................................... 73
3.4.2 The pipeline concept ................................................................................................. 74
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 76
4 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 78
4.1 THE TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................. 79
4.1.1 Dividing between administrative and physical system ............................................... 79
4.1.2 CHURCHMAN’s systems approach applied to intermodal transport.......................... 81
4.1.3 Functions in the production system ........................................................................... 85
4.2 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT NETWORKS ...................................................................................... 86
4.2.1 A model of network operation principles .................................................................... 87
4.2.2 The model of elements, processes and actors applied to intermodal transport.......... 90
4.2.3 The network approach applied to intermodal transport .............................................. 91
4.3 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT CHAINS ............................................................................................ 93
4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 95
vi

5 RESOURCES IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS............................................ 97
5.1 BARRIERS FOR IMPLEMENTING NEW RESOURCES ...................................................................... 97
5.1.1 Regulative barriers .................................................................................................. 100
5.1.2 Technological barriers ............................................................................................. 104
5.1.3 System oriented barriers.......................................................................................... 107
5.1.4 Commercial barriers ................................................................................................ 112
5.2 APPROACHES FOR OVERCOMING THE EFFECTS OF BARRIERS .................................................. 113
5.2.1 To conform firmly to regulations, standards and prevailing technologies ................ 113
5.2.2 To change the barriers or to obtain exemptions....................................................... 114
5.2.3 To create closed systems........................................................................................ 115
5.2.4 To control the transport chain under one management............................................ 116
5.2.5 To change technology in course of time during the system’s investment cycle....... 116
5.2.6 To optimise sets of resources together.................................................................... 117
5.2.7 To design one resource to make another superfluous ............................................. 118
5.2.8 To implement an interface between system resources ............................................ 118
5.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 120
6 TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGY IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS....... 123
6.1 THERE ARE TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALTERNATIVE NETWORK DESIGNS! ............... 124
6.1.1 Terminals for direct connections.............................................................................. 125
6.1.2 Terminals for corridors............................................................................................. 127
6.1.3 Terminals for hub-and-spoke designs...................................................................... 127
6.1.4 Terminals for fixed routes ........................................................................................ 128
6.1.5 Terminals for flexible routes..................................................................................... 129
6.2 THERE ARE TECHNOLOGIES CONFORMING TO NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS!................................. 129
6.2.1 The analysis reference model.................................................................................. 130
6.2.2 Norway .................................................................................................................... 131
6.2.3 Finland..................................................................................................................... 132
6.2.4 Sweden ................................................................................................................... 133
6.2.5 Denmark.................................................................................................................. 135
6.2.6 Germany.................................................................................................................. 136
6.2.7 Benelux ................................................................................................................... 138
6.2.8 The UK .................................................................................................................... 139
6.2.9 France ..................................................................................................................... 141
6.2.10 Switzerland and Austria........................................................................................... 142
6.2.11 Italy.......................................................................................................................... 143
6.2.12 The European level ................................................................................................. 144
6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 148
vii

7 SMALL-SCALE TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGY IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................... 150
7.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL-SCALE TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES....................................... 151
7.1.1 System requirements............................................................................................... 152
7.1.2 Functional requirements .......................................................................................... 153
7.2 WHICH NEW TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES ARE SUITABLE FOR SMALL-SCALE OPERATIONS? . 155
7.2.1 Define the conditions of the evaluation situation...................................................... 156
7.2.2 Make lists of demands and criteria .......................................................................... 157
7.2.3 List the alternative solutions .................................................................................... 158
7.2.4 Weight the criteria against each other ..................................................................... 161
7.2.5 Evaluate the alternatives according to the defined criteria....................................... 161
7.2.6 Final evaluation and decision .................................................................................. 163
7.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 163
8 A PARTICULAR SMALL-SCALE CONCEPT........................................................................... 167
8.1 THE LIGHT-COMBI CONCEPT .................................................................................................. 167
8.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 170
8.3 AN IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO............................................................................................. 172
8.3.1 Customer pilot: “Dalkullan”....................................................................................... 173
8.3.2 Starting with closed loops........................................................................................ 175
8.3.3 Establishing a basic network ................................................................................... 176
8.3.4 Extending the basic network.................................................................................... 178
8.3.5 Connecting Light-combi to conventional intermodal transport.................................. 179
8.3.6 Exporting the concept.............................................................................................. 183
8.4 WHAT TO LEARN FROM THE LIGHT-COMBI PROJECT?............................................................... 184
8.4.1 Light-combi – a technical system, a network or a chain?......................................... 184
8.4.2 How does Light-combi comply with the requirements for small-scale intermodal
transport?............................................................................................................................. 185
8.4.3 How are barrier effects treated? .............................................................................. 186
8.5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 187
9 A CONCLUDING SCENARIO ................................................................................................... 188
9.1 A SCENARIO FOR FUTURE EUROPEAN INTERMODALISM............................................................ 188
9.1.1 Long and heavy direct trains for large flows............................................................. 189
9.1.2 Corridor trains crossing Europe ............................................................................... 190
9.1.3 Regional solutions for the short, small and dispersed flows..................................... 192
9.1.4 Ro-Ro services for overcoming geographical and infrastructural hurdles ............... 194
9.1.5 Summary of the scenario......................................................................................... 195
9.2 ARE THERE PROSPECTS FOR THE SCENARIO?......................................................................... 196
viii

9.2.1 Transport policy and market conditions ................................................................... 197
9.2.2 Who is likely to take the initiative? ........................................................................... 200
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 204
PUBLISHED REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 204
OTHER REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 220
Brochures, newsletters, blue prints, other marketing material and annual reports: ............... 220
World Wide Web sites and CD ROMs: ................................................................................. 220
Interviews and oral presentations:........................................................................................ 221
Letters, faxes, E-mail messages and personal notes: .......................................................... 221
APPENDIX A: ....INTERMODAL TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPED IN EUROPE
APPENDIX B: THE WEIGHT CRITERION METHOD
DEFINE THE CONDITIONS OF THE EVALUATION SITUATION
MAKE LISTS OF DEMANDS AND CRITERIA
LIST THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
WEIGHT THE CRITERIA AGAINST EACH OTHER
EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVES ACCORDING TO THE DEFINED CRITERIA
FINAL EVALUATION AND DECISION
ix

TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 A CONTAINER, A SWAP BODY AND A SEMI-TRAILER.............................................................. 3
FIGURE 1-2 RAILWAY WAGONS FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT.. ............................................................ 3
FIGURE 1-3 LORRIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT............................................................................. 4
FIGURE 1-4 A REACH-STACKER AND A GANTRY CRANE. ........................................................................ 4
FIGURE 1-5 EARLY USE OF A GANTRY CRANE ..................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 1-6 GERMAN PIGGYBACK-TRANSPORT SHORTLY AFTER WORLD WAR II................................... 11
FIGURE 1-7 THE TRANSPORT OF GOODS BY ROAD IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY IN 1986. ................. 19
FIGURE 1-8 THE INFORMATION VALUE CHAIN...................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 1-9 A HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM MODEL GUIDING THE OUTLINE OF THE DISSERTATION.................. 36
FIGURE 2-1 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS PARADIGM. ................................................................. 47
FIGURE 2-2 THE NETWORK MODEL. ................................................................................................... 55
FIGURE 2-3 A MODEL SHOWING THAT SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT COVERS THE FLOW OF GOODS........ 59
FIGURE 3-1 THE TRANSPORT DIAGONAL SEPARATING TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS. ..................... 64
FIGURE 3-2 A FREIGHT VERSION OF SJÖSTEDT’S MODEL................................................................. 66
FIGURE 3-3 A TRANSPORT NETWORK AND A TRANSPORT RELATION..................................................... 68
FIGURE 3-4 A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 3-5 A NETWORK OF FACILITIES.............................................................................................. 69
FIGURE 3-6 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DEFINITIONS ....................................................................... 70
FIGURE 3-7 SJÖSTEDT’S ACTOR NETWORK MODEL.......................................................................... 71
FIGURE 3-8 ILLUSTRATION OF A NET OF TRANSPORT COMPANIES. ....................................................... 72
FIGURE 3-9 FOUR FLOWS RELATED TO A TRANSPORT COMMISSION. .................................................... 74
FIGURE 3-10 PIPELINE SEGMENTS AND MEASURING POINTS.................................................................. 75
FIGURE 3-11 AN EXAMPLE OF A “PIPELINE”. ......................................................................................... 75
FIGURE 3-12 DEFINITIONS OF BUSINESS AND PRODUCTION LINES.......................................................... 76
FIGURE 4-1 JENSEN’S INTERMODAL TRANSPORT MODEL. ................................................................. 81
FIGURE 4-2 A SYSTEMS ANALYSIS USING CHURCHMAN’S SYSTEMS APPROACH. ............................... 85
FIGURE 4-3 A MODEL OF AN INTERMODAL SYSTEM BASED UPON FUNCTIONS. ....................................... 86
FIGURE 4-4 FIVE DIFFERENT TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR TRANSPORT FROM A TO B.................................. 88
FIGURE 4-5 SJÖSTEDT’S ACTOR NETWORK MODEL APPLIED TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORT. ................ 90
FIGURE 4-6 RESULTS OF A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS USING THE NETWORK APPROACH. .......................... 92
FIGURE 4-7 FLOW UNIFICATION......................................................................................................... 93
FIGURE 4-8 A MODEL OF AN INTEGRATED TRANSPORT CHAIN. ............................................................. 94
FIGURE 4-9 INTEGRATION OF ACTIVITIES SEEN WITH A CHAIN AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE ................. 94
FIGURE 4-10 A REFERENCE MODEL SYNTHESISED FROM MODELS TAKING CLASSIC/TECHNICAL,
NETWORK AND CHANNEL/CHAIN PERSPECTIVES............................................................................. 96
FIGURE 5-1 THE RAIL LOADING PROFILES OF SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. ...................................... 101
xi

FIGURE 5-2 THE INTERMDODAL RAILWAY BASKET CAR. ................................................................... 119
FIGURE 6-1 INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN THE FACTORS INFLUENCING TRAFFIC AND TERMINAL DESIGN.. 125
FIGURE 6-2 THE REFERENCE MODEL GUIDING THE ANALYSIS. ........................................................... 131
FIGURE 8-1 AN ARTIST’S IMPRESSION OF A LIGHT-COMBI TERMINAL .................................................. 169
FIGURE 8-2 THE POTENTIAL MARKET OF LIGHT-COMBI...................................................................... 172
FIGURE 8-3 LOADING THE FORKLIFT TRUCK ONTO THE LIGHT-COMBI TRAIN OVER THE RAMP. .............. 174
FIGURE 8-4 THE CUSTOMER PILOT “DALKULLAN”.............................................................................. 175
FIGURE 8-5 AN IMPRESSION OF HOW A CARGOSPRINTER TRAIN IN A LIGHT-COMBI SERVICE. .............. 177
FIGURE 8-6 OPERATIONS OF THE BASIC LIGHT-COMBI NETWORK....................................................... 177
FIGURE 8-7 THREE STEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIGHT-COMBI NETWORK. ............................. 178
FIGURE 8-8 SHORT-COUPLED, LIGHTWEIGHT RAILWAY WAGON.......................................................... 179
FIGURE 8-9 NETWORK MODULES FOR HEAVY-COMBI AND LIGHT-COMBI............................................. 180
FIGURE 8-10 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HEAVY-COMBI, LIGHT-COMBI AND OTHER NETWORK MODULES .. 181
FIGURE 8-11 CONNECTING SCANDINAVIAN AND CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL FLOWS............................. 183
FIGURE 9-1 EXAMPLE OF A CORRIDOR WITH INTERMEDIATE TERMINALS............................................. 191
FIGURE 9-2 EXAMPLES OF GATEWAYS BETWEEN NATIONAL/REGIONAL NETWORK MODULES
IN A FUTURE EUROPEAN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM................................................ 194
xii

TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 4-1 CONCLUSION OF THE APPLICATION OF CHURCHMAN’S SYSTEMS APPROACH .................. 84
TABLE 4-2 EXAMPLES OF THE DIFFERENT TRAFFIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES.............................................. 89
TABLE 5-1 WIDTH, LENGTH AND WEIGHT ALLOWED IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES .................................. 101
TABLE 5-2 HAULIERS AND LORRIES OPERATED FOR HIRE OR REWARD ............................................. 108
TABLE 5-3 NUMBER OF NEWLY REGISTERED SEMI-TRAILER TRACTORS AND ARTICULATED LORRIES ... 111
TABLE 6-1 EU FUNDING OF PROGRAMMES AND THEMES RELATED TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORT. ....... 146
TABLE 7-1 VIOLATION OF DEMANDS THUS EXCLUDING TECHNOLOGIES FROM FURTHER EVALUATION.. 159
TABLE 7-2 WEIGHT CRITERION MATRIX .......................................................................................... 161
TABLE 7-3 GRADING OF FULFILMENT OF CRITERIA. ......................................................................... 162
TABLE 7-4 RESULT OF THE EVALUATION......................................................................................... 164
xiii

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
This list covers the abbreviations used in this document only, another abbreviation list is found in
the attached appendix. Abbreviations used in only one section and for the sake of convenience are
not listed.
ACTS
BR
CNC
DB AG
DSB
ECMT
EFTA
EU
ICF
IRU
ISO
ITU
NS
PACT
RSS
RTD
SJ
SME
SNCF
TENs
TEU
UIC
UIRR
VR
Abroll Container Transport System
British Rail
Compagnie Nouvelle de Cadres – French intermodal operator
Deutsche Bahn AG – German State Railways
Danske Statsbaner – Danish State Railways
European Conference of Ministers of Transport
European Free Trade Association
The European Union (as a political or geographical unit)
Intercontainer-Interfrigo – Intermodal operator
International Road Transport Union
International Standardization Organisation
Intermodal Transport Unit (here comprising ISO and domestic containers, swap bodies
and semi-trailers)
N.V. Nederlandse Spoorwegen – National Railways of the Netherlands
Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (European Commission programme)
Roland System Schiene-Strasse
Research, Technological development and Demonstration
Statens Järnvägar – Swedish State Railways
Small- or Medium sized Enterprise (by the European Commission defined as a company
with less than 250 employees, annual turnover less than ECU 40 million and a balance
sheet below ECU 27 million)
Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais – French State Railways
Trans-European Networks
Twenty foot Equvivalent Unit (measurement for container transport)
The International Union of Railways
Union Internationale des sociétés de transport combiné Rail-Route – international union of
intermodal operators
Valtion Rautatiet – Finnish State Railways
xv

1 INTRODUCTION
This main document (referred to as the dissertation) should be read together with its detached
appendix 3 named Intermodal Transshipment Technologies – An Overview and preferably
also with the licentiate thesis named Modelling European Combined Transport as an
Industrial System, both available in separate bindings from the Department of Transportation
and Logistics 4 .
This introductory chapter contains a background description of what intermodal freight
transport is, why it is used and why it is interesting to study as a research object. Then the
main research problems and purposes guiding the research are presented and briefly discussed.
Method is discussed in general terms together with the used sources of information
and how the research issues have been verified. However, following the thoughts behind
the outline of the dissertation, each detailed research problem and applicable method is
identified, justified and described in detail only when they appear in their proper system
context. In the final part of this chapter, some words about the terminology and definitions
used are presented together with some reading advice.
1.1 BACKGROUND
In this section, the research object is briefly described together with the reasons for its significance
to science, to society and to industry. The description and conceptual modelling 5
of the current European intermodal transport system is gradually deepened throughout the
dissertation and its believed future is presented in the introduction of chapters 6 and 7 as
well as in the concluding chapter.
1.1.1 What is intermodal freight transport?
The suitability of rail transport for the substantial transport market for high-valued goods is
limited by, among other things, the extension of the railway network and the high costs of
shunting wagons into private sidings. The high fixed terminal costs and the low variable
3 The detached appendix consists of descriptions of a large number of intermodal transshipment technologies,
which are roughly the same as those presented in chapter 4 of the report: WOXENIUS, J. (1998) Inventory of
Transshipment Technologies in Intermodal Transport, Study for the International Road Transport Union (IRU),
Geneva. Hence, also that report can serve the purpose of being a technical reference to this dissertation.
4 Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden.
Tel: +46-31-772 1324, Fax: +46-31-772 1337, E-mail: transport@mot.chalmers.se.
5 A conceptual model is here defined as a graphic depiction of a real system presented for the purpose of increased
understanding of the real system or for defining which part of the system that is under study. A model
allowing to be manipulated, normally in a computer environment, is called a working model. If not specified differently,
by model in this dissertation is meant a conceptual model.
1

haulage costs make railways particularly suitable for large-scale transport of heavy goods
over long distances.
Road transport, on the other hand, offers accessibility with maintained economy for smaller
shipments over short distances. Along with all the advantages of road transport, however,
there are also disadvantages in terms of pollution, noise, traffic accidents as well as excessive
use of energy and land – normally referred to as external effects 6 . For the road transport
industry, there are also risks of longer transport times, bad timing and limited growth
possibilities due to increased road congestion 7 .
Consequently, a combination of road and rail is a logical step for maintaining flexibility yet
decreasing the external effects. However, manual transshipment of part-loads and general
cargo between traditional lorries and rail wagons is costly, time-consuming and involves a
high risk of damage to the cargo. One way to decrease these problems is to load the goods
in strictly standardised Intermodal Transport Units (ITUs), also referred to as unit loads,
e.g. containers, semi-trailers or swap bodies, and then transport these units unbroken for as
large a part of the distance as possible. This method is called the principle of unit loads 8
and the transport arrangement is commonly referred to as intermodal transport. Anyone
having experiences from moving knows the benefits of handling boxes marked “Chiquita”
and “Multi-copy” instead of single household utensils.
A normal container is simply a steel box with standardised measures, construction strength
and fastening devices. A swap body is a detachable lorry superstructure equipped with support-legs
and a semi-trailer is a lorry trailer with rear wheel axles while the front part is to
be hung onto a semi-trailer tractor. By loading the cargo in ITUs, vehicles and vessels can
be used more efficiently through fast transshipment and the cargo can be protected from
theft and damage. Shippers, shipping lines, railways, freight forwarders and hauliers choose
type of ITU considering type of cargo, destination and the organisation of the transport assignment.
6 In a transportation perspective, the term external effects denotes effects caused by an activity, which cannot
be priced in a normal business relationship. The term is commonly used for describing the effects caused by
road transport which the society or other road-users suffer from.
7 For basic reading about the positive aspects of using road transport, ABERLE (1993) is suggested, and
HANSSON (1996 and 1997) and Kommunikationskommittén (1997) are recommended for reading about the
negative aspects.
8 The principle of unit loads is defined by LUMSDEN (1989, freely translated):
“If possible, goods should be kept together in form of a transport unit adapted to all present vehicles and handling
equipment. This transport unit should be formed as early as possible in the material flow, preferably at the
consignor’s, and be broken as late as possible, preferably at the consignee’s.”
2

Container Swap body Semi-trailer
Figure 1-1
A container, a swap body and a semi-trailer.
Wagons carrying containers and swap bodies are of a relatively simple flatbed design,
while wagons carrying semi-trailers are more complicated in order to keep the combination
well underneath bridges and the overhead contact lines.
Flatwagon for ISO-containers
and swap bodies
Pocket wagon for semi-trailers
Figure 1-2
Railway wagons for intermodal transport. (Source: SJ Gods, information
package, p. 54 and 89).
Containers can be carried on most lorries with flatbed chassis, while swap bodies demand
some device to lower the chassis in order to drive under the swap body and lift it, allowing
the support-legs to be folded. Semi-trailers are pulled by relatively simple semi-trailer tractors.
3

Articulated lorry combination for swap bodies
Side-loader for ISO-containers
Semi-trailer tractor
Figure 1-3
Lorries for intermodal transport.
A large number of transshipment technologies have been developed over the last 30 years.
Despite this extensive development, the intermodal terminals look rather much the same
throughout the world – a gantry crane overreaching some railway tracks and lorry driving
lanes complemented with large counter-balanced trucks. Large and complicated terminals
are needed if they are to handle many different types of ITUs and the costs must be distributed
between a large number of transshipments.
Figure 1-4 A reach-stacker and a gantry crane. (Source: UIRR, brochure 1995, p. 6).
In contrast to traditional wagonload rail transport, wagons carrying ITUs are not shunted to
private sidings. Sometimes, individual wagons are marshalled between wagonload trains,
but wherever there is enough demand, intermodal trains operate directly between trans-
4

shipment terminals. The aim is to avoid marshalling that involves waste of time and money
as well as an increased risk of damage.
Rolling highway is a particular form of intermodal transport where complete lorry combinations
are driven on board low-built railway wagons. The arrangement is today used for
overcoming physical barriers such as the Alps and the English Channel, but as many of the
costs – such as capital costs for the lorry and salary for the driver – remain to be borne by
the hauliers, it is not regarded as a large-scale future solution for European intermodalism.
The low net to tare weight ratio is another restraining factor.
The combination of transportation modes in intermodal transport implies that many actors
are involved. The European intermodal market is traditionally divided between companies
based upon rail and road transport respectively. Considering regulated monopolies and the
historic scope of concessions, the borderlines between market segments have been drawn
according to types of ITU and geographical markets. Due to transport policy deregulation
in the European Union (EU), this practice is now diminishing.
The classic role of the railway companies has been to sell rail haulage between the intermodal
transshipment terminals. They also operate terminals and supply rail wagons. In addition,
the railway companies have owner interests in many of the other companies needed
for producing intermodal transport services.
When the container was introduced in shipping during the 1960’s the railway companies
founded container transport companies in order to offer complementing land transport. Intercontainer
(now Intercontainer-Interfrigo, ICF) was founded for international transport
and companies like German Transfracht and French Compagnie Nouvelle de Cadres (CNC)
were founded for domestic transport. Swedish State Railways (SJ) formed a special business
unit within its freight division that has later been transformed into the limited company
Rail Combi AB. Today, Rail Combi AB is the principal of all intermodal terminals in Sweden
and offers a wide range of intermodal transport services using its own rail wagons. International
transport is offered in co-operation with other companies.
Forwarders and hauliers have formed own national intermodal transport companies such as
Kombiverkehr in Germany, Novatrans in France and Swe-Kombi in Sweden. The original
purpose of the organisations was to organise the transport services that the road-based
transport companies had concessions for. Now in the post-regulation days, they still arrange
intermodal services but their role as a strong counterpart to the railways in negotiations 9 is
9 Since most hauliers and forwarders are Small- or Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs), they have perceived
that need to join forces before approaching the large national railways.
5

increasingly important. The companies co-ordinate their international operations through
the organisation UIRR 10 .
Generally speaking, the ICF and the UIRR companies take a wholesaler role while the national
container companies offer door-to-door services. The industrial organisation, however,
varies significantly between the European countries.
Together with national container companies, shipping agencies and forwarders control the
very important contacts with shippers. In international transport, the forwarders decide
whether intermodal transport should be used but the hauliers take a stronger role in domestic
transport. Generally, the shippers don’t specifically demand a special transportation
mode (STONE, 1997, p. 3) but companies with an environmental image prefer rail to a
greater extent (SJÖGREN and WOXENIUS, 1994, p. 14) 11 .
1.1.2 Why studying intermodal transport?
Although it is up to every single researcher to decide what to study, this section aims at motivating
the choice of intermodal transport as a research object. The main purpose is to define
why it is interesting to the scientific world but arguments for its significance to the society
and to the transport industry are also forwarded.
From my point of view, research on intermodal transport must be motivated beyond its
share of today’s transport market. Such research can be useful for tackling a wide variety of
academic and pedagogical issues concerning transportation. Although it is no aim of this
study to generate a general theory 12 , theories and conceptual models taking intermodal
transport into account are often also suitable for analysing simpler transport arrangements.
Hence, intermodal transport is useful as a “worst case” as it includes a multiplicity of activities,
actors, resources and relationships that have to be co-ordinated.
From a general systems analysis point of view, intermodal transportation systems represent
phenomena that are regularly treated as systems whereas they are not fulfilling the usual
demands of having a systems management, a common goal of all components, resources
clearly allocated to one component and a clearly defined system border (see for instance
CHURCHMAN, 1979). Studying the dynamics of such systems should be interesting also
10 Union Internationale des sociétés de transport combiné Rail-Route in French, International Union of Intermodal
Operators in English.
11 For further reading about the organisation of European intermodal transport industry, see BUKOLD (1993/a
and 1996), STONE (1998) and chapter 4 in the licentiate thesis.
12 The systems approach applied here includes a basic assumption that all systems are unique and the findings
from studying one system cannot necessarily be generalised to be valid for other systems. Other researchers,
however, can hopefully use parts of the findings of this research and apply them to their own research
objects.
6

in a general systems theory context. The technical and organisational complexity of intermodal
transportation systems also justifies studies from a general point of view.
From the viewpoint of society, the European Commission is very clear in its judgement of
the significance of intermodal research for supporting the political ambitions of integrating
several transportation modes, or more precisely, to utilise environmentally friendly modes
to a greater extent 13 . I share the Commission’s opinion of the need for applying a systems
approach. The Commission identifies:
“… the need for new and innovative solutions to improve the performance and limit
the harmful economic, social and environmental impact of the Union’s present transport
system. It is no longer possible nor acceptable that the problems of tomorrow are
tackled today by the solutions we used yesterday. (…) Fragmented, unimodal solutions
no longer offer scope to solve existing bottlenecks. A holistic and system approach is
needed.”
(European Commission, 1997/c, p. 29)
The statement is especially important since the European Commission plays a decisive role
for the development of intermodal transport, for policy as well as for research funding reasons.
Finally, as consultants and non-academic research institutes are accountable for most of the
present investigations on intermodal transport, there is a general risk that the investigations
are biased regarding the interests of the consultants and their clients, although the investigations
are given an objective touch. Under such circumstances it is important that the academic
institutions also forward reflections and analyses in the field. It could be argued that
also this research effort could be biased due to the fact that SJ has financed most of the
studies and that there is no such thing as totally independent researchers. Nevertheless,
parts of the research has been financed by road transport 14 and shipper 15 interests. For obvious
reasons, I have endeavoured to make my research as objective and unbiased as possible.
13 Roughly, intermodal policies during the 1980’s aimed at saving the collapsing rail freight sector and at sustainable
mobility while the policies of the 1990’s focus the productivity and quality benefits of integrating transport
modes (BUKOLD, 1997, p. 3).
14 The International Road Transport Union (IRU) has financed the descriptive detached appendix, but also the
evaluation of small-scale transshipment technologies.
15 The Curt Nicolin CN70 foundation administrated by the International Chamber of Commerce has contributed
financially to the analysis on barriers for implementing new pieces of technology in intermodal transport systems.
7

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS
The European intermodal transportation system suffers from a wide range of problems,
most of which are directly or indirectly related to the complexity of the system and the
large scale in which the services are produced in. The current set of problems is a fruit of
the political, commercial and technical history of the system as well as of its current status
and ongoing changes in the system environment. Hence, the main research problem is here
defined and further described based upon the system’s history, the current operational practice
and the changing environment of the system. The rendering is quite extensive in order
to build the foundation for modelling and analytic efforts in coming chapters.
Problems affecting the production system are emphasised and the perspective is taken from
the “inside” of the intermodal transport industry. The need for intermodal transport as such
is here regarded as a postulation given by political bodies frequently asking for an efficient
and sustainable transportation system. Since the outline of this dissertation is based upon
the hierarchy of system levels (see section 1.6.1), further and narrower research problems
are defined and addressed throughout the dissertation.
1.2.1 The cradle of intermodal transport
During the 1950’s and 1960’s, the transport industry went through sweeping changes on a
global scale. From the demand part, the development was mainly induced by the following
circumstances 16 :
• International trade increased to such an extent that the world’s main ports would not be
able to cope with the huge demand.
• Trade had changed from mainly consisting of raw materials to finished or semifinished
products with higher value with demand for packaging, gentle and thief-proof
handling.
• As trade became less dominated by raw material, port access became less important as
localisation factor.
• An increased consciousness of capital costs induced demand for faster transportation
due to the increased amount of semi-finished and finished goods.
• NATO was a very important shipper with large demand for rational transport across the
North Atlantic. Besides transport of household utensils for moving personnel, capacity
for large-scale deployment of military equipment was needed in case of a crisis in
16 This part of the retrospect on container shipping is the conclusions of a study of the history of containerised
transportation (WOXENIUS, 1992).
8

Europe.
…and from the supply part:
• The ports were situated in city centres and could not be expanded to meet the increased
demand on the current sites. The ports of the future also needed easy access to largescale
land infrastructure.
• The increased consciousness of capital costs also affected the shipping lines as the
ships became larger and more expensive.
• The manual stevedoring operations in ports had become so costly that mechanical
equipment was a prerequisite for expansion. Also transshipment to land modes had to
be made more efficient.
• Temporary engagements of many stevedores became troublesome with frequent strikes
etc. The ports also had to compete for workers – a scarcity in those days – by offering
full-time employment with job security.
• Transport technology had reached such a high level as to the facilitation of a technological
shift.
• Ships could simply not be built larger with preserved transshipment technology – the
loading-unloading operation in the port was a bottleneck and the portion of the ships’
stays in port would increase. Faster ships would also imply larger part of the time spent
in ports.
The maritime container was found to be the solution to meet the qualitative and quantitative
change in transport demand. It was implemented at a fast pace following the introduction in
the 1950’s by Sea-Land under Malcom MCLEAN’s management. With his first generation
of container ships – modified World War II tankers introduced in 1956 – only a restricted
number of ports were called and conventional cranes made the container handling an arduous
task. The second generation – introduced in 1957 – employed on-board cranes, adding
to cost and limiting stacking volume on deck, but facilitated calls at all ports with equipment
for moving the containers on the quay. First when many ports had invested in gantry
cranes in the late 1960’s the time was ready to introduce container ships as we know them
today.
9

The actors in international trade, transport companies as well as shippers, saw such great
advantages with the container that they, however after long negotiations (KOZMA, interview,
1993), could agree upon a container standard and apply it globally 17 .
Although he was the first to implement it widely, the container was not an invention of
Malcom MCLEAN. The concept of using freight containers dates from Roman times but
container transport by rail was introduced by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway that
used RoRo-containers for the hauling of coal back in 1830. An early form of intermodal
transport was introduced by the Birmingham & Darby Railway when transferring containers
between rail wagons and horse carriages in 1839. The figure below shows an early intermodal
transshipment.
Figure 1-5
Early use of a gantry crane for transshipment between transportation
modes. (Source: DEBOER, 1992, p. 4).
Even the French were early users of the principle of unit loads with their “porte-wagons”,
UFR (Union fer Route) and Kangourou systems (BUKOLD, 1996, pp. 207-208).
Commercial intermodal road-rail transport started comparatively late in Germany although
lorries and tanks were moved by rail during World War II as shown in the figure below.
However, Germany soon became the leading European country for developing intermodal
transport.
17 For further reading about container history, see: MULLER (1995), The TT Club (1996) and WOXENIUS
(1992).
10

Figure 1-6
German piggyback-transport (Huckepack-Verkehr in German) shortly after
World War II. (Source: Kombiverkehr, marketing brochure, 1991, p. 4).
The greater part of the terminal network in former West Germany was built over a short
period of time in line with an ambitious plan launched in September 1967 by Georg
LEBER, then the Minister of Transport, and thereby referred to as the Leber plan. The total
funding was DM 1 billion (ECU 500 million) of which DM 250 million (ECU 125 million)
were made available for investments in intermodal transport technology (BUKOLD, 1996,
pp. 258-263). A second political initiative was presented by the German Government in
1978, that declared that the amount of intermodal transport must be increased threefold by
1985 as a consequence of the energy crisis (BAYLISS, 1988). Investment programmes issued
by the government included DM 980 million (ECU 500 million) 1979-85 and DM 560
million (ECU 290 million) 1986-90.
Furthermore, the German government has been very active in technology development
schemes. In the late 1970’s, one such scheme helped the emergence of more or less successful
technologies such as the Umschlagfahrzeug Lässig Schwanhäusser (ULS), the
Ringer System, LogMan’s Container FTS, the Hochstein System, the Wieskötter System,
the DEMAG System and the System Aachen 18 .
In Sweden, handling equipment for some 40 terminals was bought in the late 1960’s. The
13 largest terminals were equipped with gantry cranes capable of lifting all types of ITUs
up to a weight of 30 metric tons. Smaller terminals were equipped with fork lift trucks,
side-loading trailers 19 or smaller cranes that limited the terminals to smaller load units or
18 The systems mentioned are all described in the detached appendix.
19 A side-loading trailer is a transfer equipment mounted on a lorry or semi-trailer which is capable of lifting a
container from the ground as well as transferring the container to a rail wagon. For further details, see the detached
appendix.
11

load units with fork entries. In addition, four harbour terminals for transshipment of semitrailers
and ISO-containers 20 between rail and shipping were built.
On a Europe-wide scale, intermodal transport has only been used commercially since the
late 1960’s. The containerisation of deep sea shipping was very rapid and the railways had
to meet a quickly emerged demand for inland transport of containers. This demand
stemmed from the changed industrial localisation pattern, as well as from the fact that
fewer ports were called at by the larger and faster ships. Furthermore, all European ports
did not invest in container cranes immediately upon demand. The railways met the new
demand by forming national container companies and a jointly owned company for pan-
European rail transport of containers: Intercontainer. Intercontainer has later merged with a
similarly organised company, Interfrigo, giving the new name Intercontainer-Interfrigo
(ICF) with head office in Basle.
Despite the rapid start of rail traffic with maritime containers, the use of ITUs in inland
transport has proved to be more problematic. Compared to road transport, the rail mode can
be characterised by its economies of scale. Consequently, the production system for intermodal
transport services was built to exploit these. Through extensive national investment
schemes like the Leber plan, a basic European net of large terminals was established over a
few years in the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s. The provided transport services, however,
have never been able to attract a substantial amount of freight.
A major reason for the bad competitiveness of intermodal transport are the problems of
adapting to the continuous change in demand. After World War II, road transport has been
able to adapt to – and actually facilitate – sweeping changes in the industrial localisation
pattern as well as in the demand for transport quality. The railways as well as political bodies
have hoped for intermodal transport to be able to challenge road transport and keep
some freight on the tracks, but the rigidity of the production system – and thus the service
offer – has implied an ever decreasing competitiveness despite far-reaching subventions
and to some extent favourable legislation.
Another major reason for the inferior competitiveness is related to the organisational complexity
(A.T. Kearney, unpublished consultant report, 1989 and the licentiate thesis) that
has emerged through political decisions on national monopolies and concessions rather than
by evolution through market forces (DE LEIJER, 1992). This has created an industry where
conflicts arise between different interest groups (BUKOLD, 1996; WOXENIUS, 1995/b
and the licentiate thesis). The large forwarders, who usually have been committed to transport
by road, and the national railway administrations often have disagreeing interests concerning
intermodal transport. The different actors have tried to maintain their positions and
20 International Standardization Organisation.
12

prioritised their single-mode operations before intermodal ones. All this has created a complicated
network of actors with business and ownership relations that is analysed with a historical
perspective in chapter 4 of the licentiate thesis 21 .
Starting with the ambitious Leber plan and corresponding initiatives in other countries,
politicians have frequently turned their eyes to intermodal transport seeking the solutions of
general problems related to road as well as rail transportation. Nevertheless, apart from the
success of intermodal transport in conjunction with transocean container shipping, it is
quite clear that intermodal transport has not fulfilled the high expectations. Some 30 million
containers pass the European ports annually and 4 million of them are moved by rail to
and from the hinterland. An additional 6 million ITUs move in intermodal road-rail services
within Europe each year (STONE, 1997, p. 2 and 1998, p. 30). The positive thing is
that politicians do not seem to have been discouraged by the weak results.
1.2.2 Current operational principles
This section contains a description of the intermodal production system with a European 22
perspective, which is deeper than the introductory description presented in section 1.1.1.
The rendering is partly practical and partly theoretical in character and the outline is based
upon the basic functions in intermodal transportation systems, that is the load-carrying
function, the transport function and the transshipment function 23 . This view upon the system
is further deepened in a conceptual model presented in section 4.1.3.
Today, the load-carrying function in intermodal transportation systems is heavily dominated
by ISO-containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers, although smaller units have been
implemented on a small scale 24 .
The ISO-container is by far the most common ITU and the world container fleet is in the
range of 10 million TEUs 25 (Containerisation International, 1996). Due to the global
agreement to encompass ISO-containers in the transportation systems, such containers are
the obvious choice when shipping semi-manufactured and manufactured goods between
21 For further reading about intermodal transport history, see: BUKOLD (1996), DEBOER (1992) and MULLER
(1995).
22 A more detailed description of the production system for Swedish domestic intermodal transport is found in
an article appended to the licentiate thesis (WOXENIUS, 1994/a). For a Scandinavian perspective to the production
system, see WOXENIUS, 1995/a. For reading about the administrative system, see WOXENIUS
(1997/a) and chapter 4 in the licentiate thesis.
23 In addition to these basic functions the operations obviously require a set of complementing administrative
functions such as management and information handling, but these are not explicitly treated here.
24 Unit load types are comprehensively described and analysed in their system context in WOXENIUS, et al.
(1995/b). For a pure technical rendering, see EURET (1994).
25 Twenty foot Equivalent Unit – a volume measurement used, e.g., for describing the capacity of container
ships and for container transport statistics.
13

continents. Among the shortcomings of the ISO-container is its non-compatibility with
Euro-pallets and its lack of flexibility to RoRo-port operations. ISO-containers are today
manufactured in large quantities in newly industrialised countries and sold at very low
prices.
The swap body is well suited for intermodal road-rail transport between two fixed locations
but when it comes to short repositioning over the road and port operations, its inflexibility
due to rather expensive lorries and too weak support-legs is evident. Furthermore, few swap
bodies are stackable today. It is also a considerably more expensive unit than the ISOcontainer,
the reason for which is mainly the lack of standardisation that has hampered
large-scale production. However, inexpensive swap bodies are now being produced in the
Baltic states (HENRIKSSON, interview, 1996) and the prices are thus believed to decrease.
The semi-trailer offers an unsurpassed flexibility in all-road transport and short sea shipping
(RoRo), but it is nationally registered as an individual vehicle. Furthermore, the chassis
are expensive and brings dead weight into the intermodal transportation system, giving
disadvantages in intermodal road-rail transport and deep sea shipping. The large and heavy
semi-trailers also require the use of large cranes, counter-balanced trucks or other largescale
vertical transshipment technologies. Radical technical improvements of intermodal
systems are thus hampered by the fact that semi-trailers are difficult to transship horizontally
underneath the overhead contact line. Moreover, trains densely loaded with containers
and swap bodies show much better aerodynamics than those loaded with semi-trailers. The
latter is especially important in Europe with fast trains travelling at up to 160 kilometres
per hour, also implying problems with curtain-sided units. Hence, the different load units
show different suitability in the three transportation modes road, rail and sea transportation.
Depending on geographical conditions, the transport function of European intermodal roadrail
transport involves two or three different activities; local road haulage, rail haulage and
ferry crossing. Air freight and inland waterways are also used for moving ITUs, but so far
on a smaller scale.
Local road haulage is a short delivery or pick-up transport during which the ITU is unbroken
since the intermodal transport, as it is defined here, stops at the point where the ITU is
stripped. The maximum economic road haulage distance differs vastly according to, e.g.
type of goods, intermodal and general cargo terminal locations, rail haulage distance and in
what direction the haulage is headed 26 . Typical maximum distances are 50 kilometres for
domestic intermodal transport and 200 kilometres for border-crossing ditto (the licentiate
26 The local road haulage part of intermodal transport systems is elaborated by, e.g. MORLOK et al. (1992),
MORLOK and SPASOVIC (1994) and NIERAT (1987 and 1995/b).
14

thesis, p. 16). With overnight rail haulage, road distribution takes place in the early morning
and loaded ITUs are picked up in the late afternoon and evening.
A leading principle of European railways is to operate passenger trains during the day and
freight trains at night. Within reasonable distances, intermodal rail haulage is thus an overnight
business and the wagons stay available for loading at terminals during the day. The
prioritised traffic design (see section 4.2.1) is direct connection, but secondary flows are
handled within the normal wagonload system with its intermediate marshalling operations.
If rail haulage can not be arranged overnight, the intermodal transport normally takes an
additional 24 hours into account. The UIRR – which organises the dominating intermodal
transport companies – reported an average transport distance (terminal to terminal) of 660
kilometres in domestic traffic and 760 kilometres in international traffic 27 . For 1994, ICF –
traditionally active in international business – reports an average distance of 834 kilometres
for seaport traffic and 1192 kilometres for continental traffi. Once again, the average distances
rose in 1994 – by 4.8% and 3.8% respectively (ICF, 1995, p. 17). This is obviously
alarming, although ICF underlines that the increases emphasise the competitiveness over
longer distances rather than market shares being lost to lorries.
Intermodal transport is often referred to as being more successful in the USA than in
Europe, but it should be kept in mind that this is not only to be attributed to the efficiency
and private ownership of the American railroads. Double-stack trains 28 of Union Pacific
Railroad Company in the USA have the capacity of 280 pieces of 40-foot containers
(HILL, interview, 1993) compared to about 40 in Europe, but the trains in the USA are
generally pulled by more than one engine and at a considerably gentler pace. Moreover, the
geographic and demographic conditions favour American railroads more than the European
railways. The American services are very successful over long distances, but the problems
with competing over shorter distances are perhaps worse than in Europe. The shortest competitive
distance for intermodal services is often stated as 500 miles (800 kilometres) in the
USA compared to 500 kilometres in Europe 29 . The American intermodal industry, however,
is now fighting to re-enter the “below 500 mile market” (GELLMAN, 1994).
From the road transport company’s point of view, a ferry crossing is normally regarded as a
part of the railway service. For certain transport relations, however, the ferry crossing is
better performed without rail wagons, usually referred to as broken traffic where semi-
27 The figures are notably equal and actually converging. The reasons are the increasing use of long-distance
domestic transport in Italy and short-distance – yet international – rolling highway services (UIRR, 1997, p. 9).
28 The very generous loading profile in the USA facilitates that containers can be stacked two high on rail wagons.
29 The shortest distance over which intermodal transportation is competitive depends on a truly wide range of
factors, e.g. the demanded transport volumes and transport quality, road and rail infrastructure, general operation
principles and transshipment costs. A firm distance can thus only be calculated in a particular case, but the
given figures are the most mentioned ones.
15

trailers are lifted off rail wagons in the port and are transported on rubber wheels onto the
ferry. Furthermore, ferry lines play a significant role for the planning of timetables.
When intermodal transport is discussed, a lot of attention is paid to the transshipment function.
Any change of address of goods is not carried out, but as technology for the loadcarrying
and transport function is relatively mature, much of the Research, Technological
development and Demonstration (RTD) in the intermodal transport area is focused on
transshipment technology. The transshipment function is also the distinguishing activity
between intermodal transport and single-mode transportation and thus terminal equipment
is often used for symbolising intermodal transport.
Today, intermodal transshipment is carried out in a homogeneous manner. As is shown in
the detached appendix, technological development is intense, but still the vertical handling
principle dominates at the terminals and it will so do for some years to come. The pieces of
equipment used are gantry cranes and counter-balanced trucks, chiefly reach-stackers,
which are capable of handling all types of standardised ITUs 30 . Combination spreaders are
used as flexible interfaces in order to grip different types of ITUs. Fortuitous ITU in a train
set can be handled and storage space for ITUs are normally provided, although storing is
normally not needed since trains are available for loading throughout the day. As most conventional
terminals have a limited track capacity and as gantry cranes and reach-stackers
cannot work under the overhead contact line, diesel-powered locomotives are required for
shunting 31 .
Today, there are hundreds of intermodal transshipment terminals throughout Western
Europe. An extensive expansion of terminals in the former Eastern bloc is foreseen for the
coming decades but in Western Europe there is a trend towards concentration to fewer terminals
in order to achieve larger economies of scale. Current terminal investments are still
mainly focused on classic transshipment technologies 32 .
1.2.3 The changing environment
Demand for transport services within the EU is clearly increasing due to a higher economic
activity, global sourcing and free trade within the EU. In addition, many industrial companies
outsource their transport activities to the transport market. This favours intermodal
30 For information on conventional intermodal transshipment equipment, see, e.g. DANIELSSON et al. (1991),
EURET (1995), MULLER (1995) and SCHREYER (1996).
31 For research on organisation of operations at terminals, see, e.g. BÜHRER (1994), KONDRATOWICZ
(1993), RUTTEN (1995), SJÖGREN (1996) and VOGES et al. (1994).
32 As an example, Kalmar LMV, the leading supplier of reach-stackers, delivered its 1000 th machine by the end
of 1997. The first 500 machines took 10 years to sell while the remaining 500 were sold in only two years
(Cargo Systems, 1997/f, p. 10).
16

transport since forwarders and hauliers have better possibilities of using intermodal services
than the industries’ in-house transport departments. The main reasons are that professional
transport companies most often operate on a larger scale and that they are more
likely to possess the needed expertise.
Furthermore, if intermodal transport can increase its quality or decrease the price level,
large new markets may open up. Increased environmental awareness of consumers can induce
a substantial lift if the price level is in the same range as for all-road transport. In line
with saturation on the roads and in the air, intermodal road-rail transport can also take on a
role as the prime alternative for fast transport. Growth in this market niche, however, requires
a significant increase in service level and organisation, but it also facilitates potentially
high revenues.
Road transportation is currently very competitive within the EU. Prices are down, service
levels are up and deregulation is ahead of rail transportation (STONE, 1997, p. 5). However,
hauliers face problems due to congestion, which induces costs and problems to keep
agreed service levels, new legislation for the internalisation of external costs and a price
level that is not likely to be persistent. Turning to intermodal transport is a viable way of
addressing these problems.
Also the railways face problems. EU directive 91/440 on competition and revitalisation of
railways (The Official Journal, 1991) forces them to be profitable also in business economic
terms. The presently bad profitability keeps new actors away from entering the industry
on a large scale, but “pearls” have been picked, which has caused the national railways
to concentrate on the profitable lines, hence giving up old objectives concerning spatial
coverage. Wagonload traffic is seriously problematic. On the one hand cancellation of
wagonload services means that intermodal transport can win transport volumes, but on the
other hand it means that single intermodal wagons cannot be moved by wagonload services
on low-flow transport relations. Moreover, increasing intermodal flows at wagonload’s expense
33 does not fulfil the political goals for intermodal transport and the predatory behaviour
causes frictions within the railways.
Moreover, pressure for better productivity will force the operators to utilise the equipment
for more hours each day. In order to realise this, the current operations based upon nightleaps
have to be modified. Fortunately, two trends point in the direction of better track access
during daytime for intermodal trains. Firstly, as intermodal transport competes with
rapid road haulage, intermodal trains have enjoyed higher priority on the railway lines during
the past few years. Secondly, the extension of the European train network with dedi-
33 BUKOLD (1997, p. 2) asserts that subsidies for intermodal services have caused this “cannibalism-effect”,
but it does not appear in the statistics due to lack of data.
17

cated high-speed tracks will leave more space on existing tracks for freight trains during the
day.
New information systems bring about both opportunities and threats. The opportunities lie
in decreasing the friction costs involved in combining transportation modes and in the fact
that shippers can be made aware of how their cargo is actually moved as well as the environmental
consequences it implies. Extensive information support will also facilitate dynamic
train plans, which is important for close adaptations to a changing market 34 . A threat
is that powerful information systems might enable the actors within the industry to identify
the customers of other actors and offer single-mode transportation to these. This might
cause actors to refrain from involving other actors in the operations, i.e. they arrange their
own door-to-door single-mode services. The development of efficient multi-actor information
systems is vital to intermodal transport, but it is here only specifically treated in
WOXENIUS (1997/a).
1.2.4 Small is beautiful?
As stated above, many of the problems that the European intermodal transportation system
suffers from are directly or indirectly caused by the complexity of the system and the scale
the services are produced on. Researchers, consultants, actors and authorities have made a
tremendous effort to identify the problems – perhaps even more than to solve them. This
analysis of current industrial problems is based upon personal experience and a truly wide
variety of sources, of which the most prominent are European Commission (1996/a and
1997/e) and STONE (1997 and 1998).
Intermodal transport is currently competitive and profitable mainly for transport of ISOcontainers
to and from the main ports and at certain niche markets over very long distances
(1000 to 1200 kilometres), for specialised or concentrated flows and for overcoming special
geographic difficulties such as the Alps (STONE, 1997, p. 2). The strive towards efficiency
has caused the closing down of many intermodal terminals and the former networks are today
merely restricted to a set of direct connections between large terminals. Turning to operations
at direct connections drastically decreases the complexity of the system, but still
more fragmentation is not a viable solution to the problems of intermodal transport. It will
inevitably decrease the potential market and take intermodal transport even further into the
niche role it plays today. A fragmented intermodal transportation system will also mainly
capture transport volumes, already held by the railways. When total volumes are concerned
– small is not beautiful!
34 So far, the driving forces for dynamic train plans have been weak. A major reason for this is that the passenger
traffic that dominates the national railways requires fixed train tables since informing passengers about
dynamic departure times is still virtually impossible.
18

The competitiveness of intermodal transport is continuously transferred onto even longer
distances, which means increased significance of international transport. The UIRR companies
report (UIRR, 1997, p. 9) that international traffic has increased from 7 to 20 billion
tonkilometre from 1987 to 1996 while domestic traffic has been stable at 7 to 8 billion
tonkilometre over the same period. Yet, the demand for transport services is greatest over
short domestic distances.
As is obvious from the figure below, the currently addressed market above 500 kilometres
is not satisfactory for a substantial modal split from road to rail. The very short distances
are not relevant for intermodal transport, but if systems competitive from, say, 200 kilometres
are introduced, the potential market for intermodal transport will almost be quadrupled.
Approaching this market is the only way intermodal transport can fulfil the high expectations
from railway companies and society.
Figure 1-7
The transport of goods by road (domestic and international) in the European
Community in 1986. (Source: NEA, 1992, p. 47).
The all-pervading problem is thus that intermodal transport is not competitive over short
and medium distances where the truly large transport volumes are present. If intermodal
transport can be made competitive over shorter distances, it can also be given a larger spatial
coverage and the potential market of the system can be dramatically increased. When it
comes to distances – small is beautiful!
The ambitious Leber plan with the following rapid development of the European terminal
network is today both a problem and a possibility. The problem lies in the fact that the system
is technologically rigid and uniform rather than flexible and locally adapted. BUKOLD
formulates this in cost terms as:
19

“Over-sized ‘dinosaur’ terminals – financed by taxpayers’ money – have been built
based on unrealistic market information; their high fixed costs now hamper efficient
network operation.”
BUKOLD (1997, p. 2)
The possibility given by the Leber plan is that the rapid development meant large instant
investments in transshipment equipment that now has to be replaced over a relatively short
period of time. It is thus a good opportunity for rethinking and redesigning the European
intermodal transportation system.
Most of the problems concerning actor co-operation, legislation and pure business hampering
the intermodal development point in the same direction: the system is too complex and
rigid. This set of problems is not specifically treated in this dissertation 35 , but they are recognised
in the separate analyses to the extent that they influence the development of technologies
and operational principles.
It is quite obvious that the technology, the operational principles and the industrial organisation
of intermodal transportation systems have reached a blind alley. In order to compete
with single-mode road transportation, intermodal transport must be able to adapt to the local
and regional demand. This might seem contradictory due to the economies of scale so
prevalent in rail transportation, but the trick is to design and implement locally adapted –
yet interoperable – network modules. When the scale of operations and complexity of the
system is concerned – small is definitely beautiful!
1.2.5 The main research theme
It appears quite clear that intermodal transport must be made competitive over shorter distances
than today. The main theme to address in this dissertation is therefore chosen to be:
How can the European intermodal transportation system be
developed in order to compete with lorries over medium distances of 200 –
500 kilometres?
However, before addressing this overriding theme, a more fundamental and theoretical issue
must be approached. Since the technical and business complexity is identified as the
major problem, tools suitable for understanding and explaining these complexities must be
sought. The complicated interrelations between elements and the technical orientation of
35 The licentiate thesis, however, is dedicated to problems related to the industry structure and political interventions.
20

the dissertation indicate that a systems approach is an appropriate point of departure.
Hence, the question leading the presentation in chapter 2 is: What does systems theory – in
a wide sense – offer to the understanding of the complexity of intermodal transportation
systems?
1.3 RESEARCH PROCESS AND PURPOSES
Due to the industrial funding, an official main purpose of the present research project was
defined already before I entered the scene. The title of the project – Product development
within intermodal transport regarding unit loads, rail wagons and transshipment equipment
– implies a rather narrow technical orientation. The employed technology is, however,
only a small part of the complex transport arrangement denoted intermodal transport and it
was clear to me that it had to be studied in a wider context.
HULTÉN (1997, pp. 15-18) had a similar experience when studying container management.
He found that his research problem required an inductive research process instead of
the conventional deductive process in which the research efforts are described as planned in
detail already from the start. As argued by HELLEVIK (1984, p. 67), the traditionally
higher prestige of a deductive approach often tempts researchers to claim a deductive research
process although the actually applied inductive one is often equally good or even
better. The risk, however, is to attract criticism for being what CHALMERS (1982, pp. 2-5)
denotes a “naïve inductivist” who tries to generalise from single observations. His criticism
stems from his view upon scientific knowledge:
“The laws and theories that make up scientific knowledge all make general assertions
(…), and such statements are called universal statements.”
(CHALMERS, 1982, p. 3)
This leads to the question: Do we really need to generalise in order to gain “scientific
knowledge”? Well, with a systems approach 36 , there is generally no such aim, but still most
systems theorists claim to possess scientific knowledge and systems theory is generally accepted
as a paradigm in its own right.
This research project has a lot in common with HULTÉN’s and has likewise followed a
rather winding road. Yet, the research set out with a clear perspective in collaboration with
Stefan SJÖGREN from the School of Economics and Commercial Law, University of
Göteborg. Jointly we collected very detailed data on a wide variety of intermodal issues.
The data collection was based upon four transport relations between Swedish and continen-
36 This work starts out from a strong systems approach, which is briefly commented upon in the general research
approach section but more comprehensively described in the next chapter.
21

tal cities. In the midst of the data collection period, however, the Swedish currency was depreciated
implying a severe rise in price for international intermodal transports that were to
be paid in ECUs. Hauliers and forwarders then started to split their transport arrangements
into one domestic Swedish part, paid in SEKs, and one continental part. Hence, the flows
could not be traced according to our international transport relations and, accordingly, the
study had to be terminated. From that point onwards, my data collection methods and general
approach have been much more complex and less narrowly focused.
Nevertheless, my research is mainly influenced by the inductive approach when it comes to
finding relevant research questions and not when carrying out the actual research. In the
demarcated analyses, I mix an inductive and a deductive research process. In Denmark,
such an approach is referred to as abductive, but theory on the topic has not been found
during this study.
After a number of studies with disparate aims and methods, many of which are dedicated to
purely management and industrial organisation issues, I am now back to where I was supposed
to start – at the development, implementation and assessment of technical resources
in intermodal transportation systems. Actual product development is not a part of our department’s
tradition and thus I have concentrated on analysing innovations presented by
others.
Nevertheless, I think the travails of the researcher is of limited interest to most readers and
I restrict the rendering on the actual research process to a minimum. Moreover, the character
of this research makes it unattractive and very difficult to reproduce for verification
purposes, which also limits the need for detailed descriptions of the actual research path
followed.
The ultimate theoretical purpose of the present dissertation is to contribute to the understanding,
conceptual modelling and description of intermodal transport at different system
levels. The conceptual models presented in chapter 4 can be seen as intermediate research
steps to be used by me or other researchers in more detailed analyses (BRUNSSON, 1982,
p. 108). The ultimate theoretical purpose is limited to be explorative and descriptive, which
is justified by the lack of rigid academic foundation 37 and by the fact that normative statements
are possible to give only for very specific and demarcated cases. On lower system
levels, the technical parts of the system are focused, although the case study in chapter 8 is
quite wide in its scope.
37 The shortage of relevant academic literature will be further analysed at each system level.
22

The ultimate empirical purpose is to contribute to the understanding of how the current
large-scale and complex intermodal transportation system can be transformed into a simpler
and more flexible system that can be better adapted to local and regional conditions.
In addition, various and partly disparate analytic and even predicting purposes are fulfilled
through demarcated studies at different system levels. With the demarcations comes a
stronger empirical element in the studies, which adds to the fulfilment of the ultimate descriptive
purpose. The choice of different purposes – which also entails different research
questions and methods – on different system levels is justified by the fact that a purpose
relevant at one system level might be impossible to fulfil at a higher system level while it
might well be absolutely trivial at a lower level.
The licentiate thesis serves a method development purpose, a descriptive purpose as well as
a method verification purpose. The detached appendix mainly fulfils a descriptive purpose,
but the advantages and disadvantages of the technologies are briefly analysed and the technologies
are classified. Finally, other own reports and articles referred to – that also should
be considered as part of the doctoral work – generally serve rather narrow and specific analytic
purposes.
For obvious reasons, the theoretical and empirical advances have come hand-in-hand during
the course of the PhD studies.
1.4 METHOD
In this section, my general view upon research methods is forwarded. The purpose is not to
prove that I have read the right method books, but to help the reader to understand my
methodological choices throughout the dissertation. As for the purposes and research questions,
each method or technique is identified, justified and described in detail only when
they appear in the text in their proper context. Finally, the section includes a discussion on
the data and information sources used.
1.4.1 General research approach
My main point in this section is that PERSSON (1979, p. 2) is absolutely right in his arguing
that the choice of methods in applied science always has to be subordinate to the research
problems. Although it should be obvious, he goes on by stipulating that all research
aims at either solving relevant problems or elaborating on them, not at demonstrating the
ability to use certain methods. As is plain from my sometimes disparate choices of methods
at different system levels, I sincerely value that point of view. It is my firm belief that starting
out from the field of application without prejudice concerning methods is a strength that
allows me to identify and address more relevant research questions. Furthermore, the value
23

of being able to talk the technical language of a practically oriented industry should not be
underestimated as means of arriving at reliable research findings. It could thus be argued
that a pure method specialist might face problems concerning validity as well as reliability
without being able to even notice it 38 .
My conviction that the choice of methods is subordinate to the choice of research problems
should not be mistaken for a conviction that method is not important. Using methods consciously
is vitally important in the search for reliable results, which is the main basis for
being accepted as a researcher. I do not, however, agree with those researchers maintaining
that only quantitative methods count 39 . For natural reasons, however, qualitative research at
a university of technology easily attracts internal criticism. Nevertheless, I believe that it is
better to persist than trying to adapt to a futile research ideal as is expressed by
CHALMERS:
“An inscription on the façade of the Social Science Research Building at the University
of Chicago reads, “If you cannot measure, your knowledge is meagre and unsatisfactory”.
No doubt, many of its inhabitants, imprisoned in their modern laboratories, scrutinise
the world through the iron bars of the integers, failing to realise that the method
that they endeavour to follow is not only necessarily barren and unfruitful but also is
not the method to which the success of physics is to be attributed.”
(CHALMERS, 1982, p. xvi)
Also CHURCHMAN (1979, pp. 16-27) objects to the quantitative orientation of solving
also complex and system-oriented problems, although he bases his criticism upon the risk
of suboptimisation, which is further dealt with in the proceeding chapter.
A question that has arisen several times during my PhD-studies is: Should also a PhD student
be allowed to be a generalist or is this a privilege of professors that have already
proven to master narrow methods? PERSSON (1979, p. 1) means that although narrowfocused
topics and well defined research problems make it easier to reach precise results,
the PhD student should not always avoid relevant but diffuse problems that might be hard
to analyse. Well, I arrive at the conclusion that if it is not allowed to draw on the generalist
competence, there is no point in pursuing PhD studies in new or applied sciences 40 . If one
38 One striking example is LÖFSTEN (1995) who starts out from a method perspective and claims to describe
“the Swedish transport industry” while what he actually describes is forwarders offering general cargo transportation,
i.e. companies controlling only a small part of the total freight transport industry. For a good verbal description
of the transport industry, however with a European focus, see HERTZ (1993, pp. 20-23 and Appendix
2) instead.
39 Among others, professor Theodore M. PORTER (1995) who has dedicated a whole book – Trust in Numbers
– to defending this conception.
40 ACKOFF (1972, pp. 13-14) means that it is very difficult to precise the difference between basic and applied
research respectively. He argues that basic and applied research represent points along a scale that is hard to
divide. The scale might represent whoever benefits from the research: other researchers within the field (or
24

is judged according to the ideals of basic and narrow scientific fields, then one should also
pursue the studies at a corresponding department and, as in this case, use transportation
merely as one of many fields on to which one’s narrow method should be applied! As a
metaphor, PICASSO proved to be a superb realistic painter before becoming a surrealistic
one, but today young artists are accepted for their fresh and novel modern art rather than for
being able to reproduce photographs. Furthermore, in the field of medicine it is actually an
acknowledged speciality to be a general practitioner!
From this dissertation, it should be quite obvious that I am educated to be a generalist – I
have followed the study programme of natural science in the gymnasium and that of industrial
engineering at Chalmers. The latter programme is marketed as a programme training
students to bridge the differences between the professional languages and scientific cultures
of economists and engineers. Thus it is natural for me to adopt BRUNSSON’s (1982) conceptualising
ideal in my research. The principles behind the ideal, however, were identified
long ago by ENGELS:
“In science, each new point of view calls forth a revolution in nomenclature.”
(Friedrich ENGELS, cited by CASTI, 1994, p. 43)
This ideal has also attracted attention in my research environment, for instance applied by
DUBOIS (1994) and HULTÉN (1997). The conceptualising ideal is by ARBNOR and
BJERKE (1994, p. 147) considered as obvious to system researchers when they note that
renewing the system language is one of the main objectives of system research. Both ideals
state that it is no primary task to generalise own theories, but rather to express them and let
other researchers judge whether the new thoughts are useful. As a consequence, more attention
could be paid to generating theories than to verifying them, a point of view that, in
fact, also POPPER supported:
“POPPER allowed that experimentation could falsify theories, but held that the real
work was done when the theory was adequately articulated.”
(PORTER, 1995, p. vii)
There are clear parallels between the conceptualising ideal and the principles behind the
World Wide Web where truly extensive information is made available. Yet it is up to the
individual to search for and – not to forget – to evaluate the usefulness of the information.
Using industrial production terminology, it can be put as that information is now pulled instead
of being pushed by authors. Nevertheless, the 4.0 version of Microsoft’s Explorer
“science”) or people representing the studied phenomenon. SAMUELSSON (1997, p. 4) argues that the scientific
world would benefit from replacing the terms basic and applied research with disciplinary and transdisciplinary
research or long-term and short-term research.
25

web browser software will come with “push technology” that allows subscription of information,
but obviously also distribution of showy advertising.
In this dissertation, I focus on presenting conceptual models using a systematic and descriptive
language (in a wide sense) rather than analysing and demonstrating the usefulness of
the models. In the licentiate thesis, however, I tested the proposed method by applying it to
the European intermodal transport industry.
Being a generalist also implies the use of a multiplicity of methods from other schools of
thought. According to STOCK (1995) it is natural that researchers in new disciplines borrow
methods from older and mature disciplines. This is especially true in multidisciplinary
41 fields such as logistics (as is treated by STOCK) and transportation. Intermodal
transport is clearly no exception. In his dissertation on the historical development of
European intermodalism, BUKOLD argues that:
“Complex systems such as combined transport consist of a multiplicity of interwoven
elements which cannot be grasped with the tools of any single specialist discipline such
as technology studies, microeconomics or macroeconomics. As a result of this deficiency,
two conflicting options remain. Either a mono-disciplinary approach is nevertheless
adopted, with the knowledge that many relevant factors will have to be excluded
from the investigation but, in exchange, it will not be necessary to depart from
well-trodden methodological paths. Or a multi-disciplinary approach is sought, which
allows the inclusion of relevant factors from a variety of disciplines. Such an approach
can claim to have taken into consideration the majority of the relevant determining factors
– albeit at the cost of diminished methodological unity.”
(BUKOLD, 1996, p. 19, translated by himself in E-mail message, 1997)
BUKOLD chooses the second option and develops a trajectory 42 approach analysing the
development of European intermodal transport along certain paths. BUKOLD bases his approach
upon technology origin research, evolutionary economics, the Large Technical Systems
approach 43 and chain research. Also RUTTEN (1995) – although not stating it explicitly
– applies a multi-disciplinary approach to intermodal transport research as he uses a
large number and wide variety of information sources. Hence, despite BUKOLD is an
41 The increasing importance of multi-disciplinary research is elaborated by the chancellor of University of
Göteborg Bo SAMUELSSON (1997, p. 4), who argues that problems and phenomena in society are often
characterised by the need for knowledge from different departments as well as faculties.
42 According to Nationalencyklopedin (1995/b), the word trajectory is descended from the latin “traiectus” for
passage or transfer. Within meteorology, trajectory is used for denoting a curve on a map showing the path of a
particle that follows the wind. Since currents change in course of time, a trajectory is normally not congruent
with a current line. Also MANHEIM (1979, p. 170) uses trajectories for denoting the path of a vehicle through a
system.
43 The LTS approach is multi-disciplinary itself as is described in section 2.3.1.
26

economist, his and RUTTEN’s research follow the engineering approach that HULTÉN
(1997, p. 20) finds suitable for applied fields of research with a strong multi-disciplinary
element. HULTÉN presents the approach in his recently published dissertation on container
management:
“… an engineering approach to science would be to first work as a natural scientist and
analyse the complex system under study to obtain a thorough understanding of it and
then search for findings from other (more basic) sciences and as an engineer synthesise
these findings and apply them to the complex system under study.”
(HULTÉN, 1997, p. 20)
Although this was not expressed until the main part of my research was carried out, it is
considered as a good description of what I have actually done as well as of the research tradition
generally applied at our department. Nevertheless, if this was to be a pure engineering
effort, the work would be carried out following a strict path to the solution of the ultimate
task of implementing new small-scale intermodal transportation systems. Here – as in
all research – an additional objective of producing knowledge is fulfilled.
In short, I confess to the systems approach and the conceptualising ideal when I present
conceptual system models and descriptions open for use by other researchers. With an engineering
approach I attack some more specific issues further down in the systems hierarchy.
My opinion is that the choice of methods is subordinate to the research questions,
which are identified in an inductive manner. The choices of specific and narrower methods
at lower system levels are described and justified as they appear in the text.
1.4.2 Data and information gathering
In this dissertation, the framework of data, information and knowledge as presented by
POLEWA et al. (1997, p. 158) is used. The conceptual model of the information value
chain, as shown in the figure below, includes data as the raw material, information as the
structured and communicable semi-manufactured product of data processing and knowledge
as the finished product where information has been transformed into a meaningful
form by use of analysis, interpretation based upon earlier experience as well as modelling.
27

Structure
Transformation through:
- Analysis
-Interpretation
-Modelling
Data Information Knowledge
Figure 1-8
The information value chain. (Source: worked up from POLEWA et al.,
1997, p. 158).
In basic and mature research fields, there is normally a well-trodden path made up of textbooks
and articles in scientific journals to follow for a comparatively fast advance to the
research frontier – a frontier that is normally collegially well defined. In a young and multidisciplinary
research field such as intermodal transport, though, there is normally no single
set of literature to consult for approaching the research frontier – if the frontier can be identified
at all.
A metaphor found useful is that of the knowledge wall where the bricks represent pieces of
scientifically proven facts and theories. The knowledge wall of basic and mature research
fields is then a well bricked and massive one, where neat and well-shaped bricks might be
missing at the top. In the young and multi-disciplinary fields, however, neither the wall nor
the bricks are that well defined. The foundation might not even be called knowledge but
merely information. A better illustration would be an information fence or pile of irregularly
shaped stones. You might try to climb it, but its strength does not allow you to stand
on it and what you add to the top might fall in the autumn gale. So what to do about it? Despair
or persist?
Well, after the despair following the early negative experience with the study along transport
relations (see section 1.2), I have persisted in approaching the research frontier applying
an evolutionary process. I reached parts of the frontier some years ago, but in order to
increase my understanding of the complex phenomenon intermodal transport, I have been
forced to walk along the frontier in order to widen my scope and enhance my understanding
of the complex phenomenon. I have consulted a wide variety of secondary sources such as
textbooks, research and investigation reports, articles in academic and business journals,
speeches at and proceedings of conferences, statistical publications, annual reports, pamphlets,
etc. Also primary sources such as structured and open-ended interviews, surveys,
direct observations and data supplied by actors have been used in the research. The basic
principle has been what YIN (1994, p. 93) denotes “convergence of multiple sources of evidence”.
For the academic part of the sources, the Citation Index has been used in the search
process, however not too successfully.
28

The wide variety of purposes and originators of the sources – as well as their character of
data, information or knowledge – implies a decisive importance of making a critical stand
against them. Thus it is of utmost importance to know much about the industry and the objectives
of the actors. Only then it is possible to see through the actual wordings and put the
rendering in a larger perspective. Especially the work by consultants must be used carefully,
particularly due to the significant importance of political decisions and the following
element of lobbying activities. Also academic textbooks can be decisive since authors use
intellectual property that is regarded as commonplace things, without referring to the original
author. Yet, the compilation and distribution of thoughts to a wider audience is not less
important.
Since I have pursued my rather wide studies mainly on my own, I may not have been able
to keep up with the research frontier or industry development in all relevant aspects. The
organisation of the intermodal transport industry, for instance, has changed considerably
after I presented my licentiate thesis, mainly through deregulation initiatives by the European
Commission. I have no intention of updating it to today’s conditions 44 and, in fact, I
think I was lucky to publish it before the big reform. The method developed and the basic
findings of that study, however, should still be valid.
My most comprehensive and narrowly focused data gathering is related to the detached appendix.
It was basically intended to be a desk study compilation of data and information
collected during my six years of research in the field, but in the end I realised that most of
the information in the report was unknown to me before the study. New technologies were
searched for in reports from conferences and exhibitions, in trade journals, in academic and
practical reports as well as through personal contacts. The world wide web was also used as
a source of information. Beside the secondary information sources mentioned above, telephone
and personal interviews were carried out and more than 120 fax inquiries were sent
to the main suppliers/manufacturers for updating purposes. In total, 160 published references,
100 brochures and similar pieces of marketing materials, 17 interviews, 6 marketing
video tapes, 7 www-sites and 25 letter, faxes and E-mail messages were compiled in the
writing process.
1.5 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
We live in an era of rapid consumption of terms. New concepts, primarily those abbreviated
with three letters, are often defined by researchers or other thinkers, used in a little different
sense by consultants and then insipid by the mass to make them useless for researchers tak-
44 For a short but updated description of current trends concerning the organisation of the intermodal industry
in Europe, see STONE (1998).
29

ing a pride in clear terminology. The research field treated in this dissertation is somewhat
characterised by vague conceptions, a phenomenon formulated by REILLY:
“In reality, words such as requirements, management, top-down, logistics support,
work breakdown structure, and systems engineering have surprisingly diverse meanings
to most people who routinely use them. While we don’t seem to have the same
problem with words like mass, acceleration, or sphere, there is evidently a very real
need to decide upon the precise meanings of words used by ‘systems engineers’.”
(REILLY, 1993, p. 1)
In the transportation field, JIT (Just-In-Time) and third-party logistics are good examples of
vague terms. Logistics itself is another such term that literary has a different meaning for
each person. In this report, the central terms transport and traffic are used as defined by
SJÖSTEDT et al.:
“Transport is a change of position vis-à-vis some human territory, i.e., a change of address,
while traffic is the physical movements needed to carry out this change of address.”
(SJÖSTEDT et al., 1997/a, p. 3)
Compared to logistics, transport is the lay-man notion “the conveyance of people or property
from one place to another” (Microsoft, CD ROM, 1996) from a transport operator’s
perspective while logistics, is used as the corresponding, but slightly wider 45 , term from a
shipper’s perspective. A clear transport perspective is taken in this dissertation. Transportation
is here used for denoting the activity to transport, hence encompassing both transport
and traffic. Nevertheless, transport and transportation is in some sections of the dissertation,
and in the other publications making up the doctoral work, used somewhat
interchangeably. For further discussion on the basic terminology, see the models in sections
3.1 and 3.2.
Intermodal transport is a field attracting interest from many actors of widely different character,
e.g. transport operators, politicians, engineers and researchers. Hence, it is very important
to postulate clear definitions before going deeper into descriptions, conceptual
model building and analyses. Here, mainly the used definitions are presented, the interested
reader is recommended to read section 1.5 of the licentiate thesis, BUKOLD (1997) and
SJÖGREN (1991) that all contain detailed analyses of different definitions. In this study, a
transport satisfying the demands below is defined as an intermodal transport:
45 For instance, logistics includes the costs related to the capital tied in the transported goods, while transportation
is influenced merely by the derived demand for fast transport services.
30

1 The goods shall be transported in unbroken ITUs from sending point to receiving point
2 ISO-containers, swap bodies, semi-trailers and specially designed freight containers of
corresponding size are regarded as ITUs
3 The ITUs must change between transportation modes at least once between sending
point and receiving point
This definition is in line with the very open one currently used by the European Commission
46 for policy purposes:
“Intermodality is a characteristic of a transport system, whereby at least two different
modes can be used in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain.”
(European Commission, 1997/e, p. 1)
…and with the definition issued by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport
(ECMT) that has published its view upon intermodal terminology that (despite some lack of
consistency) is frequently used in the industry:
"The movement of goods in one and the same loading unit or vehicle which uses successively
several modes of transport without handling the goods themselves in changing
modes."
(ECMT, 1993/a, p. 3)
Intermodal transport is here used for any combination of modes, but if nothing else is stated
it is meant the road-rail combination that contains a pick up service with a short road haulage
at the place of dispatch, transshipment to a rail wagon, long distance rail haulage, another
transshipment and a delivery road haulage. Combined transport is used somewhat
interchangeably but only for the road-rail combination.
The term multimodal transport is used here to denote a transportation system for ITUs taking
into account the special requirements of sea, road and rail transport, i.e. more than two
modes. Bimodal systems here denotes various technical systems where semi-trailers are
main components in road as well as rail operations, best illustrated by the hybrid Road-
Railer equipment – a semi-trailer with both rubber and steel wheels. Thus it should not be
used for any combination of two modes of transport.
46 The language used by the staff of the European Commission tends to be defined by fashion and current
policy rather than consistency. Hence, knowledge about the hot lead words is a vital skill for communicating
with Brussels.
31

When emphasising the successive transfer of goods between actors rather than the actual
transshipments, the concept integrated transport chain has been found useful, especially in
an article about information systems (WOXENIUS, 1997/a).
Unit loads and Intermodal Transport Units (ITUs), are used interchangeably, and are here
defined as all load units designed to cover the goods and facilitate easy transshipment between
transportation modes. From the transport operators’ point of view there is no great
difference between the transport of a loaded box and the repositioning of an empty one, and
it is thus not crucial to the definition if the term denotes the device or the device with its
content. In this dissertation it should be possible for the reader to judge what is meant in
each single case.
The most common ITUs are ISO-containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers but also smaller
specially designed freight containers like German State Railways’ (DB AG) Logistikbox
are included in the definition. However, the load unit must conform to size and construction
strength standards and be equipped with devices allowing transfer between transportation
modes with standardised transshipment equipment. In this report, Euro-pallets 47 are not regarded
as ITUs. Carrier or load carrier have been suggested (among others by
ADJADJIHOUE, 1995, p. 127 and by JENSEN, 1990, p. 3), as synonymous to ITU and
unit load. This might be an appropriate name, even used in industry and by myself
(WOXENIUS et al., 1994), but it is not unequivocal since carrier is also used for denoting
vehicles (e.g. by SJÖHOLM and SJÖSTEDT, 1992) as well as the companies performing
transport services (e.g. by SJÖSTEDT et al., 1992) and should thus be avoided.
Overhead contact line denotes the catenary or electric wires used for supplying electricity
to the rail engines.
Transshipment and transfer are here regarded as synonymous terms describing the activity
of shifting goods between vehicles or transportation modes. The term gateway denotes a
terminal used for rail-rail transshipment in order to connect two network modules without
mixing the rail wagons used in each of the two modules. Horizontal transfer means that
only a very small vertical lift is needed, e.g. to lift a container above the container lock pivots
or a swap body in order to make the support-legs possible to fold. The possibility to
transship ITUs under the overhead contact line could obviously be the base for an alternative
definition, but the degree of vertical lift is used for classifying technologies in this dissertation
as well as in the detached appendix.
Activities, actors and resources are other conceptions central to this study. In the context of
the intermodal production system, activity is any action taken in order to move ITUs from
47 The Euro-pallet is a standardised, normally wooden, pallet with the dimensions 800 x 1200 mm.
32

the consignor to the consignee, e.g. local road haulage, transshipment and rail haulage. In a
wide sense, actor denotes individuals, groups of individuals, departments in a company,
whole companies or groups of companies (HÅKANSSON, 1989). In this dissertation,
unless otherwise is stated, actor is used synonymously with an organisation as a juridical
person. In practice, the traditional names on actor groups such as shippers, hauliers, forwarders
and railway administrations, is becoming less useful due to the rapid change of
roles within the industry. A custom of mixing European and American actor group names
causes even more confusion. Hence, the actors should ideally be defined according to their
performed activities in every single case. For reasons of convenience, however, and if nothing
else is stated, the use here is congruent with the description of actor groups in chapter 4
of the licentiate thesis. By resource, finally, is meant any physical device or human being
used by the actors to perform the activities. In intermodal transport the term mainly includes
ITUs, vehicles, vessels and transshipment equipment, and in a wider perspective
also infrastructure, energy, employees, expertise and capital.
Geographically, international and border-crossing transport are used interchangeably. If
nothing else is stated, the implied meaning is a transport between two countries in Western
Europe, here defined as the countries in the European Union (EU) and in the European Free
Trade Association (EFTA), however excluding Iceland. For shipping, a ferry crossing is
used for denoting a short passage where geography calls for it, short sea shipping for sailing
over slightly longer distances within Europe while deep sea shipping, and its synonym
trans-ocean shipping, regards sailing between continents.
There is a wide difference between the technical language of transportation used in Europe
and that used in the USA. This is especially evident in the case of actor names due to the
different industrial and regulative histories. In many publications (e.g. ADJADJIHOUE,
1995) a mix of the two sets of terminology is used causing confusion for readers. A parable
is that it is not appropriate to describe the British constitution using the terms president,
senate and congress. In this study, I use European terminology and British English as far as
my knowledge of the difference allows.
Terms mainly used in a specific section of chapter are introduced and defined first as they
appear. The terms barrier, technological openness and commercial openness, for instance,
are central to chapter 5 and, accordingly, defined in section 5.1.
33

1.6 READER’S GUIDE
As mentioned, this main document (referred to as the dissertation) should be read together
with its detached appendix 48 named Intermodal Transshipment Technologies – An Overview
and preferably also with the licentiate thesis named Modelling European Combined
Transport as an Industrial System, both available in separate bindings. The purpose of this
section is obviously to make the reading and understanding easier. Beside the presentation
of the outline and a hierarchical model used for outline navigation purposes, it is mostly the
deviations from the prevalent way of writing dissertations that are commented upon.
1.6.1 Dissertation outline
The report outline is hierarchically designed starting out from general systems successively
narrowing the focus to a particular small-scale transshipment technology. The hierarchy is
based upon sub-sets rather than upon formal system hierarchies. For example, intermodal
transportation systems is a sub-set of transportation systems due to the narrower definition
demanding use of at least two transportation modes.
Chapters 2 and 3 on the two highest levels, systems and transportation systems, are included
here mostly to place the present research in a wider context and for presenting the
framework of theories and approaches applied. As mentioned, an outspoken systems approach
is applied with implications concerning choice of research questions and methods as
well as generalisation objectives. I do not intend to contribute substantially to the theory of
general systems or even to that of transportation systems, but following the principles of the
systems approach, some of my findings might be useful to researchers active at these system
levels.
Since the intermodal transport systems level is regarded as the one constituting the research
field, special attention is paid to the conceptual modelling at this level. The rendering on
published research is also more comprehensive at this level than at the others. Own analyses
at this level are mainly found in the licentiate thesis and in other own reports and articles,
but to some extent also deepened in this chapter. The chapter is concluded by synthesising
different modelling perspectives into one reference model.
Since this dissertation is mainly aimed at technical issues, chapter 5 on resources in intermodal
transportation systems is also rather extensive. From here on, the empirical content
appears more clearly and less effort is aimed at conceptual modelling that can appear rather
48 The detached appendix is made up of descriptions of a large number of intermodal transshipment technologies,
which are roughly the same as those presented in chapter 4 of WOXENIUS (1998) Inventory of Transshipment
Technologies in Intermodal Transport, Study for the International Road Transport Union (IRU), Geneva.
Hence, also that report can serve the purpose of being a technical reference to this dissertation.
34

lunt at low system levels. The chapter is introduced with an analysis of the barriers impeding
the actors to implement new technical resources, followed by an analysis of the approaches
that the transport operators can apply in order to decrease the barrier effects.
After a brief initial discussion whether new transshipment systems are actually needed,
chapter 6 on transshipment technology in intermodal transportation systems contains two
analyses. The first one relates the transshipment technology to different network operation
principles while the second one investigates whether national demands or demands common
within the EU have influenced the innovations of transshipment equipment. For descriptions
of specific technologies, references are given to the detached appendix on intermodal
transshipment technologies.
Coming fairly low in the system hierarchy, chapter 7 on small-scale transshipment technology
in intermodal transportation systems includes an analysis of the requirements for new
small-scale transshipment technologies and an evaluation of which new technologies that
are suitable for small-scale operations, also with reference to the detached appendix.
As the chapter heading a particular small-scale concept indicates, chapter 8 is dedicated to
a case study on one particular development project. Although at the far bottom of the hierarchy,
the scope of the case study is somewhat wider with frequent comments relating to
higher system levels. Special attention is paid at describing and analysing the implementation
scheme, and a selection of the implementation phases are modelled, using the synthesised
model from chapter 4. Since the implementation is still in an early stage, parts of the
case study can be denoted a scenario. The aim is to relate the earlier findings to a specific
development project and prepare for the concluding chapter.
Since this dissertation addresses the complexity of intermodal transport and a major purpose
of the work is to model and describe the system producing the transport services, the
conclusions cannot be written as just one or two pages summing up the results of some detailed
analyses and putting them into a wider context. Instead, the findings from the systems
analyses and also the different, more specific, analyses are in chapter 9 synthesised
into a scenario on the development trends of intermodal transport in Europe. The prospects
and sensitivity of this scenario and the scenario presented in chapter 8 are finally discussed.
The chapter treats the research object intermodal transport rather than the research process.
1.6.2 A hierarchical system model showing the outline
Throughout the dissertation a conceptual system model is used for defining which system
level the current rendering is focused upon. In addition, and for various purposes, different
conceptual models are developed throughout the report, some of which are more detailed
versions of this general model while other models are rather different, serving specific purposes
in descriptions or analyses.
35

The general system model is hierarchically designed starting out from general systems successively
narrowing the focus to small-scale transshipment technologies. At the most detailed
level – a particular case – the scope is somewhat widened referring up to other system
levels. The hierarchy is based upon set theory rather than upon formal system hierarchies.
Systems (2)
Transportation systems (3)
Intermodal transportation systems (4)
Actors Activities Resources (5)
Transshipment
technologies (6)
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies (7)
A particular small-scale concept (8)
Figure 1-9
A hierarchical system model guiding the outline of the dissertation. The
numbers refer to the chapters.
A hierarchical outline is also used by JOERGES (1988, pp. 17-22), when presenting the
Large Technical Systems theory (see section 2.3.1). Both outlines follow the “principle of
relativity for systems” that according to ARBNOR and BJERKE reads:
“Each component within a system can be developed and constitute a new system. Each
system is a potential component in a larger system.”
(ARBNOR and BJERKE, 1994, p. 131 – freely translated)
Also closed systems are parts of the world we live in and the citation can be understood in
the perspective of the philosophical question whether there is an end to universe or not.
Besides being a guideline of the descriptive and analytic focus, the model is intended to
mirror different research traditions or schools of thought. The relevant research questions
and applicable methods vary widely between the system levels focused. The technical side
of the system is focused in this dissertation, whareas some other aspects have been studied
in previous own work.
36

1.6.3 Writing style
The text is written for readers experienced in the transportation field meaning that terms
and technical matters are not explained on the “beginner’s level”. The reader that finds
himself unfamiliar with terms and abbreviations in the text is recommended to first consult
the background section where some terms are described, then the terminology and abbreviation
sections and finally the reference list for basic reading. Literature advice on certain
subjects is given in footnotes throughout the report.
This introductory chapter, the initial and concluding parts of each chapter as well as the
concluding chapter as such are written in a “subjective” way using I and my. Other parts –
mainly the restricted analyses, the licentiate thesis, the detached appendix and other own
reports and articles – are written in a more classic “objective” fashion.
Costs of investment schemes and certain technologies are very dependent on the size of
manufacturing series and thus often hard to estimate. Consequently, costs are only given if
directly stated by manufacturers or other reliable sources. Throughout the dissertation and
the detached appendix, costs in different currencies are also given in ECUs – calculated
with an exchange rate from 4 April 1997 – with appropriate rounding off.
Especially the detached appendix contains a large amount of measurements. For weights,
kg and ton are used, the latter meaning a metric ton = 1000 kg. For lengths m and cm are
used, rather than the mm usually used in engineering.
1.6.4 Cross-references
Numerous cross-references between the text integrated in this document, the detached appendix,
the licentiate thesis and other own reports and articles make it possible for the interested
reader to follow my presentation of the research effort, yet avoiding another
“brick-sized” report. Previously written and published texts that are absolutely needed for
the logical reasoning here are, however, cut and pasted into this document.
There is an ongoing debate whether a traditional deductive (i.e. predestined) or an inductive
(i.e. explorative) approach is best suited for achieving interesting research results. Concerning
the increased acceptance of the inductive approach, my personal belief is that it, at least
partly, stems from the use of word processors. I belong to a generation that learnt how to
use a typewriter, but then have used nothing but word processors. I assert that the latter
have changed our research process considerably, at least in “report-intensive” disciplines.
We can now outline an article or report roughly and then gradually refine it, reorganise it or
distribute the focus differently between its parts – hence, similar to an inductive research
approach. With typewriters, the approach would rather be to plan the study carefully and
37

write the text from A to Z – hence, a classic analytic or deductive approach – in order to
limit own typing or the secretary’s frustration.
Yet, this is only the beginning. I am far from alone to foresee a more thorough change towards
an inductive way of acquiring information and knowledge. In a future era when all
scientific articles are publicly available in an electronic form, hyperlinks will replace the
current reference notes. This is much more demanding for the reader’s discipline – the
temptation is to start reading another article and successively end up in quite another subject
– but it opens up possibilities of an associative and much more efficient learning process.
In such a process, the reader is in charge and decides the speed, the direction and the
path of the knowledge trip.
The careful and knowledgeable reader will notice that this dissertation is written in a style
that allows a rather simple transition into an html-format with frequent hyperlinks between
different parts of this dissertation and between the other documents making up the doctoral
work. Especially the references to the descriptive detached appendix are suitable for automatic
hyperlinks. It is thus my intention to publish the doctoral work on the world wide
web after orally defending it.
A consequence of planning for an html-format is that I have relinquished the custom of
only referring to earlier rendering in a report. By referring also to coming parts, the text
could be kept shorter and the reader who does not read the whole report, is helped in his or
her manoeuvring. This is, however, obviously disturbing the classic reader who is used to
lean backwards and passively ride on a knowledge trip, since the main theme might seem
lost. But let’s confess: Who reads a scientific report from A to Z in this era of information
saturation? Who has the time to more than browse a publication on a subject, only slightly
beside the core of the own research field?
Another compromise that might disturb the classic reader is that it takes quite a while to
come to the point. A comprehensive introductory chapter with its reader’s guide is clearly
needed, and the chapters and sections must be properly introduced and sometimes include
retrospective summaries and conclusions of earlier sections. To the “hyperlink reader”,
however, this is useful since he or she is helped in picking up the main theme without having
to read the whole report.
I have decided to adapt this dissertation to the contemporary way of reading research reports.
The pros and cons of doing so are evaluated above and I think it is worth to sacrifice
the convenience of A to Z readers.
38

1.6.5 Reading suggestions
A fellow researcher in the field is for obvious reasons recommended to read the three reports
following the cross-references while a researcher, interested purely in the academic
implications could limit the reading to the text in this binding. However, I sincerely hope
that my work can contribute also to the intermodal world outside the universities, and readers
representing the industrial or political sphere might find some academic sections boring
and can consult the Contents section for interesting topics. A reader experienced in the intermodal
transport field who wants an overview or facts about new technologies is recommended
to start with the detached appendix and then read the analyses in chapter 7.
1.6.6 The reference and note system
In this main document and in the licentiate thesis, references are given integrated in the
text, while footnotes are used in the detached appendix. The reason for the latter practice is
that the appendix is more of a descriptive than analytic character and should attract readers
from outside the academic world that might be disturbed by all the references in the text.
The references used in the appendix are also more of sources of facts than of thoughts of
other researchers. Nevertheless, for the sake of readers’ convenience, suggestions for further
reading and longer references and comments are given in footnotes also in this main
document.
The reader who has followed my work during the last years will notice that I have reserved
the privilege of cutting and pasting intellectual property from own previous publications
into this one. References are only given if the rendering is more detailed in the other documents
or if co-authors ought to be credited.
I have chosen to write family names in CAPITAL LETTERS throughout the dissertation.
This habit is becoming common internationally in order to help people to distinguish between
given and family names when different nationalities meet, but a more pragmatic reason
for applying the fashion is that many readers will inevitably search for their own names
in the dissertation to see that they are correctly cited or at least mentioned. As a further
courtesy to those authors referred to, an author index is found in the end of the report.
In the reference list, references are presented in a Harvard style, divided into published and
unpublished references. The unpublished references are further divided into different types
of sources.
39

2 SYSTEMS
Systems
Transportation systems (3)
Intermodal transportation systems (4)
Actors Activities Resources (5)
Transshipment
technologies (6)
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies (7)
A particular small-scale concept (8)
A serious problem when addressing research questions
related to intermodal transport is the complexity of the
industry. Very specific research efforts are thus easily
leading to suboptimisation since a ceteris paribus
approach 49 is not suitable for analysing the individual
components and resources. A wide systems approach
and thorough knowledge about the transport industry
are thus prerequisites for researchers who want to
achieve scientifically reliable results or influence the industry directly or through public
bodies. Consequently, the research must be started by thorough but wide studies in a systems
context. In order to accomplish these consciously, it is definitely required to establish
a framework applicable to the particular research problem, but also to a wider class of
analogous engineering problems.
The aim of this chapter is thus to lay the foundation for such wide studies and to provide a
skeleton of general systems theories for further particularisation in studies of the phenomenon
intermodal transport. The theories must facilitate a good understanding of the current
complex system but also of the suggested small-scale modular alternatives. A perceived
problem is that systems theory does not provide a well defined “on the shelf” paradigm and
many of the conceptions are vague. Hence, parts of the effort is to elucidate this confusion
in the light of the needs in this study.
Following the hierarchical idea behind the outline of this dissertation, a rendering about
general systems theory is proceeded by the description of some methods or approaches for
designing and analysing systems respectively, taking a technical perspective. One such approach
taking a technical perspective to systems is described more in detail –
CHURCHMAN’s systems approach.
It can, however, be argued that the European intermodal transportation system could not be
defined as a classic technical system characterised by a hierarchical composition of subsystems
with an almighty systems management. Although system researchers are generally
very humble before what is to be called a “system” – many definitions encompass virtually
anything that consists of related parts making up a whole – most systems analysis tools
stipulate some “qualifying demands” for systems. If the theories are developed to cover
specific phenomena, they obviously have to be adapted or complemented for the studies of
49 In research, a ceteris paribus approach usually means that a phenomenon is detached from its context,
analysed and possibly manipulated, and then pasted back to the context that is assumed not to have changed.
41

other phenomena. In order to achieve a better understanding and explanation of the complexity
of intermodal transportation systems, it is here found useful to complement the classic
systems theories with systems theory branches more adapted to the network and chain
characters of transportation systems. Hence, system theories found suitable for intermodal
transport studies are here presented from a classic technical, a network and a channel or
chain perspective respectively.
A major point made is actually that there is no superior approach suitable for understanding
and explaining the complexity of intermodal transportation systems, but rather a need for
several complementing approaches.
2.1 GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY
Although CHURCHMAN (1979, p. 239) refers to PLATO’s Republic and AQUINAS’
Summa Theologica as systems-science books, and PTOLEMY produced a model of the
universe that reproduced observed planetary motion (WILSON, 1990, p. 22), systems theory
is generally considered to have its cradle in the research carried out by the biologist
Ludwig VON BARTALANFFY in the late 1940’s. The axiom of systems thinking is, contrary
to an analytical approach, that the sum of the sub-systems does not completely explain
the system. This is, according to CASTI (1989), due to the fact that most systems consist of
many sub-systems interacting in a complex way. SJÖSTEDT (Ed., 1994) argues that an
analytical approach assumes that causal relations are well defined and act in one direction
only. This ceteris paribus approach is not applicable to analyses of complex systems such
as those found in the field of transportation. JACKSON formulates this as:
“The systems model portrays the organisation as a complex system made up of parts
existing in close interrelationship and insists that this type of system can only be studied
as a whole.”
(JACKSON, 1985, p. 32)
ARBNOR and BJERKE (1977) argue that analyses performed with a systems approach are
not aimed at generalising but rather at describing the situation for one case. Analyses using
the systems approach also to a large extent depend on the analyst. In other words, there is
no NEWTON telling the indisputable truth of transportation systems. CHURCHMAN
(1979) seems a little pessimistic when he discusses the systems approach, although he
clearly indicates that the confusion and lack of absolute truths make systems research thrilling:
42

“On the one hand, we must recognize it to be the most critical problem we face today,
the understanding of the systems in which we live. On the other hand, however, we
must admit that the problem – the appropriate approach to systems – is not solved, but
this is a very mild way of putting the matter. This is not an unsolved problem in the
sense in which certain famous mathematical problems are unsolved. It’s not as though
we can expect that next year or a decade from now someone will find the correct systems
approach and all deceptions will disappear. (…) The essence of the systems approach,
therefore, is confusion as well as enlightenment.”
(CHURCHMAN, 1979, p. 231)
There is some conceptual confusion also about the very term system. CHECKLAND is of
the opinion that VON BARTALANFFY should have introduced a new term rather than the
already used system, since:
“... considerable confusion is caused by the fact that the word is used not only as the
name of an abstract concept which the observer tries to map onto perceived reality, but
also as a label word for things in the world...”
(CHECKLAND, 1988, p. 241)
Nonetheless, in this dissertation system is used to denote the abstract model as well as the
reality since more useful terminology has not been found. The reader should be able to determine
what is meant from the context.
According to CHECKLAND (1981) systems thinking is not a discipline in itself and VON
BARTALANFFY himself (1962, p. 1) states that the system concept has not remained in
the theoretical sphere, but is central also in certain fields of applied science. The opinion
that results of systems thinking can be applicable to other scientific disciplines is supported
by YU:
“The effective management of the systems approach requires the synthesis of contributions
from the physical sciences and from social sciences as well. The interdisciplinary
approach is a necessity.”
(YU, 1982, p. 3)
CHECKLAND (1981) points out the need for a basic language of system ideas that is
“meta-disciplinary” and an agreed view of the world in system terms. Nevertheless, the legitimacy
of a general systems theory is defended by its founder VON BARTALANFFY
who also notes its interdisciplinary character:
43

“... in spite of obvious limitations, different approaches and legitimate criticism, few
would deny the legitimacy and fertility of the interdisciplinary systems approach.”
(VON BARTALANFFY, 1962, p. 1)
Below, some more specific system theories are described in the context of suitable application
fields. The rendering is based upon three different perspectives or characters of systems:
• the classic technical character with centrally managed sub-systems
• physical transport networks or actor networks
• channels or chains with subsequent and co-ordinated activities
These are the perspectives found relevant for the purpose of this dissertation, for obvious
reasons other perspectives on systems theory are also conceivable.
2.2 THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF SYSTEMS
Classic systems theory deals primarily with systems as centrally managed hierarchies of
sub-systems or components taking an engineering or biological perspective. This perspective
is here called a technical perspective indicating the similarities to “dead” technical systems
managed by human beings. However, also a strong “social engineering” tradition from
the 1970’s has influenced systems theory. As mentioned in section 1.6.2, the “principle of
relativity for systems” says that all systems are part of larger systems and that they can be
divided into sub-systems. This implies that there is no use defining something as a subsystem
without defining the higher level system first, although one has to start at some
level since we neither know if the universe has an end nor which is the smallest physical
particle.
Two main applications of general systems theory can be identified. In the first application,
systems theory is used as tools for systems design or engineering purposes. With a systems
theory approach, complex technical systems that are to be developed can be broken down
into easily understandable sub-systems and components. A specification of functional requirements
can be established for the system as a whole and then for each sub-system.
Hence, it is a normative approach based upon logical deduction. This approach is used
throughout this dissertation, most articulated in section 7.1 where the requirements for new
small-scale intermodal systems are outlined.
The second application developed by biologists such as VON BARTALANFFY, is the use
as descriptive and analytical tools. It is thus an empirically based method with a clear inductive
touch. The empirical nature of the latter approach is stated by CASTI:
44

“...the study of natural systems begins and ends with the specification of observables
belonging to such a system, and a characterization of the manner they are linked.”
(CASTI, 1989, p. 2)
This branch of systems theory is found indispensable for comprehending the current complexity
of intermodal transportation systems as well as for analysing and describing the
small-scale transshipment technologies in the detached appendix.
As argued for, both of the above applications are considered as useful to this dissertation,
and thus presented in further details below. One particular approach – CHURCHMAN’s
systems approach has earned special attention since it is found especially useful, which is
further elaborated in section 4.1.2 where it is formally applied to intermodal transport.
2.2.1 Tools for systems design
For a very long time, weapon systems have constituted the most advanced technical systems,
although the armament industry is losing ground due to budget cuts induced by the
fortunate end of the cold war. Supplying widely spread armies with food and ammunition is
a delicate task, and the term logistics was actually introduced by the French army in the
Napoleonic era (FARMER and PLOOS VAN AMSTEL, 1991, p. 3). As war was pursued
in an ever increasing scale, a need for a systematic approach was identified by the US Department
of Defence, (DoD), during World War II. Hence, the armed forces and the armament
industry lead the development of this branch of the systems theory paradigm.
Also the civil industry was motivated to undertake the development of systems design
methodologies because of four main characteristics that affected post-war industry
(WILSON, 1990, p. 57):
1 Technical systems were becoming more complex.
2 Market environments were becoming highly competitive.
3 New projects were increasingly more expensive.
4 Computer developments made complex calculations more feasible.
Hence, both the industrial environment and the available tools influenced the development.
One school of thought used for the structured design of technical systems is Systems Engineering,
defined by the DoD as:
45

“The application of scientific and engineering efforts to (a) transform an operational
need into a description of system performance parameters and a system configuration
through the use of an iterative process of definition, synthesis, analysis, design, test,
and evaluation; (b) integrate related technical parameters and ensure compatibility of
all physical, functional, and program interfaces in a manner that optimizes the total
system definition and design; and (c) integrate reliability, maintainability, safety, survivability,
human, and other such factors into the total engineering effort to meet cost,
schedule, and technical performance objectives.”
(BLANCHARD, 1992, p. 9)
Hence, systems engineering focuses on a top-down approach to systems theory. Part (a) in
the citation above focuses on method and (b) and (c) on what the engineering process aims
at. What is most interesting here is part (b) since it is emphasising a system as consisting of
integrated parts that should be optimised to achieve a common goal. YU presents a similar
definition of the systems approach, however purely basing it upon systems design methodology:
“The systems approach is a process that is applied on a continuous basis and in a consistent
way by the engineering and management functions in undertaking the following
procedures: (a) identifying the problem, (b) defining the goals and objectives involved
in solving the problem, (c) searching for alternative methods of meeting the requirement,
(d) selecting the most effective alternative, (e) developing it in its entirety, and
(f) then implementing its operation or use.“
(YU, 1982, p. 3)
Although this is not a pure engineering effort, this approach describes the present research
effort well. In the introduction chapter, the problem is identified as the complexity of the
current system and the goal as the implementation of locally adapted small-scale network
modules. In this and the following two chapters, different systems approaches and own
modelling is used as tools for meeting the requirements. The alternative solutions are described
and evaluated in chapters 6 and 7 and an example of how a concept can be fully developed
and implemented is presented in chapter 8. The traps and possibilities of implementation
are presented in chapter 5. However, the research effort is aimed at producing
knowledge around some identified research questions rather than just addressing the problems
of intermodal transport as an engineer. A dissertation taking a more outspoken systems
engineering perspective is presented by RUTTEN (1995).
The early paradigm of systems engineering can be described simply as “Build it, Test it,
Fix it” (REILLY, 1993, p. 7). In line with increasingly complex system development projects,
the systems engineering process has been developed into a rather detailed approach as
indicated by the figure below.
46

Figure 2-1 Systems engineering process paradigm. (Source: REILLY, 1993, p. 8).
Especially important is the continuous feedback and the iterative character of the process.
This is the approach needed for developing intermodal transportation systems with strong
interdependencies between activities, actors and resources and a wide range of limiting factors
related to the technical and commercial complexity of the existing system. This will be
further elaborated in section 5.2.
Now in the post-cold-war period, the computer software industry is the leading developer
of systems design tools and this is also the field where most students get in touch with systems
thinking. Nevertheless, as mentioned by YU (1982, p. 4), systems thinking is also applicable
to management. The organisational structure of companies is largely a product of
systems thinking since a structured approach is obviously needed to manage huge concerns
and conglomerates with world-wide operations. Also BURNS and STALKER (1994, p. 97)
use a systems approach for designing management systems taking into account the links
between employees and between companies in industrial concerns. This approach is found
suitable also for research on intermodal transport with its interlinked technical and management
issues and it has clearly influenced the normative parts of chapters 5, 6 and 7 of
this dissertation.
2.2.2 Descriptive and analytical tools
Building a conceptual model is a feasible point of departure for understanding and explaining
complex systems. There has, however, been some criticism directed at such system
models. JACKSON (1985), for instance, states that the system model tends to “reify” organisations,
to grant them the power of thought and action, as they almost magically adapt
to the environment in the models. Furthermore, the system model sees survival rather than
47

goal-attainment as the leading star of systems. Nevertheless, keeping these hazards in mind,
this section is aimed at defining the benefits of a particular systems approach for descriptive
and analytical purposes, however with frequent references to related approaches.
An analytical tool that has been judged as very useful is the systems approach as it is presented
by CHURCHMAN (1979) who defines five basic descriptive aspects of a system:
the objective, the environment, the resources, the components and, finally, the management
of the system. CHURCHMAN does not claim the invention of the basic systems approach
(he claims though; to have added the human parts of the approach), but it is still denoted as
CHURCHMAN’s systems approach here, in order to avoid confusion with systems approaches
presented by other thinkers. As the objective of the system is clearly in focus,
JACKSON’s criticism does not apply to this systems approach.
According to CHURCHMAN, the objective is in many systems formulated as representing
the goal towards which the system is directed. It is called a real objective if the system
really is being directed towards it, but there are often so called stated objectives where the
uttered objective does not act as a guide for the parts of the system. CHURCHMAN also
introduces the concept of legitimate objectives, that are set up by the environment of the
system. Examples of legitimate objectives may be laws and regulations or even antipollution
or security objectives. For instance, companies which pollute, as part of their production
process, have in interviews stated a willingness to use intermodal transport in order
to “compensate” the environment (SJÖGREN and WOXENIUS, 1994, p. 14). This is a
good example of influences created outside the system, although not through formal laws.
Stated or legitimate objectives are often expressed by companies, but a company in a competitive
position usually, and quite understandably, focuses on high, long-term return on
working capital as the number one objective. Other objectives can be said to be stated or
legitimate objectives.
DAVIS (1974) further develops the concepts of CHURCHMAN and makes a distinction
between goals, i.e. what the system should do, and objectives, i.e. the measurable results
that should be attained. Even CHURCHMAN stresses that the objective must be measurable
on a scale. The perception of actors within the system as units directed towards their
own objectives, is supported by systems theory research performed since the 1960’s where
organisations are described as goal-seeking machines (CHECKLAND, 1988). However, the
goals of different companies in an industrial network are usually multiple and conflicting.
The goals of all participants are seldom achieved, either because means are not sufficient or
achievement of all actors’ goals is logically impossible. The intermodal transport industry
is clearly no exception in this case.
The environment of the system refers to factors that influence the system but can not be influenced
from the inside of the system. HUBKA and EDER (1988) point out that the objec-
48

tive of the system is the guideline for defining the environment and only elements and
components contributing to this objective are included.
The resources are also factors that influence the system but, in contrast to environmental
factors, they can be influenced from the inside of the system. The definition of the environment
and the delimitation between environment and resources is obviously a critical
step in all systems analyses. Different analysts investigating the same system seldom make
the same delimitation. The problem is especially apparent in life-cycle analyses where delimitation
strongly determines the result, thus making comparisons very difficult (BLINGE,
1993).
The components are closely associated to the resources of the system and a component has
at least one resource while each resource belongs to a component. Sub-objectives are stated
for each of the components. The term “the directed sub-system” is also used. DAVIS
(1974) writes about sub-systems, which in CHURCHMAN’s terms include resources and
components. The sum of DAVIS’ sub-systems is the whole system, whereas the components
of CHURCHMAN are not completely able to describe the system. As previously
mentioned, this is one of the cornerstones of the systems approach: the system does not
equal the sum of its parts. HUBKA and EDER (1988) find the component structure the
most concrete way of representing technical systems.
All systems must be supervised if the overall objective of the system is to be accomplished.
The task of the management is to allocate resources and designate the sub-objectives for
each component as well as control the behaviour of the system. The lack of such a management
function is a major short-coming of European intermodalism.
The basic part of CHURCHMAN’s systems approach is summarised by BJERKE as follows:
“There is a systems management that shall make the components use the resources in
such a way that the objective is accomplished within the limits of environment.”
(BJERKE, 1975 – freely translated)
The above viewpoints may be satisfactory for a systems analysis from a technical point of
view, but aspects including the individuals in the system are needed for social and more
thorough organisational analyses. CHURCHMAN therefore further develops the model by
adding (6) the customers, (7) the decision-makers and (8) the planners of the system, that is
the people involved in social planning and processes of change. This extension is by
CHURCHMAN considered as his major contribution to systems analysis. In conclusion,
the descriptive and analytic aspects are:
Objectives
measurable goals
49

Environment
Resources
Components
Management
Customers
Managers
Planners
factors that influence the system but can not be influenced
by the system
factors that can be influenced by the system
parts of the system that control the resources
the control mechanism of the system
users or buyers of the system’s output
people responsible for management
people responsible for the plans
CHURCHMAN’s systems approach is regarded as very useful when analysing intermodal
transportation systems, however only when accepting the fact that the current European intermodal
transportation system does not quite qualify for CHURCHMAN’s system definition.
The following four discrepancies should be kept in mind:
• The goal of the system is not possible to define clearly since the components/actors generally
have differing goals and reasons for joining the system. A related problem is to define
measurable objectives.
• It is hard to define the environment of the system clearly due to the fact that the network
is shared between actors and between transportation modes.
• All resources are not possible to refer to any one component since resources are shared
with other systems, e.g. single-mode transportation systems.
• There is a general lack of management with executive power over all system components.
Keeping the points above in mind – and being aware of its implications – it is possible to
model intermodal transport from a technical point of view, i.e. that the system is a closed
one with components lacking both own intellect and will. The approach also provides a
good help in understanding the advocated small-scale system modules, perhaps even better
since the business structure and management situation might be less complex.
CHURCHMAN’s systems approach is more formally applied to intermodal transport in
section 4.1.2. Moreover, the Large Technical Systems approach that also might be denoted
as a descriptive and analytical tool is presented among the following systems approaches
with a network perspective.
2.3 THE NETWORK CHARACTER OF SYSTEMS
In this section, theories specifically taking a network perspective of systems are presented.
These theories are regarded as especially appropriate for analyses of intermodal transport
50

aiming at the entire industry and the services the actors jointly offer. Analyses of traffic
patterns is another obvious application.
The first part of the chapter emphasises technically networked systems. The presented large
technical systems (LTS) approach, developed by historians and social scientists, deals with
systems designed for the distribution of information, energy or goods, e.g. networks for
telecommunication, irrigation, power supply or railways. Hence, a clear flow dimension is
present, making it further useful to this dissertation.
Theories aimed at the networks of actors making up an industry structure are investigated
in the second part. The Network Approach, as presented by the Uppsala school of thought,
is chosen for further evaluation. The way the approach is adapted and used here – and was
used in the licentiate thesis – is closely related to systems theory, which is the reason for
including it in this chapter.
2.3.1 Large technical systems – LTS
As argued above, a special difficulty when analysing the phenomenon of intermodal transport
is that it does not perfectly fit into system theories such as CHURCHMAN’s systems
approach. An approach specifically developed for studies of complex and large systems
with a network character could thus be a useful complement. As BUKOLD (1996) faced
the same difficulty when writing his dissertation on the history of intermodal transport, it is
worthwhile to follow his path.
In his trajectory approach (see section 1.4.1), BUKOLD is strongly influenced by the large
technical systems (LTS) approach developed during the 1980’s at the Scientific Centre Berlin,
where the leading researchers were HUGHES, MAYNTZ and LAPORTE. In order to
establish the paradigm and further integrate the work of historians and social scientists from
France, Germany and the USA, a book edited by MAYNTZ and HUGHES was published
in 1988.
The LTS approach treats “spatially extended and functionally integrated socio-technical
networks such as electrical power, railroad, and telephone systems” (MAYNTZ and
HUGHES, 1988, in the foreword). BUKOLD’s definition also emphasises the network
character of LTS:
“...a by technology characterised network of widespread distribution of information,
energy or goods”
51
(BUKOLD, 1996, p. 63 – freely translated)
The LTS approach was developed without a common terminology. Instead, the researchers
were humble enough to use the terminologies used in the particular fields of application,

hence similar to the approach applied in this dissertation. The LTS approach can be regarded
as somewhat vague, but it is also a strength to be able to adapt the method and the
language to the object of study. In general it could be stated that it is not a common method
or technique but rather common research problems that keep the group together.
The LTS approach is judged to be useful to this study, especially as it takes into account
that the borders of large systems are hard to define and must be analysed in every single
case by asking practical questions (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 74). The definition of what is a
large technical system is also hard to define and must, according to JOERGES (1988, p.
21) be analysed in a similar way. His example of the telephone system is striking as it
might be perceived by lay users as quite small indeed, while it in fact might be the largest
technical system yet installed in world society. The following rendering of JOERGES indicates
that the LTS approach is very relevant to the present research effort:
“…one may examine questions such as: Is the systems concept useful in binding together
the multi-layered phenomena identified by various partial approaches to the
study of technology, in order to capture higher order interactions? How does it relate to
such concepts as “interorganizational networks”, “Politikverflechtung [Political consolidation]”,
“corporatistic arrangements”? Does it help us to model linkages between
complex machine systems and complex organizational/institutional systems? All these
questions refer primarily to the inner structure of pragmatically delineated LTS.”
(JOERGES, 1988, p. 17)
LTS can hierarchically be divided into LTS of the first or second order. In an LTS of the
first order, all resources are controlled and clearly allocated to the system. An LTS of the
second order instead utilises resources of another system. An example of an LTS of the
first order is the Transrapid planned to connect Hamburg and Berlin using dedicated
guideways, vehicles and gateways (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 65). Intermodal transport represents
a system of the second order as it utilises the resources of road and rail transportation.
Systems of the second order are becoming increasingly important in the post-industrial society
as they offer new applications of the often mature systems of the first order. In this
way, intermodal transport offers new development opportunities to the rail network as well
as to the saturated road network. Another trend is that it is becoming more difficult to determine
what is an LTS of the first order and what is one of the second order, when the systems
that surround us become much more interwoven and dependent upon each other. Perhaps
can also LTS of the third order be defined, for instance when wagons loaded with
ITUs are transported in wagonload trains and when containers are transported as part of
general cargo services.
Since the LTS approach was developed by historians, a main theme is to track and explain
historical changes. The network dynamics is dealt with by emphasising the relations be-
52

tween different LTS or between elements within a single LTS. Horizontal relations are defined
as complementary, substitutive, competing or confronting (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 65). A
relevant example is road transport that was first developed in order to support the dominating
mode of rail, but soon became a substitutive and competing system and to some extent
also a confronting one.
Also the character of a single element affect the network dynamics. A reverse salient is a
system element that by lagging behind in its development prevents the whole system from
improving. Also an element, the improvement of which deteriorates other elements can be
referred to as a reverse salient. In intermodal transport, many reverse salients can be identified,
as will be further elaborated in section 5.1.3.
2.3.2 The Network Approach according to the Uppsala school
of thought
Connecting the activities of different companies has always been a source of problems.
With a negative attitude towards co-operation, productivity is mainly increased by internal
rationalisation within each actor’s sphere or by increasing the sphere through vertical or
horizontal integration. However, technological development – primarily in the field of information
technology – has increased the possibilities of, and the need for, linking different
industrial activities together, also across the company borders. This implies an important
co-ordination mechanism that started to attract scientific interest in the late 1970’s and
early 1980’s – the links between companies. The logistics approach with a comprehensive
view of the material flow in the refinement chain is a result of this development. Moreover,
the co-ordination mechanism is the point of origin of an approach to industrial marketing
and purchasing – the Network Approach.
The Network Approach to studies of market structures was developed at the University of
Uppsala and the Stockholm School of Economics together with researchers from other
countries within the framework of the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing group (IMP).
Key researchers in the development of this theory were HÅKANSSON, MATTSSON,
JOHANSON and GADDE. The theoretical base, often referred to as the Uppsala school of
thought, was developed in parallel to extensive field studies and the school of thought is
now internationally recognised 50 .
The first presented model, the interaction model, was based upon empirical studies of one
thousand buyer-seller relationships carried out by researchers from Sweden, Germany, the
UK, France and Italy (HÅKANSSON (Ed.), 1982). The work of the IMP was focused upon
50 See, for instance, BRADLEY (1991).
53

industrial markets contrary to most marketing literature, that only covers consumer markets
comprising vastly different mechanisms. In industrial marketing, long-term customersupplier
relationships are emphasised. This is a phenomenon in line with what is studied in
this dissertation, a fact that justifies an investigation of the usefulness of this approach for
the purposes of this dissertation.
In the network approach, firms are considered as being dependent upon each other and they
co-ordinate their activities through interaction. GADDE and HÅKANSSON (1992) identify
a number of characteristics of industrial networks. Firstly, the links in a network are coupled,
implying that a change in one link has an effect on other links. Consequently, companies
can influence other companies directly or indirectly. Secondly, much of a company’s
behaviour occurs as a reaction to the behaviour of other companies. This is a strategic business
game where actors react to previous, current and forecasted events. Thirdly, the relationship
can simultaneously involve conflict and co-operation. For instance, the research
and development departments of various companies within an industry might co-operate
closely while the marketing departments are bitter enemies in a competitive market. A
striking example is the intermodal transport industry where Swedish State Railways as a
company group takes on roles as customer, supplier, as well as competitor to the intermodal
transportation system 51 . Fourthly, the network is a dynamic phenomenon. The network is
never stable or in equilibrium, but works like a gearbox with numerous dependently turning
gearwheels.
The network models of the Uppsala school of thought differ slightly between works published
by researchers confessing to the paradigm, probably due to evolutionary steps rather
than disagreement. A three-component model comprising activities, resources and actors, is
nonetheless a common viewpoint. The heart of the network model is formulated by
GADDE and HÅKANSSON:
“Theoretically, an industrial network consists of actors related by performance of complementary
or competing industrial activities that implies that certain resources are refined
through other resources’ consumption. Each one of the three components, actors,
activities and resources, is dependent upon the other two.”
(GADDE and HÅKANSSON, 1992)
A graphical presentation of the model is shown in the figure below.
51 This fact is elaborated in detail in the licentiate thesis, particularly in figure 4-2 describing the ownership
structure within the intermodal transport system taking SJ’s perspective.
54

Actors
At different levels - from
individual to groups of
companies - actors aim to
increase their control of
the network
Actors control resources;
some alone and others jointly.
Actors have a certain
knowledge of resources
Resources
Resources are
heterogeneous
human and
physical, and
mutually dependent
Network
Activities link resources
to each other
Activities change or
exchange resources
through the use of
other resources
Actors perform activities
Actors have a certain
knowledge of activities
Activities
Activities include the
transformation act,
the transaction act,
activity cycles and
transaction chains
Figure 2-2 The network model. (Source: HÅKANSSON, 1989).
There is nothing new under the sun, however, and the terms used in the network approach
have been used in a similar way before. The ideas of describing phenomena in terms of activities,
resources and actors are present in many systems, economy and organisation theories,
although denoted slightly differently. Not surprisingly, systems theory is by
STJERNBERG (1991) given credit as the forerunner to the network approach. A similar
concept to that of the Uppsala school of thought has also been presented by PFEFFER and
SALANCIK (1978) who use the same foundation but accentuate the resource side.
The analysis tool presented by GADDE and HÅKANSSON (1992), supports analyses from
one company’s viewpoint, i.e. the activities taking place in one link of the distribution
channel. This limitation in scope makes it less useful for analysing the whole intermodal
industry. Nevertheless, GADDE and HÅKANSSON acknowledge that other links in the
refinement chain must be considered in order to analyse the actual link exhaustively.
A tool for distribution channel analyses is described by GADDE (1989) in an article on activity
structure analyses of distribution channels. In a table with the heading “division-ofwork
model of a distribution system”, GADDE (ibid., p. 161) allocates activities to the different
actors. The method is referred to as a systems approach useful for descriptive purposes.
Nevertheless, in order to extend the analysis to the dynamics of the network,
GADDE only uses this table method as a point of departure for introducing the network
approach.
55

In the licentiate thesis, with its stated descriptive and model building purposes, this tablebased
method was considered very useful and it was adapted to intermodal transport industry
studies. Together with the whole network model, it was used as a point of departure for
the development of an analytical tool adapted for studies of the structure of the European
intermodal industry. This tool consists of (a) activity analysis, (b) resource analysis and (c)
actor analysis. The analyses are combined in order to define the studied companies’ and
actor groups’ identity or position in the network. Also in this dissertation, the thoughts and
terms behind the network approach has been found clearly applicable.
Here, “the network approach” is used for denoting the pure network model 52 based upon
the terms activities, resources and actors. The usefulness of the network approach for intermodal
transport studies will be further illustrated, evaluated and discussed in chapter 3.
The Uppsala school of thought is more comprehensively described in section 3.4.3 of the
licentiate thesis.
2.4 CHANNELS AND CHAINS IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT
As mentioned above, analysing intermodal transport with a technical or network perspective
is suitable when the object of study is the entire industry and the services the actors
jointly offer. When studying a single transport arrangement or a shuttle service, however, a
channel or chain approach is more appropriate since it accentuates the flow dimension.
A great deal of channel and chain research is found in the fields of marketing and logistics,
fields in which literature is usually not very distinct when concept definitions are concerned.
Hence, whether channel or chain ought to be used has not been made quite clear by
the authors in the field. Based upon an aggregate of the literature, however, the channel
concept is here interpreted as focusing the furrow or path aspects while the chain concept
accentuates the interlinked content of a channel, e.g. a number of activities along the channel.
An illustration of a channel in an intermodal transport context, is how ITUs are routed
by a chain of subsequent transport and transshipment activities. Pipeline is another term
frequently used which is here interpreted as a channel with the same flow in every crosssection,
a metaphor for an oil pipeline that for obvious reasons has a balance between inflow
and outflow. The term is here used focusing the physical goods flow and the pipeline
aspect of transportation system is thus treated in the following chapter.
This section aims at discussing the channel and chain aspects of intermodal transportation
systems against the background of theories in some fields related to transportation and logistics,
but yet on a slightly more general system level.
52 For a short and vigorous description of the core model, see HÅKANSSON and JOHANSON (1992), and for
a slightly longer one, see HÅKANSSON (1989).
56

2.4.1 Marketing and distribution channels
Marketing and distribution are two phenomena with outspoken channel or chain character.
The marketing channel runs from raw materials to the ultimate customer. As such, it is not
demarcated to marketing and purchasing relationships; even processes and supplementary
services are included. Distribution channels and marketing channels are here considered as
covering almost the same phenomenon with the slight difference that the distribution channels
focus more on the activities conducted from the time the goods are finished until consumer
availability.
Within the marketing channel approach, the channel is considered an entity, and it is assumed
to work as an organised behavioural system. This is in line with this dissertation –
analysing the intermodal transportation system as an entity without neglecting the fact that
it consists of different actors, lacking a common goal and a common management function.
This is another appealing bridge between theories of systems and marketing respectively.
The advantages of viewing the channel as an organised behavioural system is, according to
MCCAMMON and LITTLE (1965, p. 330) that:
• it defines the channel as a purposive and rational assemblage of firms and not just a random
collection of companies
• both co-operative and antagonistic behaviour are emphasised
• the organism reflects the hopes and goals of the participants
• the marketing channel is viewed as a unit of competition competing with other distribution
channels
• treating the channel as an operating system, system-generated malfunction can be analysed
Even ALDERSON (1954) focuses on the entity view of a distribution channel with several
actors. Actually, the importance of a system view increases with the number of actors and
activities:
“The more complex the marketing task becomes the more necessary it is for a channel
to operate as an integrated whole in order to attain efficiency.”
(ALDERSON, 1954, p. 31)
All these arguments are important to studies of the complexity of intermodal transportation
systems. The competition between marketing channels is analogous to intermodal transport
competing against pure transportation modes and other intermodal transport chains.
57

The roles of the actors in a distribution channel are described by GADDE (1982). This is
also treated by BREYER (1964) who says that a marketing channel includes trading as well
as non-trading companies. Transportation companies are then seen as non-trading participants
in the marketing channel. BREYER also states that the channel concept should be
centred on the single product. In intermodal transportation systems, however, goods are to a
large extent general cargo, consisting of many small shipments which makes it hard to define
the specific marketing channels where intermodal transport takes place. Nevertheless,
examples of marketing channels with intermodal transport as an important component have
been identified in this research effort, e.g. swap body transport of pulp between Värö Bruk
outside Göteborg and Northern Italy on behalf of Södra Skogsägarna 53 . Moreover, from a
transportation system point of view, the “product” that has to be moved can be defined simply
as ITUs, hence, placing the consolidation activity outside the system border. This way
around the problem is chosen in most of the modelling efforts presented in this dissertation.
2.4.2 Supply chain management
In logistics research, supply chain management (SCM) has attracted much attention since it
was introduced by OLIVER and WEBBER in 1982. Most literature, however, is written
during the last few years implying that the research field is still in a conceptualising stage.
Hence, much of the debate is focused upon the definition of the concept and its scope but
the approach has also been used for more dedicated studies, e.g. by PROFFITT (1995) who
applies it to multimodal distribution.
In the practical world – and partly also in academia – it seems common to view SCM as
just another word for logistics or the content of distribution channels. Since logistics itself
has various interpretations (COOPER et al., 1997, p. 1) this is obviously not a satisfactory
definition. Instead, the definition used by COOPER et al. is accepted here:
“Supply chain management is the integration of business processes from end user
through original suppliers that provides products, services and information that add
value for customers.”
(COOPER et al., 1997, p. 2)
Hence, SCM should be understood as a wider concept than logistics, but it is still defined in
a somewhat blunt “management” style 54 . This is partly due to the fact that academia in this
53 Applying a transport chain perspective, the mentioned transport commissions are described in detail in
WOXENIUS (1997/a).
54 BECHTEL and JAYARAM (1997, p. 15) further elaborate the question whether SCM is “important in today’s
business environment or simply a “fad” destined to die with other short-lived buzzwords”.
58

case is following business practice and that it is hard to conceptualise a term already watered
down by the mass. The wide span along the chain is indicated by the figure on the
next page.
Later authors have expanded the scope into “dirt-to-dirt”, i.e. from the source of supply to
the point of consumption. This is, however, not new to logistics researchers. Instead, the
new thing about SCM is the scope concerning functions or processes within the companies,
that is the “width” of the chain rather than the “length”.
Figure 2-3
A model showing that supply chain management covers the flow of goods
from supplier through manufacturing and distribution to the end user.
(Source: HOULIHAN, 1992, p. 145). COYLE et al. (1996, p. 8), JONES and
RILEY (1992, p. 88) and OLIVER and WEBBER (1992, p. 67) present similar
figures describing the scope of a supply chain.
SCM follows current business trends of de-emphasising the traditional functional structure
within and between organisations. Consequently, the technical systems view is abandoned
for a process or chain view taking a clear flow perspective. Nevertheless, SCM theory has a
clear relation to classic technical systems theory since it recognises that suboptimisation
occurs if each organisation in the supply chain attempts to optimise its own results rather
than to integrate its goals and activities with other organisations in order to optimise the
results of the chain (COOPER, et al., 1997, p. 3). Also CHRISTOPHER acknowledges the
importance of integrating companies along the chain as he states that:
“The leading-edge companies recognize the fallacy of this conventional approach [to
achieve cost reductions or profit improvement at the expense of their supply partners]
and instead seek to make the supply chain as a whole more competitive through the
value it adds and the costs that it reduces overall. Leading-edge companies have realized
that the real competition is not company against company, but rather supply chain
against supply chain.”
59
(CHRISTOPHER, 1992, p. 14)
This attitude gains further significance as firms, to an increasing extent, co-operate in virtual
corporations. The approach of SCM is found relevant to the present study since it, in

addition to the recognition of competition between chains rather than companies, identifies
that “an integrated supply chain of partners without common ownership must be managed
in a different manner from that of a single monolithic bureaucracy” (COOPER et al., 1997,
p. 3). The applicability of SCM concerns two issues; firstly when treating the intermodal
transport industry as such with companies offering joint services without formal and centralised
leadership and secondly, when regarding the chain character of intermodal transport
services as such.
The European Commission has recently turned to SCM in order to proceed in the work on
increasing the efficiency of European transportation (VANROYE, conference presentation,
1997). It could be a fruitful approach, but according to BJÖRNLAND (conference presentation,
1997), there is a risk involved since with an SCM approach, transportation is sometimes
seen as something that is simply ordered after the structure of the chain is already decided
upon. Benefits from business integration and global sourcing is regarded as so substantial
that the generally low costs of transportation can be neglected. This, by the way,
indicates that transportation is still commonly viewed upon as something practical and trivial
that should be kept from the board meetings.
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The use of a general systems approach is not vital for understanding and describing the current
production system characterised by technological uniformity and direct connections
between large terminals. Attaining knowledge of the whole intermodal transportation system,
however, requires the support from general system tools. Yet, the acute need for such
tools arise when trying to understand how the future intermodal transportation system can
capture new markets. Hence, the frame of reference outlined in this chapter is found suitable
for addressing the question how intermodal transport can meet its changing environment
and compete over shorter distances through a transition into a pattern of interconnected
small-scale network modules.
Modelling intermodal transportation systems as pure technical systems with a hierarchically
connected set of components lacking both own intelligence and will is a dramatic
simplification, but it is sometimes necessary in order to understand and communicate the
character of the system. For static descriptions and more specific analyses at lower system
levels, such a view can also be successfully utilised if the obvious limitations are kept in
mind. The systems design tools described in section 2.2.1 are obvious to most engineers
and the approach has been used in the analyses in chapters 5, 6 and 7 as well as in
WOXENIUS (1997/a). CHURCHMAN’s systems approach has been a more formal influence
on this research work and in section 4.1.2 intermodal transport is conceptually modelled,
using his approach to system modelling and that model has been the leading star for
several of the more specific analyses in chapters 5, 6 and 7.
60

However, in order to fully understand and explain the phenomenon intermodal transport,
other complementing systems perspectives are needed. A network approach is obviously
suitable for studying the way trains and lorries are operated spatially, but also for studying
the complex interactions between the actors involved. The “hard” side of the network approach
is used when outlining the train traffic patterns in section 4.2.1 and further in the
analyses in chapters 6 and 7. The “soft” side of the network approach is used extensively in
the licentiate thesis where the industrial network is elaborated, but the basic terminology of
the Uppsala school of thought – actors, activities and resources – is used throughout the
dissertation. The approach is specifically useful in the discussions on technology implementation
barriers in section 5.1 and on how to overcome the barrier effects in section 5.2.
Taking a channel or chain perspective, finally, allows the analyst to delimit the system
along the actual path of a consignment without directly paying attention to other flows. The
approach is used in the transport industry in order to simplify if not the physical flows yet
the understanding of the flows and the internal responsibility. The perspective is here used
mainly in an article on information systems (WOXENIUS, 1997/a), but the fact that intermodal
transport is a chain of subsequent activities is highlighted in several sections. The
technical, network and channel/chain characters of transportation systems are further elaborated
in the proceeding chapters.
61

3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Systems (2)
Transportation systems
Intermodal transportation systems (4)
Actors Activities Resources (5)
Transshipment
technologies (6)
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies (7)
A particular small-scale concept (8)
There is a significant step between the theoretical
framework of systems theory and the application
intermodal transport. Hence, before applying the
general systems approaches onto intermodal
transport, it is worthwhile to first narrow the focus
to the research field of transportation and search it
for semi-manufactured models. The division
between systems perspectives – technical, network
and channel/chain – outlined in the preceding
chapter is used while selecting conceptual models with the distinction that they should be
suitable for adaptation for studying intermodal transportation systems. Hence, also this
chapter aims at establishing the scientific framework of this research effort.
After an introduction that puts the scientific field of transportation – and thus also this research
effort – into a disciplinary perspective, the rendering in this chapter is limited to the
presentation and evaluation of conceptual models 55 neglecting the huge masses of operations
research models. Much has been said – and will be said – about the usefulness of such
mathematical models in the transportation research field. I have no intention of contributing
to that debate here, but admit that I confess to the group of researchers that are not too impressed
with the outcome of such mathematical studies. Furthermore, I maintain the standpoint
from section 1.4 that the research questions should originate from thorough knowledge
of the object of study rather than from know-ledge of methods.
3.1 THE SCIENTIFIC FIELD OF TRANSPORTATION
Transportation and the neighbouring – and to some extent overlapping – field of logistics
are traditionally of a multi-disciplinary nature. With just a slight difference in research
questions, the fields are examined following vastly different paradigms and scientific ideals.
The informal division of research questions also differs between countries and academic
faculties. This is especially apparent in logistics, that in Sweden is dealt with at the
universities of technology and partly at the business schools while it in many countries is a
subject “reserved” for business schools. From an engineering perspective, transportation is
then regarded as closely related to urban and traffic planning rather than to the mobility
55 A conceptual model is here defined as a graphic depiction of a real system presented for the purpose of
increased understanding of the real system or for defining which part of the system that is under study. A model
allowing to be manipulated, normally in a computer environment, is called a working model. If not specified differently,
by model in this dissertation is meant a conceptual model.
63

market it is intended to serve. Moreover, transportation researchers have traditionally emphasised
passenger travel from a public sector perspective while logistics researchers have
emphasised goods transport from a private sector perspective (SJÖSTEDT, et al., 1997/b).
The traditional division between transportation and logistics is by SJÖSTEDT depicted as
the transport diagonal shown in the figure below.
Figure 3-1
The transport diagonal separating transportation and logistics.
(Source: worked up from SJÖSTEDT, 1996, p. 72).
The figure is found very illustrative as it puts logistics and transportation in a scientific,
professional and institutional context. In the increasingly complex society, however, both
logistics and transportation must be treated in an interdisciplinary way and too much attention
should not be paid to the traditionally “reserved” parts of the research field. In a text on
elements of transportation engineering, YU (1982, p. 5) states that a broad approach to
transportation is essential and that contributions to problem solving must be taken from all
branches of engineering as well as the related social sciences of sociology, economics and
politics. SJÖSTEDT (1996, p. 72 and et al. 1997/b, p. 3) also argues that logistics and
transportation are likely to start sharing views and scientific approaches.
In this dissertation, a holistic approach to the transportation field is taken and the research
could be regarded as being on the diagonal in the figure above. The focus on freight and my
industrial engineering background leads to the logistics side of the diagonal, but the perspective
of the transport operators rather than that of the shippers, brings the research back
onto the diagonal. It should be stated, though, that the definitions of transportation and logistics
used here are slightly different from those used by SJÖSTEDT.
Basic literature on transportation systems generally take a theoretical, mathematical or operations
research approach (e.g. BAYLISS, 1988; DAGANZO, 1997; KNEAFSEY, 1975;
LUMSDEN, 1995 and MANHEIM, 1979), a geographical approach (e.g. TOLLEY and
64

TURTON, 1995) or a rather practical or descriptive approach (e.g. COYLE et al., 1994;
ENGSTRÖM and BERGENDAHL, 1974; FAULKS, 1990; FLOOD et al., 1984; LIEB,
1985; LUMSDEN, 1989 and 1998; MOSSMAN and MORTON, 1957; SJÖGREN, 1957
and STEWART-DAVID, 1980). Yet, some authors manage to take a more comprehensive
approach where theory and practice meet (e.g. TARKOWSKI et al., 1995).
Nevertheless, this chapter aims at surveying the literature for conceptual models useful for
analysing the intermodal transportation system and not for commenting the general content
of the literature. The rendering is based upon the findings in the preceding chapter about
systems. Consequently, the outline follows the system characters: technical, network, and
channel/chain respectively.
3.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A TECHNICAL
PERSPECTIVE
In this section conceptual transportation models are described from a systems analytic perspective,
generally in the sense of depicting transportation systems as a set of interrelated
components. The question noted in section 2.2.2, concerning whether an intermodal transport
system is an independent one, is also applicable at this system level. Here, the problem
is acknowledged and kept in mind when modelling intermodal transport as a closed system,
while complementing with models regarding intermodal transport as an open system.
In different versions 56 , SJÖSTEDT and co-authors have presented models for transportation
systems based upon the concepts of transport, traffic and mobility. The current version of
the model contains four structural elements and four interactions – also called sub-systems
– between these elements as shown in the figure below. The involvement of structural elements
is the reason for the classification here, but the model also contains some network
and chain characteristics.
56 The different versions are described in SJÖHOLM and SJÖSTEDT (1992), SJÖSTEDT (1996 and 1997),
SJÖSTEDT (Ed.) (1994) and SJÖSTEDT et al. (1997/a and 1997/b). For the history of the model and comments
upon the different versions, see section 3.1.1 in the licentiate thesis.
65

Consignments
Transport
Vehicles
Vessels
Accessibility
Facilities
Activities
Land use
Traffic
Transport
infrastructure
Figure 3-2
A freight version of SJÖSTEDT’s model of land use, accessibility, transport
and traffic. (Source: worked up from SJÖSTEDT et al., 1997/a).
In principle, the model can be applied to any kind of flow, but the rendering here is limited
to flows of goods. The elements and processes are shortly commented upon below, based
upon SJÖSTEDT et al. 1997/a and 1997/b.
Activities are considered to drive the system but are not strictly part of the model, thus depicted
as perpendicular to the plane containing the other parts of the model.
Starting from right below, transport infrastructure denotes manmade and permanent facilities
that make movement of consignments possible, e.g. roads, tracks, navigable passages
and air routes. Likewise, the term infrastructure encompasses at least the gates or entrances
of buildings. Facilities are designed and equipped for serving as the location of activities.
The entrance to the facility marks the interface between the facility and the infrastructure.
Consignments and the goods they consist of are used when carrying out many of the activities.
Consignments need to be moved to the location of the facility where they are part of an
activity.
Vehicles and vessels are the tools used for satisfying movement of consignments. Land use
is the dedication of locations for certain facilities and activities in relation to the infrastructure.
Accessibility is here used as a measure for the ability to reach a facility for picking up
or delivering a consignment. Thus accessibility is similar to the concepts of mobility and
movement, but the latter ones merely denote the ability to send a consignment in any direction
and not particularly in the desired direction.
Transport is the activity facilitating a desired change of positions of consignments, i.e. accessibility.
The positions before and after a transport are normally modelled as two nodes in
a network, hence connecting SJÖSTEDT’s model with the physical network perspective of
systems. If the change of position does not involve a change of location, the term handling
is used.
66

Traffic, finally, is the movement of vehicles or vessels needed for transporting the consignments
to the desired address, thus a necessary evil in order to achieve something good.
Traffic does not necessarily coincide with transport, since the vehicles often need to be repositioned
between loaded trips.
Traditionally the choice of vehicles and vessels limits the scope of the system under study
which is the reason for referring to the whole system as the transportation system and to the
scientific field as transportation. Switching to logistics as the scientific field, means that
focus is shifted from a structural perspective centered around vehicles/vessels and physical
infrastructure, to a dynamic perspective focused around accessibility and the spatial pattern
of addresses. Conceptually there is a close relationship between studies of accessibility and
supply chain management (as described in section 2.4.2), thus adding a chain perspective to
the model.
This research clearly dwells in the upper part of the model, focusing the character of the
supply in terms of vehicles/vessels, the traffic process and the physical infrastructure.
However, in order to be specific on those matters also the demand in terms of accessibility
and the character of the consignments has to be treated.
The theory developed by SJÖSTEDT has for obvious reasons influenced this research significantly.
The main benefit to the present study has been the strict and logical terminology
that is often lacking in transportation literature. In addition to the core model, SJÖSTEDT
has presented an extended version which is elaborated in section 3.3.2 and illustrated with
an intermodal application in section 4.2.2.
3.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A NETWORK
PERSPECTIVE
Most models presented in this section describe the physical parts of transportation systems,
e.g. infrastructure, terminals and vehicles, although some comments on models of organisational
networks are given. Nevertheless, the bulk of the models taking a network perspective
to transportation systems are of the operations research type that is neglected here.
3.3.1 Networks of links and nodes
Freight transportation systems are characterised by the successive movement of goods between
supply and demand points, in transportation theory usually denoted as nodes. In scientific
writing nodes are also referred to as vertices (e.g. BJURKLO, 1991, pp. 21-22,
SJÖHOLM and SJÖSTEDT, 1992, p. 8, TOLLEY and TURTON, 1995, p. 53). Activities
such as consolidation, sorting, storing and transshipment between vehicles as well as between
transportation modes are performed at nodes. For each transport commission, each
67

node can be defined as a source, a sink or a transshipment node and the goods flow is always
stemmed at nodes. Links representing transport and movement activities connect the
nodes (LUMSDEN, 1995).
A transport network can be modelled by connecting all sources and sinks with a number of
links through transshipment nodes. By restricting the view to the demand for a single transport
commission without considering the actual path, a transport relation can be defined by
connecting the source and the sink directly, i.e. short-circuiting the network. The figure below
shows a transport network and an example of a corresponding transport relation.
Legend:
Node
Link
Transport relation
Figure 3-3
A transport network and a transport relation. (Source: worked up from
LUMSDEN, 1995, p. 23).
Links and nodes are strictly abstract terms used for modelling. In the real system, links are
served by vehicles and vessels using infrastructure. For the physical unit corresponding to
nodes, the word terminal is used although the mode-specific terms airport, port and station
are more common in colloquial speech.
MANHEIM (1979) is one of the many authors that model transportation systems more specifically
based upon nodes and links. As in this dissertation, MANHEIM identifies the need
for several different perspectives when analysing transportation systems, but the reason for
changing basic terminology several times in the widely known textbook is probably pedagogic.
The network perspective is the main one taken, and the rendering is thus placed here.
First, MANHEIM (1979, p. 164) notes that the components of a transportation system are
spatially spread and interact in course of time. The structure of a transportation system is
thus temporal in its character which is important to keep in mind. The first description of a
transportation system is presented in a table where its major components are identified as
load-carrying system, guideway, transfer facilities, maintenance system and management
system. MANHEIM also divides each of the major components into several sub-systems
and gives examples of each sub-system. This introductory model is clearly of a classic
technical character, although not presented as a graphical model.
68

MANHEIM then defines a transportation system as a set of consecutive links, thus taking a
chain perspective. The links are defined as movement links or transfer links, but he also
bases the terminology upon the links’ places in the transport chain and if vehicles are used.
Hence, he classifies links as a vehicle link, a non-vehicle link (i.e. pipelines and conveyor
belts) or a walk link (in urban transit systems) as well as a collection link, a line-haul link or
a distribution link. A transportation system depicted with the latter perspective is shown in
the figure below.
Figure 3-4 A transportation system. (Source: MANHEIM, 1979, p. 164).
Denoting the resources behind the links facilities gives the foundation to a network model
as shown in the figure below.
Figure 3-5 A network of facilities. (Source: MANHEIM, 1979, p. 169).
Later in the book (p. 303), however, MANHEIM defines a link as “the facility over which
vehicles may move” and thus giving less meaning to the above model. Like in the modelling
presented in the introduction to this section, he also identifies the difference between
the path followed by a vehicle (i.e. the route) and the potential set of flows specified by the
origins and destinations of demand. Instead of transport relations, though, MANHEIM denotes
the latter phenomenon just market.
For detailed transportation network analyses, MANHEIM develops the thinking into dividing
the activity system (i.e. all human activities – also referred to as the socio-economic
system) into non-overlapping regions and zones. According to the level and purpose of
analysis, the activity system can be divided into a different number of regions and zones.
MANHEIM also introduces the conception of nodes for network analysis, however used in
a more restrictive way than above. Some nodes simply represent the junctions of several
69

links and have no properties associated with them. However, if a junction has characteristics
that influence flows – MANHEIM gives the example of an intermodal terminal – that
specific facility is represented not as a node but explicitly as a link. Thus nodes are purely
geometric constructs, as seen in the graphical definition below.
Figure 3-6 Transportation network definitions. (Source: MANHEIM, 1979, p. 471).
Some nodes represent the points at which flows enter or leave the network, called zone centroids.
Despite the name, they do not have to be placed in the middle of the zones which
seems rational as it is hard to enter a zone in the middle, except for the air mode.
MANHEIM argues that the concept centroid has a historical origin. The theory is clearly
useful in this dissertation as it illustrates the modular design of transport networks advocated
here. However, the scope and terminology is differently applied. MANHEIM’s region
is comparable to the European intermodal system, where the zones are called network
modules and the zone centroids are referred to as gateways.
The main benefit of using the abstract concepts of links and nodes instead of, for instance,
tracks and stations, is that the rendering can be made independent of transportation modes.
The theory is thus well suited for intermodal transport studies. Concerning the difference
between the terminologies used by LUMSDEN and MANHEIM, so important to this study
– if an intermodal terminal should be denoted a link or a node – LUMSDEN’s node is used
since that makes the network models more clear. The framework is used in sections 4.3, 5.1
and 5.2.
3.3.2 Transportation systems as actor networks
As a complement to his model of structural elements and processes (see section 3.2),
SJÖSTEDT presents a general framework model with ten actor categories, i.e. applying an
actor network perspective 57 . In the conceptual model, the actors are placed according to
57 The actor network model starts out from an earlier version of his model than the one described in section
3.2.
70

whether their main orientation is towards vehicles, towards infrastructure or towards transport
service demand. The extended network model is shown in the figure on the next page.
The obvious advantage of this image is to connect actors to markets, systems/processes and
elements. The basic image allows the analyst to draw arrows denoting – as SJÖSTEDT defines
it – market and networked relationships. The model also allows for the introduction of
further elements such as information systems and logistics channels. SJÖSTEDT illustrates
the intended use of this model by a set of applications to industries and metaphorical concepts,
one of which is intermodal transport as is described in section 4.2.2.
Figure 3-7 SJÖSTEDT’s actor network model. (Source: SJÖSTEDT (Ed.), 1994,
p. 13).
In her dissertation, HERTZ (1993) applies the Uppsala school of thought on actor networks
(see section 2.3.2) to the internationalisation process of three Swedish forwarder groups.
An outspoken dynamic perspective is taken while presenting the “domino effect” (ibid., p.
271) that is based upon the fact that the networks of forwarders in Europe are built up
around bilateral agreements between companies. When one company in such a network is
bought by – or starts co-operation with – a company within another network, the whole industry
is forced to restructure.
Hierarchically, HERTZ (ibid., p. 66) defines a network level, a net level and a (production)
systems level. She sees the network as the whole transportation industry, the nets as networked
co-operations between companies within the industry and the systems as dyads of
companies controlling and co-ordinating the “single system”. An outside “objective” perspective
on the whole transportation industry is taken at the network level while the per-
71

spective at the net level is limited to a focal company and its business relations, i.e. a subjective
perspective. At the systems level the perspective is the production system based
upon the bilateral co-operation between two companies. A graphical model of the network
and net levels is shown below.
Figure 3-8 Illustration of a net of transport companies. (Source: HERTZ, 1993,
p. 68).
Besides the conceptual modelling, HERTZ (ibid. pp. 20-23 and Appendix 2) also forwards
a good verbal description of the European transport industry. Still, her application of the
Uppsala school of thought is rather orthodox, focusing the business relations in the network
rather than the physical resources in the production system. However, she changes perspectives
to geographical networks in a part of the dissertation (e.g. between p. 238 and 239).
The Uppsala school of thought is applied more specifically to the intermodal transportation
system in section 4.2.3 and in the licentiate thesis.
3.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A CHANNEL OR
CHAIN PERSPECTIVE
Networks for telecommunication, power supply and irrigation all depend on an unbroken
chain of wires or pipes. Also the links of land-based infrastructure need to be connected at
all times. The intermodal freight transportation systems using the infrastructure, on the
other hand, is not a continuously interlinked chain when statically looked upon. In a dynamical
perspective, however, the chain character is obvious with several consecutive activities
needed for moving goods from consignor to consignee.
The relatively early development of the networks for power supply and telecommunication
and the substantial economies of scale implied a development towards large monopoly networks
rather than competing chains. Also the railway industry in Europe eventually devel-
72

oped into national monopoly networks, but these have always been challenged by competing
road or inland waterway services at certain transport relations. Consequently,
BUKOLD (1996) argues that the chain character of freight transportation systems is
stronger than that of other Large Technical Systems (see section 2.3.1):
”More markedly than in the other examples [networks for power supply and telecommunication],
freight transport is based on various types of chains which, moreover,
frequently compete with one another (e.g. the rail-based transport chain versus the
inland shipping based transport chain). Shippers (from industry or trade), or the forwarders
that they have commissioned, position themselves at the nodal points between
the alternative chains. The dynamics in freight transport frequently depends on the development
of these upstream and downstream links in the chain.”
(BUKOLD, 1996, p. 67, translated by himself in E-mail message, 1997)
In this section, transportation systems are viewed upon as were they made up from consecutive
activities or components. The rendering starts with theories and models describing
the flows present in transportation systems and continues with the metaphorical concept
pipeline.
3.4.1 Flows of goods, system resources, information and
capital
Flow is a central conception in all transportation research and two kinds of flows are of particular
interest when studying freight transport networks. The goods flow is directed one
way 58 from the consignor to the consignee while the resource flow is a two-way flow, ideally
matched with another goods flow directed in the opposite direction. The two-way nature
stems from the fact that transport operators usually allocate their movable resources,
i.e. vehicles and ITUs, to a few terminals, also referred to as bases, from which they start
their transport commissions. Consequently, the goods flow refers to transport in
SJÖSTEDT’s terms (see section 3.2) and the resource flow refers to traffic.
In reality, however, the movable resources often have to be redirected within the network in
order to obtain return goods. ITUs and rail wagons move more freely since they, contrary to
road vehicles, do not employ drivers that for obvious reasons are more tightly connected to
their bases. Locomotives and ships generally constitute such large investments and carry
such large operating costs that they are operated regardless of base. The fact that resources
58 This constitutes a significant difference between flows of goods and passengers – passengers generally
demand return transport, thus facilitating balanced flows, at least when aggregated over a longer period of
time.
73

have to be repositioned clearly adds to the complexity of transportation systems, not least in
intermodal ones.
Information flows and financial flows constitute complementary flows. Information does
not only flow between consignor and consignee; but is also required for co-ordinating the
different flows. TARKOWSKI et al. (1995, p. 119) see this as vertical status information,
which is shown in the figure below. The terminology used by TARKOWSKI et al. as well
as by KANFLO and LUMSDEN (1991) – who also present a model on flows in transportation
systems – is slightly different from the one used here.
Consignor
Fincancial flow
Goods flow
Information flow
Transport companies
Consignee
Resource flow
Figure 3-9
Four flows related to a transport commission. The vertical arrows denote
status information. (Source: worked up from TARKOWSKI et al., 1995, p.
119 and from KANFLO and LUMSDEN, 1991).
Since flows are so central to transportation studies, the concept is used throughout the dissertation,
but more specifically in sections 4.2.1 and 4.3. The implications of the fact that
resources have to be redirected is also further dealt with in section 5.1.3. Information and
financial flows are not specifically treated in this dissertation, although the former flow is
the issue dealt with in WOXENIUS (1997/a).
3.4.2 The pipeline concept
As mentioned in section 2.4, the pipeline concept may be considered as similar to the supply
chain concept, but regarded as slightly more focused on logistics and transportation due
to the stronger orientation towards physical flows.
FARMER and PLOOS VAN AMSTEL (1991, p. 7) argue that pipeline management is
about recognising the dependence between system components and balancing the flows in
company chains for system-wide effectiveness, which is also recognised by COYLE et al.
(1996, pp. 216-218). The metaphor with transport pipelines is appropriate, since these necessarily
have a balance between input and output of oil or other incompressible liquids. Intermediate
buffers are also minimised. In fact, already FORRESTER (1961, p. 138 and
155) uses the term supply pipelines for modelling and balancing production-distribution
systems. Despite the clear metaphor and the early definition in a systems context, some
74

confusion has been added by blunt management literature. It gets especially confusing
when CHRISTOPHER (1992, p. 109) names a chapter “Managing the global pipeline”
since both pipe and line intuitively are understood as one-dimensional contrary to global
that is a two-dimensional or perhaps even three-dimensional concept.
FARMER and PLOOS VAN AMSTEL present the scope of the pipeline as a model with
three segments – loading, transit and receiving – and four measuring points before, between
and after the segments of the chain. The model has a clear transportation focus as seen in
the figure below.
Figure 3-10
Pipeline segments and measuring points. (Source: FARMER and PLOOS
VAN AMSTEL, 1991, p. 28).
TARKOWSKI et al. (1995, p. 143 and 304) use pipeline as a synonymous term to logistics
channel and they emphasise the metaphor with the pipe in their graphical model shown on
the next page.
The scope of the conceptual model is wider than the transportation system, but the model is
forwarded in a transportation context, since it is used as foundation for discussing the information
support needed in transportation systems.
Supplier
Inventory/
Raw materials
Internal
storage/
Transport
Production
External
storage/
Transport
Distribution
to
consumer
Consumer
Figure 3-11
An example of a “pipeline”. (Source: worked up from TARKOWSKI et al.,
1995, p. 304).
75

Also HULTKRANTZ et al. (1997, p. 289) deal with pipelines and transportation systems
and note that once a traffic line or a transport facility is established, it could be used as a
tube or a pipeline for the flow of goods and the flow of services. HULTKRANTZ et al. develop
the concept into an approach on how to route disparate goods flows of a general
cargo network into dedicated pipelines or channels for better efficiency, thus connecting the
terms pipeline and network. The approach is based upon the concepts of production lines
and business lines as is seen in the figure below.
Dispatching offices
Receiving offices
Business line A-C
Production line 1: A-B
Production line 2: B-C
A
B
C
A
Business line A-D
Production line 3: A-D
D
Figure 3-12
Definitions of business and production lines. The business lines are A-C
and A-D while the production lines are A-B (because of the terminal), B-C
and A-D. The A-D production line in this example is identical to the business
line. (Source: HULTKRANTZ et al., 1997, p. 292).
The division between business and production lines is similar to the division between administrative
and physical sub-systems used by JENSEN (1990, see section 4.1.1) and the
division between administrative system and production system is repeatedly used in this
dissertation, for instance in the synthesised model in section 4.4.
There are obvious advantages of viewing transportation systems as chains or pipelines
comprising consecutive activities, and the approach will be used for modelling intermodal
transportation systems in section 4.3.
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
As for general systems in the previous chapter, transportation system models are here categorised
as taking a general technical systems perspective, a network perspective or a channel/chain
perspective. The two chapters together constitute the theoretical framework of
this research effort.
76

If one of the perspectives would have been superior to the others in all aspects, there would
be no need for the division nor for presenting the inferior models. However, the complex
and multi-disciplinary field of transportation is best researched when adopting different
perspectives towards the same problem. This is also identified by MANHEIM (1979)
whose book is very comprehensive and one of the classics in the field of transportation systems
analysis. The fact that he forwards several different system models further indicates
the need for taking different perspectives. HERTZ (1993), TARKOWSKI et al. (1995),
TOLLEY and TURTON (1995) and YU (1982), and are examples of other authors stating
the need for adopting different perspectives towards transportation problems. Also YIN
(1994, p. 92) states that taking various perspectives on the same data set – by YIN denoted
theory triangulation – enhances the quality of studies.
In the next chapter, the three approaches are further particularised and tested against the
application intermodal transport.
77

4 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Systems (2)
Transportation systems (3)
Intermodal transportation systems
Actors Activities Resources (5)
Transshipment
technologies (6)
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies (7)
A particular small-scale concept (8)
Narrowing the focus to intermodal transportation
systems – that should be understood as a sub-set to
transportation systems due to the stricter definition –
implies that the hierarchical level constituting the
research object is reached. Hence, the own conceptual
modelling is emphasised at this level and the empirical
base appears more clearly.
The conceptual framework presented in the last chapter
is rather independent of transportation mode and can easily be applied to transportation systems
employing more than one transportation mode. For more restricted analyses of intermodal
transport issues, dedicated tools taking the specific and complicated phenomena into
account are, however, needed. The complexity of intermodal transportation systems is especially
apparent when addressing technical change issues, taking the industrial organisation
into account. The own modelling presented here, however, pays heed to the advice
"Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler!" that is attributed to Albert EINSTEIN.
The theoretical foundation described in the previous two chapters is here deepened by presenting
conceptual intermodal transport models divided upon the three systems perspectives:
classic/technical, network, and channel/chain. As frequently mentioned in the preceding
chapters, these three perspectives should not be seen as competing with each other but
as complementary. Each has its advantages and shortcomings and by “picking the pearls”, a
suitable framework for analysing different intermodal transport issues is arrived at. However,
as the approaches are somewhat related, the different applications end up in rather
similar analyses and models. This might be apprehended as reiterations, but the advantages
and the significance of the different models are motivated throughout the chapter.
Some of the presented models are reproduced from literature by other authors while others
are modelled, using a single systems approach from chapter 2 and yet others are modelled
on basis of the general rendering in chapters 2 and 3. The empirical base for the models is
presented in sections 1.1 and 1.2. Finally, a synthesised model using all three approaches is
arrived at.
78

4.1 THE TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE
Viewing the intermodal transportation system as a pure technical system 59 is, as discussed
in sections 2.2.2 and 2.5, clearly an oversimplification. Applying the classic/technical systems
approach is nonetheless regarded as a good point of origin for studying intermodal
transport as long as the shortcomings are acknowledged and as long as other approaches are
used as complements. The main advantage is that the hierarchical modelling allows for reducing
a complex reality to a system model capable of communicating an increased understanding
of the phenomenon intermodal transport. It is especially well suited for communication
between engineers, since the modelling can be done using a language and logical
reasoning familiar to them.
In this section, three models are presented. The first one, presented by JENSEN (1990), distinguishes
between the administrative and the physical sub-systems which is regarded as a
very useful move when analysing intermodal transport. The second model is an application
of CHURCHMAN’s systems approach (as described in section 2.2.2) defining the objectives,
environment, components, resources, management, customers, decision-makers and
planners of the system 60 . The third one is another own model based upon the main functions
of the intermodal transport production system; the load-carrying function, the transport
function and the transshipment function.
Some additional models adopting a classic technical perspective towards intermodal transport
have been found during the course of the research, but these are used only as informal
sources of influence. COOPER (1991), for instance, applies PORTER’s model with five
competitive forces (PORTER, 1985) for analysing the intermodal transport industry from a
shipper perspective, but the model has only been a secondary influence on this study since
it is limited to focusing one company within the industry and says nothing about the technical
side of the system. General models covering different aspects of intermodal transport
are also presented by MERTEL et al. (1988), NEA (1992), TFK (1986) and Bundesminister
für Verkehr (1981). However, none of these were found directly applicable to the purpose
of this study.
4.1.1 Dividing between administrative and physical system
A reference model for use in intermodal transport studies is presented by JENSEN (1990,
pp. 40-43). The heart of the model is the division between the physical and the administrative
sub-systems. A further division of a multimodal transportation system in the layers;
59 That is, viewing a system as a set of hierarchically linked components lacking both own intellect and will.
60 CHURCHMAN’s extension with customers, decision-makers and planners addresses the shortcomings of
viewing systems as pure technical ones.
79

physical base, commercial system, management and co-ordination, flow of information and
liability network, is presented by D’ESTE (1996, p. 4). The division presented by JENSEN,
however, is found sufficient for this dissertation and it is regarded as more consistent than
the multi-layer model.
JENSEN identifies two main types of resources within the physical sub-system with the
task of moving goods from consignor to consignee. The first one is equipment in the form
of vehicles, unit loads, handling equipment, terminal buildings and terminal areas. The
other type of resource is the people manning the physical system. JENSEN models the
physical sub-system with a clear chain perspective, but the whole model is more of a classic
system model with interacting parts.
The functions of the administrative sub-system are mainly transport administration and
marketing, i.e. functions on a systems management level. The main resources are consequently
people and information systems.
The general model, shown in the figure on the next page, indicates that the physical subsystem
is closely integrated into the logistics system of the shipper. This is due to the fact
that the unit load can be a user asset and not necessarily a part of the intermodal transport
service and that the stuffing and stripping of the unit load generally is a task for consignors
and consignees respectively. Progress in the information handling field since the report was
written 61 has obviously enabled further integration also of administrative systems.
Separating the physical and the administrative sub-systems is found useful, and this distinction
will be used from now on, although with slightly different denotation as is described in
section 2.4. Most published studies concern either the physical or the administrative subsystem
since they involve different professions as well as research fields. For such specialised
studies, the model is a good point of origin, nonetheless it is considered (and it is intended
to be) rather simple and it has to be complemented with other models for further description
and analysis.
61 The 1990 edition is actually a translation of a version in Swedish published in 1987.
80

Figure 4-1 JENSEN’s intermodal transport model. (Source: JENSEN, 1990, p. 43).
4.1.2 CHURCHMAN’s systems approach applied to intermodal
transport
The first step of an analysis according to CHURCHMAN’s systems approach is to define
the objectives of the system. At its highest level, the objective of the intermodal transportation
system is defined as transportation of ITUs from consignor to consignee at a high service
level, yet with as little resource consumption as possible. As a result of this objective,
the profit ought to be maximised with maximum income to be shared between the components
of the system. However, the division of profits is always a delicate task, and the actors
in this system might have another main source of income and could therefore afford to
have other goals for their participation. Moreover, as many of the resources are shared with
other systems, it is difficult to measure the costs incurred. The system objective is still accepted
in this brief analysis.
The next step is to define the system environment. The European intermodal transportation
system is in this dissertation described by four main activities: road haulage, terminal handling,
rail haulage and management, planning and marketing activities. At certain transport
81

elations, the activity ferry crossing has to be added. Stowage of goods in ITUs is performed
by the shipper or by the forwarder if the goods are grouped in a general cargo terminal.
In this analysis, this is assumed to take place outside the system and thus belongs to
the environment. The boundary in the transport chain aspect is therefore located at the
points where the ITUs are stuffed before an intermodal transport or when a decision on
empty positioning is taken. The other borderline of the system is accordingly located at the
point where the ITUs are stripped.
The demand for transport services is obviously affected by pricing and the quality of the
transport offered, but demand is assumed to be part of the environment since it is not formally
controlled by the system. The model would have no meaning if the customers were
placed inside the system. It therefore follows that the resource ITU is placed outside the
system and is regarded as a part of the transport object. JENSEN (1990, see section 4.1.1)
makes no firm delimitation in this regard, but says that the ITUs might be inside or outside
depending on the level of integration between the physical sub-system and the shipper’s
logistics system.
Additional environment factors are political decisions (either of an economic nature such as
subventions and taxes, or legislative such as laws and regulations), infrastructure and competition
from other transportation modes. Competing modes are mainly single-mode road or
rail transportation but to some extent also coastal shipping and barge transportation on
inland waterways. In the long term, the system can affect investments in infrastructure by
demand and due to the fact that the railway administrations in some countries still control
the tracks. However, in the short term and as long as intermodal transport is of moderate
scope compared to single-mode transportation, the infrastructure is regarded as environment.
Even political decisions can be influenced in the long run by means of lobbying organisations
or media debates; nonetheless the system possesses no formal political control.
The transport and transfer resources are distributed among the main activities above. Control
and planning tools are added as general resources, controlled by certain actors in the
transport chain with links throughout the administrative and production systems. Technology
is considered as part of the resource hardware and is as such placed inside the system
boundary. Accordingly, it must be supplied from outside the system, however not in the
daily course of business, but as investments at certain times.
The term components is here used synonymously with the term actors. The links between
resources and components are shown in the figure below. Both pure ownership links and
operational links, i.e. that a component controls a resource without owning it, exist.
The management of the system is difficult to define since the system is not an organisation
with a formal management. Hence, the relationships between the components in the European
intermodal transportation system are not characterised by direct orders and directives
82

ut through negotiations and by following timetables, with the help of contracts and cooperation
agreements. The resources are not allocated by a superior management but procured
by the components to enable production of the services within their respective area of
responsibility. Forwarders and intermodal transport companies 62 may however be seen as
having a greater managerial role than other actors. With the defined system delimitation
follows that the forwarders themselves are customers as they represent the shippers and
thus exert great influence on the system. The intermodal transport companies have the responsibility
of controlling the behaviour of the system commissioned by the forwarders and
hauliers (the UIRR) as well as the railway administrations (ICF and national container
companies). However, this is made without direct executive power.
The ultimate customers of the system are in the final analysis always the shippers, but according
to the system delimitation, forwarders may also be regarded as customers when
transporting general cargo consolidated into ITUs or when acting on commission for shippers.
According to the discussion above, there are no formal managers and planners at the
highest levels of the system. Direction and planning is instead performed jointly by representatives
of the components. Planning of timetables is carried out by the intermodal transport
companies in co-operation with railway administrations. The basis is the derived demand
for train slots on the tracks, wagon slots in trains and transshipment capacity. The
forwarders may, because of this derived demand, be said to have a planning role. Flexibility
in the area of changing timetables is very limited in the railway sector. This forces the
schedules to be re-negotiated once or twice a year. In order to achieve flexibility, some
slack slots can be reserved.
Forwarders book an ITU slot on a train by contacting the terminal companies and hire a
haulier for the local road haulage, actions that may be called planning activities. The terminal
companies also plan the loading and train formation, but this is seen rather as part of the
regular operation of the company than as pure planning. From this reasoning it follows that
some of the personnel at the forwarders and the intermodal transport companies may be
called planners.
According to CHURCHMAN’s systems approach, a general system description at the intermodal
transportation system level may appear as in the table below.
62 Depending on the transport arrangement, ICF, the national UIRR-companies, national container companies
or other subsidiaries to the railway companies such as Rail Combi AB might play the role of the intermodal
transport company. For further reading about the actor groups, see chapter 4 in the licentiate thesis.
83

Table 4-1
Conclusion of the application of CHURCHMAN’s systems approach to
European intermodal transport.
Objective
Environment
Resources
Components
Management
Customers
Decision-makers
Planners
To transport ITUs from consignor to consignee at a high service
level, yet with the least possible consumption of resources.
The demand for transport services. Effects of political decisions
such as laws, regulations, taxes and subventions. Competing
transportation modes. Infrastructure.
Lorries. Handling equipment at terminals. Railway wagons.
Rail engines. Ferries. Personnel.
Hauliers. Terminal companies. Railway administrations. Ferry
lines. Forwarders. Intermodal transport companies.
Forwarders and intermodal transport companies, although
lacking formal power.
Shippers directly or via forwarders with groupage terminals for
general cargo.
No formal, but nearest are some personnel of forwarders and
intermodal transport companies.
As above, but closer co-operation between personnel at terminal
companies and railway administrations.
The content of the table – especially the relationships between components and resources –
is best explained in a figure, which also coincides with the conceptual modelling purpose of
this chapter. The figure on the next page is a worked up version of figure 3-7 in the licentiate
thesis (p. 58).
CHURCHMAN’s systems approach is regarded as very useful when analysing and describing
the technically and organisationally complex intermodal transportation system. Analysing
the system configuration systematically, thus determining the interactions of the components,
allows for analysing the different parts of the system separately, yet in a systems
context.
84

Infrastructure
Consignor
Haulier
Laws and regulations
Political and economic
decisions
Forwarding agent Combined transport company
Planning- and
Planning- and
control tools
control tools
Terminal
company
Railway
company/ies
P h y s i c a l f l o w
Rail wagons
Terminal
company
Haulier
Consignee
Lorry Terminal Rail engine/s
Rail wagons
Terminal
Lorry
Explanations:
Competing transportation modes
Bold
Components
Normal Resources
Bold underlined Management with decision makers and planners
Italic
Environment
Figure 4-2
Depiction of the results of a systems analysis of European intermodal transport
using CHURCHMAN’s systems approach.
This systems approach has been a clear influence and using it, e.g., in the article SJÖGREN
and WOXENIUS (1994) and the licentiate thesis, has facilitated a deeper understanding of
the intermodal transportation system. The approach is not limited to such wide analyses as
presented above; it also allows for more detailed analyses of demarcated intermodal systems
or single intermodal transport commissions.
4.1.3 Functions in the production system
For specific descriptions of the production system for intermodal transport, a simple model
starting out from the basic functions is found more useful than the wider and more complex
models lined out above. The model has been used in several own publications 63 for introductory
and descriptive purposes and it is used as point of departure for the description of
the production system in section 1.2.2.
Basically, intermodal transport production systems comprise three categories of functions:
a load-carrying function, a transport function and a transshipment function. Although combinations
of functions might constitute one physical resource, the different functions are
definable constituting a model as shown in the figure below.
63 The model has been used in WOXENIUS, 1996; in WOXENIUS et al., 1995/a and 1995/b; and in
WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1994.
85

Consignor
Consignee
Load carrying
function
Transport function
Transshipment function
Figure 4-3
A model of an intermodal system based upon functions in the production
system.
The conceptual system model is applicable to all transportation systems based upon the
transshipment of packed consignments, but in order to be classified as an intermodal transportation
system, the functions of the analysed system must fulfil some basic demands.
Firstly, the load-carrying function must enable consolidation or packing of goods into units
of suitable size and design. Instead of standardising all goods – obviously an impossible
thing to do – the goods are put into standardised boxes facilitating a standardised interface
to other transportation system functions. The size of the boxes is determined by transport
demand structure, by possibilities of efficient transshipment between transportation modes
and, finally, by maximum measurements permitted by the included transportation modes in
the geographical area that the system serves.
Secondly, at least one transshipment operation between transportation modes must be carried
out in order to comply with the intermodal part of the definition.
Thirdly, the transportation modes should not be chosen only for overcoming geographical
hurdles by loading vehicles upon or into each other. Hence, a system is not truly intermodal
if, say, ferries are used for overcoming the Baltic Sea, or Rolling Highway (see section
2.8.1 in the detached appendix) is used for overcoming the Alps.
4.2 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT NETWORKS
Taking a network perspective to intermodal transportation systems is obviously fruitful
when addressing research questions related to the way the vehicles and vessels are operated.
Consequently, the first model presented in this section describes alternative ways of
trafficking intermodal terminals – an approach directly applied in section 6.1 but also central
to section 6.2 and chapters 7 and 8. Otherwise, most modelling concerning intermodal
networks are of the operations research type (e.g. ADJADJIHOUE, 1995, D’ESTE, 1996
and TAVASSZY, 1996) that is not treated here. The other obvious application field is for
analysing how the actors of the industry co-operate. Hence, the other two models are dedicated
to the industry structure.
86

4.2.1 A model of network operation principles
In intermodal discussions, much attention is rightfully paid to the development and utilisation
of transshipment technologies. However, doing this without considering in which way
the terminals are trafficked with trains is not fruitful, since intermodal terminals are designed
to fit certain train operation principles. In this section, five such train operation principles
that are significantly different are outlined and described.
The section is based upon an earlier article 64 and besides a general work up, the main
change is that the term allocated routes has been exchanged for flexible routes. The coauthors
of the first article, Johan HELLGREN and Lars SJÖSTEDT are herewith credited.
The operators’ choice of traffic network design is influenced by geographical and infrastructural
conditions as well as the demand for transport services, in terms of goods flow
and transport quality. The approach is rather universal, for example it can describe distribution
networks of forwarders or, as in this application, systems for intermodal transport. The
principles are presented in the figure on the next page as a fixed example with ten terminals
which illustrates the different routes for transportation between terminal A and terminal B.
Similar ways of representing different network alternatives are presented by, for instance,
BRUNN and KUHN (1992, p. 1378), HELMROTH (1993, pp. 19-27), RUTTEN (1995, pp.
19-43), TARKOWSKI et al. (1995, pp. 158-166 and 203-205) and TOLLEY and TURTON
(1995, p. 25 and 79) and a purely verbal description in an intermodal context by ENGELS
(1993, p. 21-22).
The theory is based upon the assumption that a sufficient infrastructure enables direct connection
between all terminals in the system. It is then up to the operator to choose which
routes to use. In the application to intermodal transport, the dots and circles represent transshipment
terminals. An additional road haulage is needed in all cases – the discussed traffic
solutions only describe the rail-based part of the total transportation system. The dots along
the route might constitute marshalling points or gateways where ITUs are transshipped between
trains. The use of gateways is a coming trend with the purpose of integrating different
network modules without restricting the possibilities of optimisation, to the common
preconditions. Also empty positioning of wagons can be decreased by transferring ITUs
instead of marshalling wagons.
64 WOXENIUS et al., 1994, appended to the licentiate thesis.
87

Direct
connection
Corridor
Hub-andspoke
Fixed
routes
Flexible
routes*
A
A
A
A
A
1
2
3
B
, Terminals
B
* Only some of the possible links are shown
B
B
Links used in transport A to B
Other links in the network
B
Main line
Satellite line
Figure 4-4 Five different traffic patterns for transport from A to B.
In the direct connection alternative, there is a direct transport relation between A and B.
The timetable is not dependent upon other transport assignments and can easily be tailormade
for the customer as long as there is spare capacity in the rail network. In this solution
there is a high degree of flexibility with regard to time planning.
The transport corridor is a design with frequent connections along a corridor line and short
feeder services between terminals on the corridor and satellite terminals 65 . The transport
flows are grouped at the terminals on the corridor line. In this example, connection B is on
the corridor line and terminal A is a satellite terminal. This means that the short-line transport
from A to the nearest terminal on the corridor line is followed by a transport along the
corridor.
In the hub-and-spoke solution, one terminal is selected as hub and all transports pass
through this terminal, even when sender and receiver are situated close to each other and
far from the hub. Rational handling at the hub and good utilisation of vehicles compensate
for the longer transport distances. There is a freedom in time planning as transports to and
from the hub are frequent and not dependent on other transports. If there are no transport
time restrictions, a high utilisation can be accomplished as goods can be stored at the hub
until the capacity of a train can be fully utilised.
65 Short feeder trains to privately owned satellite terminals are advocated, among others by ENGELS (1993, p.
18) for solving capacity problems at main terminals.
88

When fixed routes are used, the operator has decided to use routes, which are operated at a
fixed schedule, with connections to other routes at fixed terminals. In contrast to the huband-spoke
solution, many terminals are used as transshipment points and the haulage is organised
as loops or separate links. Terminal handling is not necessary at every terminal on
the route – usually only a part of the load is handled. The routes don’t have to have common
terminals; the system can be organised as two pick up/delivery areas with one connection
between the respective main terminals. The load plan is crucial as the loading of the
vehicle, train or ship must enable handling goods of current interest at all terminals. When a
train is filled, the routes can be short-circuited at any point and an additional train must
back up.
The maximum degree of freedom is possible in the flexible routes design. Routes are dynamically
allocated in real time as a function of actual demand as reflected by bookings.
Direct connections between all terminals are possible if there are sufficient goods to be
transported between their end points. The operator can choose many different routes between
A and B and transports are planned by heuristical methods or optimised with operational
analysis tools. Information about current transport demand is crucial in this planning
process along with the ability to change train timetable with short notice.
The presented traffic patterns are used in different existing transportation systems. These
are seldom downright applications of a single design but the main features can usually be
identified. The table on the next page shows some real world applications.
This approach to the traffic system of intermodal transport is further elaborated and used in
the whole of chapter 6, in chapter 8, in section 9.1 and in the detached appendix.
Table 4-2
Examples of the different traffic design principles.
Application
Passenger
transport
Cargo
transport
Rail cargo
transport
Direct
connection
Taxi
Full lorryload
services
Specialised
systemtrains
Traffic design principles
Corridor
Hub-andspoke
Fixed routes
Japanese US domestic Urban public
“Shinkansen”
airline traffic, transport
French TGV
systems
Transports
on inland
waterways
US class 1
Railroads
and shortlines
Air transport of
express cargo
Wagonload
with large
marshalling
yards
Forwarders’
network for
general cargo
Classic
general cargo
services
Flexible
routes
Airport
limousine
service
Part-load
lorry
services
Old wagonload
with
marshalling
operations
89

4.2.2 The model of elements, processes and actors applied to
intermodal transport
As described in section 3.3.2, SJÖSTEDT (Ed., 1994) has developed his model of logistic
elements and processes (see section 3.2) to include market and actor relationships. The
model is illustrated with a number of applications to real world transportation systems, of
which one is intermodal transport as seen in the figure below.
Figure 4-5
SJÖSTEDT’s actor network model applied to intermodal transport. (Source:
SJÖSTEDT (Ed.), 1994, p. 48).
The term logistic platform denotes break points where shippers co-operate locally and regionally
to consolidate goods in order to concentrate flows (SJÖSTEDT (Ed.), 1994, p. 45)
as is elaborated by HELMROTH (1993, p. 4) and SJÖHOLM and SJÖSTEDT (1992, p.
16).
The model is regarded as useful for mapping market and networked relationships and for
explaining the complexity of the system. The model is also one of few that take political
bodies into account directly in the model.
90

4.2.3 The network approach applied to intermodal transport
In its primary application, the network approach is used for analyses of dynamic changes in
marketing and purchasing relationships 66 as well as in technological development. As the
modelling in this section is limited to a static description, the full potential of the theories
cannot be shown. However, the presented model allows for further development encompassing
also the dynamics of the intermodal transport industry.
The conceptions of activities, resources and actors is a good starting point to any industrial
structure analysis. As stated in section 2.3.2, these conceptions are not exclusive findings of
marketing network research. Used in a single network model, however, the merit is dedicated
to the Swedish researchers of the Uppsala school of thought. The three methodological
analyses of activities, resources and actors are used for creating a graphical depiction of
intermodal transport.
In an activity analysis, an intermodal transportation system can be described by six activity
categories: road haulage, terminal handling, rail haulage, supporting activities, transport
arrangement, and marketing to shippers. Supporting activities refer to utility creating services
at the terminals such as inspection, cleaning, mending and storage of empty ITUs.
Even handling of documents – except for the documents directly needed for controlling the
flow – is regarded as a supporting service. Stowage of goods in ITUs is performed by the
shipper or by the forwarder if the goods are assembled in a general cargo terminal. This operation
is in this analysis, just as in that using CHURCHMAN’s systems approach, considered
as positioned outside the system.
The set of resources needed for accomplishing these activities are analysed in a resource
analysis. The main resources are: ITUs, lorries for local road haulage, terminals with appropriate
equipment for transshipment, rail wagons, rail engines, and, finally, information
systems. Load units are here treated as a part of the system in contrast to the model according
to the systems approach. Road and rail infrastructure is needed to accomplish intermodal
transport, but as this is a joint asset with other transportation modes, it is not treated as a
resource. For obvious reasons, also energy is needed for operating the system, but neither is
this treated here.
The resources are controlled by a number of actors within the intermodal transport industry,
which are identified in the actor analysis. In Europe 67 , these are of six different categories:
66 However, changes cannot be isolated to a single buyer-supplier relationship and thus network effects of
such local changes must be analysed.
67 The actor structure is vastly different in the USA and so is the terminology concerning actor categories as
well as the governmental regulations. For reading about the American actor structure, see BOWERSOX et al.,
1986, pp. 169-170; DEBOER, 1992, pp. 39-41 and MULLER, 1995, pp. 11, 56-57 and 60-61).
91

shippers, forwarders, intermodal transport companies, road hauliers, terminal operators and
railway administrations. Intermodal transport companies are those actors taking an intermediary
position but not performing marketing aimed at shippers. Examples, depending on
the actual arrangement, are ICF, the UIRR-companies, Rail Combi AB and national container
companies. The findings from this analysis are illustrated in the figure below.
Consignor
Forwarding agent
Control and management
Planning- and
control tools
Combined transport company
Control and management
Planning- and
control tools
Rail wagons
Terminal
company
Haulier
Terminal
company
Railway
company/ies
Road Transshipment
Rail
haulage
haulage
Lorry Terminal Engine/s
Rail wagons
Explanations:
Bold Actors
Italic Activities
Normal Resources
Transshipment
Terminal
Haulier
Road
haulage
Lorry
Consignee
Figure 4-6
Results of a structural analysis of the European intermodal transportation
system using the network approach.
The illustration of the analysis using the network approach is similar to the one besed upon
CHURCHMAN’s systems approach. This is primarily due to the fact that the approaches as
such show general similarities of conception. The main disparity is that the network approach
includes the concept of activities but not specifically environment. The activity conception
is found useful for discussing the industry structure as well as the production system
while the lack of environment definition is not regarded as crucial, since the network
approach assumes that only a part of the “total network” can be studied and the system border
is somewhat floating.
In the licentiate thesis, the model also included arrows denoting the dominating supplier
relations between actors, but as the industry has changed considerably since then (1994),
these arrows are removed here. The approach was also developed into a more formal analysis
method, based upon filling in tables (pp. 78-88). Two tables – actor/activity and actor/resource
– were used for mapping the roles of the actors in the European intermodal
transportation system (pp. 89-127). A third conceivable table – activity/resource – was not
used since the outcome would be trivial. The application of the method was limited to the
role casting within the industry but a further development also taking market shares, supplier
relations and industrial dynamics into account was suggested (p. 79). The method
92

ased upon tables was also used in a narrower and more detailed study (WOXENIUS,
1995/a) on intermodal transport in the Scandinavian countries.
The basic approach with actors, activities and resources is also used for analysing the production
system of Swedish domestic intermodal transport in an earlier article
(WOXENIUS, 1994/b). Furthermore, the framework model as such is used as point of departure
in a number of articles (WOXENIUS 1994/b, 1995/b and 1997/a). In this dissertation,
the model is used as the main influence on the system model synthesised in section
4.4. The problems concerning relations between actor groups is especially highlighted
when discussing barriers for technological change in chapter 5.
4.3 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT CHAINS
Viewing transportation systems as a number of consecutive activities is fruitful for following
certain consignments’ path through the system. The complexity can be kept at a low
level, although only a fraction of all transport commissions are completed by a direct transport
using a single vehicle or vessel. The absolute majority of consignments have to be consolidated,
stored and transshipped between vehicles and even between transportation modes
on their way from consignors to consignees. By stuffing goods of different characteristics
into standardised ITUs, as shown in the figure below, several diversified and particular
goods flows are transferred to a general flow giving economies of scale. Such groupage
chains are further described in WOXENIUS (1997/a, pp. 2-4).
Level of consolidation
Figure 4-7
Flow unification.
The general flow is not only standardised in shape; an added benefit is that the flow becomes
spatially concentrated, that is, into a pipeline as described in section 3.4.2. This dissertation
primarily deals with the special case when goods stuffed into unit loads are moved
by different vehicles and even by different transportation modes. The integration of such a
93

transport chain implies that the different capacities and regulations of infrastructure as well
as the fact that different actors operate links and transshipment nodes must be taken into
account. A basic model of an integrated transport chain is shown in the figure below. The
model is based upon the concepts and terminology presented in sections 2.2.2 and 3.3.1.
Components
Link 1
Transshipment
node 1
Transshipment
node...
Transshipment
node n
Link 2 Link ... Link n
Source
Vehicle 1
Vehicle 2
Vehicle ...
Vehicle n
Infrastr. 1 Infrastr. 2 Infrastr. ... Infrastr. n
Terminal 1
Terminal ...
Terminal n
Resources Transshipment Transshipment Transshipment
equipment 1
equipment ... equipment n
Sink
Figure 4-8
A model of an integrated transport chain.
The model – as well as the term integrated transport chain – is rather universal, but in order
to qualify as being an intermodal system, the links of the system should employ at least two
different transportation modes. A similar model is presented by the European Commission
(1997/e, p. 2).
Integrated transport chains generally have no management with formal decision power. Instead,
the activities are integrated through well defined procedures and contracts between
the actors. The chain concept is thus illustrative since the integration concerns seller-buyer
connections along the chain rather than that a single actor takes an overreaching and formal
responsibility as illustrated in the figure below.
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity... Activity n
Systems management
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity... Activity n
Figure 4-9
Integration of activities seen with a chain (above) and technical (below) perspective
respectively. The arrows denote integration or management influence.
Forwarders, as transport integrators, have a systems management role to some extent, but
they possess no power guiding the activities of other actors in detail. Instead, on behalf of
shippers they demand a certain transport quality – e.g. in terms of transit times, frequencies,
degree of damage – from the transport operators along the chain. They also keep some control
by connecting other actors with their information systems for tracking and tracing.
94

Along with the old concessions and monopolies also follows that certain companies have
acted as wholesaler – and thus managers – of parts of the intermodal chain. The conditions
in Europe are described in the licentiate thesis (p. 24 and 101) and those in the USA, which
have been more outspoken, are described by BOWERSOX et al. (1986, pp. 169-170),
DEBOER (1992, pp. 39-41) and MULLER (1995, pp. 11, 56-57 and 60-61).
Viewing intermodal transport from a chain perspective allows the analyst to keep the studied
system delimited and thus at a reasonably low degree of complexity. However, the fact
that most flows are connected with other flows, e.g. by sharing resources or competing for
slots for infrastructure use, should not be forgotten. Especially the direct train shuttle services
can be successfully studied using a chain perspective, but so can also other intermodal
issues focusing the integration of consecutive activities.
In this research effort, a chain approach was chosen in an article analysing the information
system used for controlling the flow of goods (WOXENIUS, 1997/a) and the model in
Figure 4-8 is used as point of departure in two articles (WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN,
1996/c and 1997).
4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter, intermodal transport was initially modelled with a classic /technical perspective
assuming that the intermodal transportation system is a technical system with hierarchically
connected components without own will or intelligence. Since this is an obvious
simplification, modelling was also made from the complementing perspectives of networks
and channels/chains. The network approach as presented by the Uppsala school of thought,
for instance, acknowledges that industrial systems often lack an authorised and logical
management and common goals for all components of the system. Also the very term chain
indicates that the system is seen as a number of consecutively related activities instead of
centrally managed dittos. In intermodal transportation systems, these are performed by different
actors using different kinds of resources.
Together with the simple model based upon system functions, a model synthesised from
several of the above models is used as the framework in the following chapters, unless the
use of other specific models is stated. The model is shown on the next page.
The primary influences have been JENSEN’s model (the division between administrative
and physical sub-systems), CHURCHMAN’s systems approach (the environmental factors,
the components (actors) and the resources) and the network approach according to the Uppsala
school of thought (the division between actors, activities and resources). Also the chain
perspective is encompassed with the arrow indicating integration along the activity chain
rather than by a formal systems management function. The arrow also illustrates the flow
dimension. It should, however, not be interpreted as a single flow, but rather as the set of
95

flows that the system handles. The use of ferries or other ships is obviously only needed in
some cases.
Intermodal Transport
Actors
Activities
Resources
Infrastructure
Administrative
system
Forwarder
Intermodal
companies
Systems Management
Information System
Production
system
Consignor
Filling
Unit load
Laws and
regulations
Haulier
Terminal
Company
Road Haulage
Transshipment
Lorry
Terminal with
Equipment
Demand for
transport
services
© J.W. 98 03 04
Railway
Company
Shipping
Line
Rail Haulage
Sailing
Rail Engine
and Wagons
Ferry/ship
Political and
economical
decisions
... ...
...
Competing
single-mode
transportation
Consignee
Emptying
Figure 4-10
A reference model synthesised from models taking classic/technical, network
and channel/chain perspectives.
Links between actors, activities and resources are not encompassed in the model since these
can be determined first in each single case. Generally, however, the links are horizontal
across the figure. For instance, the terminal company performs transshipment using its terminal
with transshipment equipment. In chapter 8, such links are encompassed in the modelling
of the implementation phases of a specific case that is circumstantially described.
A problem is that the theories rely on different basic presumptions which obviously have to
be taken into account when combining the approaches into one model. Nevertheless, as all
theories have been selected based upon their support for explaining intermodal issues, this
problem is not acute. Furthermore, the model is used for navigation and explanation purposes
and not specifically for deterministic studies. In summary, the model is found specifically
useful for putting detailed issues into a systems context and for positioning own
and other authors’ contributions in a larger perspective.
In the following chapters, the treatment of narrower research questions is prioritised before
further conceptual modelling since modelling has no purpose in itself. The analyses in
chapters 6, however, are based upon specific analyses models. The empirical content will
appear more clearly, especially in chapter 8 about a specific development initiative.
96

5 RESOURCES IN INTERMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Systems (2)
Transportation systems (3)
Intermodal transportation systems (4)
Actors Activities Resources
Transshipment
technologies (6)
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies (7)
A particular small-scale concept (8)
The fact that I was set to research technical aspects
of intermodal transport obviously brings me to
follow a path to the right in the reference model
synthesised in the preceding chapter. Narrowing the
focus to the resources employed then implies a
further focus onto the physical parts of the system,
yet paying respect to the complexity on account of
the multiplicity of actors and activities.
When analysing the potential for locally adapted network
modules as an integral part of a wider intermodal transport system, it is logical to first study
the limitations the systems designers must be aware of. Hence, the first of the two analyses
presented here deals with the barriers impeding the implementation of new technical resources,
while the second deals with how the operators can overcome the negative effects
induced by the barriers. Many of the technologies described in the detached appendix
clearly seem to have failed due to lacking knowledge about these matters. According to the
European Commission, this has lead to the fact that ”innovations find their way to the market
very slowly” (European Commission, 1996/b, p. 48).
A common mistake is to take a too outspoken technical approach neglecting that technologies
cannot successfully be implemented without taking also the softer aspects of intermodal
transportation into account. Not least the relationships between the actors play a significant
role, which means that the framework models developed in the last chapter are serviceable
as is the knowledge gained when producing the licentiate thesis.
In this and the two following chapters, there is no explicit modelling purpose and the outline
based upon systems perspective is herewith abandoned. Instead, the outline is determined
by the content of the specific analyses forwarded.
5.1 BARRIERS FOR IMPLEMENTING NEW RESOURCES
The work of transportation systems designers and inventors of technical resources is like
running in a labyrinth facing a wide range of limiting factors. In order to reach the ultimate
objective, measures must be taken to avoid these factors, i.e. to find a way out of the labyrinth.
In order to understand the nature of technical innovation in intermodal transportation
systems, thorough knowledge about these limiting factors is essential.
97

Some definitions are needed before presenting the analysis. A barrier is here defined as a
hindrance that is impossible to change by the systems designer or only can be changed at
high costs or in a long time span. Hence, they are generally classified as system environment
in the terminology of CHURCHMAN’s systems approach, although some aspects are
clearly within the system border but still difficult to change. Examples of such inertia that a
systems designer must consider are physical capacity of infrastructure, laws and regulations,
standards and existing technologies. However, the rigour of barrier effects can be
overcome but the systems designer must be aware of the implications in terms of costs and
benefits when choosing implementation strategy.
Standardisation is a key issue when analysing barriers for technological change in intermodal
transportation systems. Since overall performance is prioritised, the decided standard
cannot be optimised for all components. Hence, the performance of a limited transportation
system can benefit from restricting the admissible varieties of resources. Technological
openness is then a useful conception, which in an intermodal context can be defined as the
level of restriction in technical acceptance of different ITUs, lorries, rail wagons and to
some extent also transshipment equipment. A system with the lowest technological openness
only permits some non-standardised load units and it uses non-standardised lorries,
transshipment equipment and rail wagons. Thus freedom of action is severely restricted, but
sub-systems can be optimised to fit well-defined tasks.
Operators of links and transshipment nodes must also decide whether to form an integral
part of a general transportation system or to offer end customers complete door-to-door
transport services. Analogous to technological openness, commercial openness can be defined
as the level of restriction in commercial acceptance of different customers. A system
with the lowest commercial openness only permits one single customer, may it be a shipper
or an intermediary transport operator. The service can be officially restricted – it might be a
direct train service for one shipper – or the operators can use discriminatory pricing to prevent
other customers from using the service.
Technological openness is a matter for systems designers while commercial openness traditionally
has been strongly influenced by government policies. Nevertheless, as a consequence
of deregulation, commercial openness is changing into pure marketing and strategy
decisions mainly taken within transport companies. Some European railway companies,
though, tend to use the government as a shield protecting them from the need to take hard
decisions (COOPER, 1991, p. 9). For further reading about technological and commercial
openness, see SJÖSTEDT et al. (1994).
The purpose of this section is to describe and analyse the barriers facing actors when they
have decided to implement new pieces of technology into the existing intermodal transportation
system. The proceeding section (5.2) is dedicated to the more positive issue of how
to overcome the barrier effects.
98

The level of analysis applied here implies that the substantial research on the technological
evolution of transportation systems as presented by the research group around GRÜBLER
and MARCHETTI 68 is neglected. The matters dealt with here are generally of a more technical
and pragmatic nature than technology substitution and evolutionary dynamics. It is
rather the problems occurring when taking single decisions of implementing new types of
technologies than the competition in course of time between technical solutions that is emphasised
here.
Several other researchers have addressed barriers in an intermodal environment. BUKOLD
(1993/a and 1993/b) discusses barriers for new entrants and uses (1993/a, p. 27) the terms
structural (structure of the market), strategic (reaction of established firms) and institutional
(regulations) barriers while COOPER (1991, p. 29) divides barriers to trade in an intermodal
transportation perspective into physical, technical and fiscal barriers. Also
TAVASSZY (1996, p. 32) deals with barriers to trade in an intermodal perspective, however
emphasising geographical and mathematical issues. GELLMAN (conference presentation,
1995) identifies barriers and catalysts for implementing new pieces of technology in
transportation systems, but the research is on the strategic level and, hence, not directly applicable
to this research. Several consultants and research institutes have also dealt with
barriers and intermodal transport, mainly the issue of barriers for increased market shares
(e.g. Danish Ministry of Business, 1996, LJUNGEMYR, 1995 and A.T. Kearney, unpublished
consultant report, 1989) have been of interest to them and their customers. Nevertheless,
despite the large number of publications addressing intermodal transport and barriers,
no framework suitable for this specific analysis has been found.
When new technology is implemented in transportation systems, it can be aimed at solving
tasks at a node, at a link or at a complete transport network. The wider technological and
commercial openness, the more restrictions must be taken into account. Besides ITUs, vehicles
and transshipment equipment, changes can also refer to the goods, which can be
formed or packed in order to fit into general transportation systems.
When analysing the barriers it should also be kept in mind that it is not always a common
goal to keep the barriers on a low level. Contrary, sometimes barriers are created on purpose,
mainly in order to achieve benefits in a restricted transportation system, but also for
competitive or strategic reasons. One striking example is the wide gauge of Spanish tracks
that was partly decided upon in order to render it more difficult for French troops to invade
Spain. Without trains for fast troop transfer and efficient munitions, such an operation
would be much more difficult.
68 See, for instance, GRÜBLER (1990), GRÜBLER and NAKICENOVIC (1991), GRÜBLER et al. (1993) and
MARCHETTI (1992 and 1993).
99

Moreover, as for all system research, very specific and normative conclusions can only be
drawn for single implementation cases that are carefully demarcated. The study explaining
and classifying the barriers is kept on a rather general level, and it is intended to be supportive
for systems designers working with specific implementation cases. In chapter 8, however,
barriers are discussed more narrowly in light of a case study.
The barriers are here divided into regulative barriers, technological barriers, system oriented
barriers and, finally, commercial barriers of which the former three are primarily considered
here. In order to get to the core of the problems, the full set of approaches presented
in previous chapters must be utilised. Especially the conceptions technological and commercial
openness defined above are vital to the study. Most of the described barriers are
illustrated with real world examples, many of which are related to the technologies described
in the detached appendix. The analysis is worked up from earlier research carried
out together with Kenth LUMSDEN 69 .
5.1.1 Regulative barriers
Regulative barriers originate from laws and decrees issued by authorities primarily concerning
direct interaction with governmental infrastructure but also concerning external effects
such as emissions, noise, traffic accidents, working conditions of drivers and recycling
of construction materials. A further regulative barrier is that laws and regulations still are
applicable to single-mode transportation rather than to intermodal transportation and that
the adaptation to new circumstances is slow.
Weights and dimensions
In order to plan and build compatible infrastructure, authorities must decide upon the permissible
size of vehicles. This applies both to the permissible cross section, normally referred
to as the loading profile, and to the maximum weight that bridges, road embankments
and tracks are designed to endure. Length is less important, but still restricted in road
transport due to manoeuvrability in cities and to safe overtaking by other vehicles, and in
rail transport due to the length of side-tracks and platforms. The size of ships is mainly restricted
in terms of draught during sailing, of length by quays in ports and of width by the
outreach of quay cranes. In inland navigation, the size of barges is restricted by the size of
locks, width of canals as well as by the height of bridges.
Permissible dimensions differ widely between transportation modes but also between links
of the same transportation mode. One example important to intermodal transport is the
69 For earlier versions of the research, see WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1996/a, 1996/b, 1996/c and 1997.
100

maximum weights and dimensions allowed in road transport, which differ widely between
European nations as shown in the table below.
Table 5-1
Width, length and weight allowed in European countries before the EU harmonisation
efforts. (Source: worked up from BJÖRKMAN, 1992, p. 17).
Articulated lorries Semi-trailer combinations
Country Width Length Weight Length Weight
Finland 2.60 m 22 m 56 tons 16.50 m 44 tons
Norway 2.50 18.75 50 17.00 Infr. limits
Sweden 2.60 24.00 60 24.00 60
Denmark 2.55 18.50 48 16.50 44
Germany 2.50 18.35 40 16.50 40
The Netherlands 2.60 18.35 50 16.50 50
Belgium 2.60 18.35 40 16.50 40
UK 2.50 18.35 32.5 16.50 38
Switzerland 2.50 18.35 28 16.50 28
Austria 2.50 18.35 38 16.50 38
France 2.50 18.35 40 16.50 40
Italy 2.50 18.35 44 16.50 44
Spain 2.50 18.35 40 16.50 40
Also the loading profiles of railways differ widely. For obvious reasons, all moving resources
in intermodal transportation systems must fall within the maximum dimensions allowed
at each link. The main loading profiles used in Europe are schematically depicted in
the figure below.
Eurotunnel
Germany
France
Semi-trailer
UK
Figure 5-1
The rail loading profiles of some European countries. Note the profile
needed for intermodal transport of semi-trailers. (Source: The Piggyback
Consortium, 1994).
101

The great variety of maximum vehicle lengths and weights between European nations has
induced an intense harmonisation process lead by the European Commission. The Commission
has decided that the member states must allow articulated lorries being 18.75 m long,
2.55 m wide and weighing 44 tons for international road traffic (WOXENIUS et al.,
1995/b, pp. 120-121). At last, this gives a firm framework for future technical development.
External effects
External effects are increasingly important in design of transportation systems. In addition
to existing regulations, authorities have revealed intentions for charging the full external
costs for each transportation mode. Still, proper costing is a delicate task and petitions
about the costs are frequently issued. Nevertheless, higher taxes and even the prohibition of
polluting, noisy and dangerous vehicles are foreseeable. Although, this might be seen as a
catalyst for new cleaner and safer operations, e.g. increased use of intermodal transport,
systems designers must conform to existing and preferably also to proposed future regulations
when designing new technology. Even demand for the recycling of construction materials
and working conditions for drivers 70 are included in this problem area.
Lately, environmental friendliness has become an important factor in the competition for
end customers. Environmental certification of products will certainly include how the products
are transported thus adding a new dimension to an issue up until now seen as a matter
of obeying governmental regulations. In the future, environmental friendliness will not only
be seen on the cost side of the accounts and the transport industry is expected to not only
live up to the minimum level stipulated in the regulations.
For intermodal transport that is often marketed with environmental arguments, a consistent
environment concern is of utmost importance. Technical resources must be manufactured
and operated maintaining the “green” reputation of the transportation system. An example
on the reverse is that the Swedish intermodal company Rail Combi AB has replaced its
electrically powered gantry cranes with diesel powered ones on the three main terminals.
This has obviously attracted criticism from road transport companies since the dieselpowered
cranes are operated in the environmentally sensitive city centres. If cranes utilising
electric power or natural gas 71 were chosen, the environmental arguments of Rail
Combi’s aggressive marketing would be much stronger.
70 The working conditions of drivers is elaborated in an intermodal context in WOXENIUS (1995/b, p. 6 and
10). The topic is also treated at the University of Stuttgart in an ongoing research project called WORKFRET
(BULLINGER, letter, 1998).
71 Stationary equipment like terminal-bound gantry cranes and reach-stackers are better suited for being powered
by natural gas than lorries since one of the major barriers when introducing a new fuel is how to distribute
it. Keeping a gas tank at the terminal is much cheaper than keeping a distributed net of tanks for lorries.
102

Slow legislative adaptation
Despite 30 years of large-scale intermodal transport, the history of the European transportation
system is the history of the single modes. The slow adaptation of legislation and liability
rules to a truly mode-independent one severely hampers the technical and commercial
development of European intermodal transport. The harmonisation process has begun, but
it lags behind. The public bodies are not solely to blame; the slow process is also due to
counteractive behaviour from the actors in the industry. Bureaucracy and the lack of proper
legislation as a barrier to technological change is identified by Joao SOARES of the Portuguese
Nautical School, in his research carried out together with Professor Figueiredo
SEQUEIRA:
“One of our conclusions regarding barriers for new technology in intermodal transport
systems was that the bureaucracy from the local authorities and the lack of proper legislation
for the intermodal transport, that should be equal in all European countries, are
the main factors for the failures of some projects in the area.”
(SOARES, E-mail message, 1996)
A problem in the legislative field is that the intense activity of the European Commission
may make national, regional and local authorities passive in the legislation of intermodal
transport. The legislation should obviously be harmonised by the European Commission,
but there are problems concerning the scope of jurisdiction. With the principle of subsidiarity
72 follows that the Commission concentrates on international transportation, while it is at
the local and regional levels that effort must be spent in order to make intermodal transport
competitive. If shuttles between Milan and Rotterdam cannot be operated with profits without
EU support in terms of advantageous legislation and pure subventions, then intermodal
transport would be doomed everywhere in Europe. In fact, they don’t even involve intra-
European trade. Another risk of supporting very long direct train shuttles is that the very
objective of the intermodal policy – the modal shift from road to rail – may be violated.
Many of the long-distance shuttles are obviously predatory within the rail sector since they
convert conventional rail transport to intermodal transport. The competition for investment
funds within the railway companies is an obstacle for implementing new resources in intermodal
transportation systems that should not be neglected.
Beside the European nations, the US Department of Transportation is very aggressive in
giving the American transportation system a multimodal character. The giant Intermodal
72 The principle of subsidiarity (closeness) was introduced in the Treaty of Maastricht and it means that decisions
in fields in which the institutions of the European Union do not possess exclusive competence, shall be
taken at the lowest efficient level, i.e. by national, regional or local authorities. Decisions should only be taken
at a union level if it increases the goal attainment. The term is politically disputed due to the facts that the definition
is not precise and that it is unclear who is to decide which decisions it encompasses (Nationalencyklopedin,
1995/a, p. 393).
103

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 includes all modes and encourages
improved intermodal connectivity, reliability and flexibility by providing legislative and
financial incentives. Intermodal transport of both passenger and freight is developed using
an immense budget of USD 155 billion (ECU 133 billion) in the fiscal years 1992-97
(MULLER, 1995 and 1996) 73 . Of this amount, only less than 1% was used for pure intermodal
freight projects during the first four years (Cargo Systems, 1997/d, p. 27). As a part
of the act, the Congress set up a national working group – the National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation – that had to investigate the future of US intermodalism. The
commission came up with three recommendations (National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation, 1997):
• Make efficient intermodal transportation the goal of federal transportation policy
• Increase investment in intermodal transportation
• Restructure government institutions to support intermodal transportation
Reorganising the Department of Transportation focusing intermodal issues has fulfilled the
last recommendation. Now, ISTEA’s even larger successor NEXTEA (National Economic
Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act) with a budget of USD 175 billion (ECU 150 billion)
over six years is proposed by the White House (Cargo Systems, 1997/d, p. 27) 74 .
It should be stated, though, that the problems concerning legislation are less crucial in the
USA then in Europe with its many national laws and regulations. Intermodal is also more
focused to the railroads in the USA contrary to Europe where the road transport industry
has assumed a more important role.
5.1.2 Technological barriers
Standards and dominant technologies are good help for innovators of technical resources,
but also a limitation for new and different technical solutions. Technological barriers also
stem from the fact that the capacities of vehicles are different, which means that technological
change is more dramatic to modes with a small carrying capacity of each vehicle.
Standards
Technical standards guide systems designers and manufacturers. Standards for equipment
for intermodal transportation generally define the interfaces between system resources in
73 The part of the legal text (amendments to the United States Code) of ISTEA concerning intermodal transportation
is presented by Michichan Department of Transportation (www-site, 1997).
74 The content of the NEXTEA (National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act) is presented by
US Department of Transportation (www-site, 1998).
104

terms of dimensions and positions of the fastening points, but they also stipulate the required
construction strength.
Most significant for development of intermodal transportation systems are standards stipulating
the size of ITUs. These standards are closely linked to regulations for use of infrastructure.
The obvious purpose is that vehicles loaded with suitable ITU combinations shall
benefit from the maximum vehicle weights and dimensions.
Technical standards are thus stipulated in order to simplify the development of complex
systems, but it also implies restrictions for the systems designer. ITU standards have been
established after discussions over many years meaning that some standards have been obsolete
from the beginning (KOZMA, interview, 1993). Swap bodies have constituted a special
problem since they have long lacked a standard due to the fact that the dimensions of swap
bodies have been reversibly defined by the national road transport regulations. The wide
selection of allowed vehicle lengths has caused an accordingly wide selection of swap body
lengths. When a European standard was finally approved it included the lengths 7.15, 7.45
and 7.82 m, but not the Dutch “Philips system” of 8.05 m 75 . A standard including three
measures within 70 cm is still regarded as almost a non-standard and the operators hesitated
with their investments in swap bodies. This problem of standards is also identified by
ECMT:
“There are at present many new projects in terms of technologies, and this tends to be
counter-productive by leaving operators uncertain about the investment to be made.
Specifications must be worked out by operators but they should not call into question
the work done with a view to standardization.”
(ECMT, 1993/b, p. 121).
Nevertheless, the harmonised rules stipulating 18.75 m articulated lorries for border crossing
road transport within the EU, indicate that investments will be directed towards the 7.82
m swap body.
Prevailing technology
When firm standards are missing, technological development can be hampered by the presence
of dominant technologies, so called de facto standards. This does not only include
technical resources but also whole procedures and principal solutions.
One example of de facto standards of intermodal transport procedures is the over-night traffic
principle dominating in Europe. Trains stand at the terminals all day and travel between
75 For further reading about the Philips System and on other unit load dimensions, see WOXENIUS et al.,
1995/b.
105

terminals over night. This has long been the prevailing way of doing things, but three trends
will change the night-leap situation. Firstly, demand for more advanced logistics services
may induce the intermodal industry to offer short- and medium-distance transport services
during the day. Secondly, as intermodal transport is prioritised and the competition is rapid
road haulage, intermodal trains have enjoyed higher priority on the railway lines during the
past few years. In fact, some container trains are today given even higher priority than passenger
trains. Thirdly, the extension of the European high-speed train network with dedicated
tracks will leave more space on existing tracks for freight trains during the day.
Hence, a change in traffic operations is very dependent on the environment and far from
always in the hands of the systems designer.
One reason for choosing another technology rather than the prevailing one is obviously that
new and better technology is available. When the Danish State Railways (DSB) electrified
their tracks, they chose another current than the one used in neighbouring Sweden and
Germany. That is of course good for Danish domestic traffic, but problems arise with the
increasing amount of border-crossing traffic and it will be an acute problem once the Öresund
bridge is in place.
Furthermore, pure stubbornness and national pride seems to be the cause of the many different
signalling standards in Europe now obstructing trains from running through Europe
with the same rail engine. With 50 000 rail engines and over one million signalling points it
is now a delicate task to harmonise the national systems, but an initiative in that direction
was taken by the International Union of Railways (UIC) in 1997 (SJ Nytt, 1998, p. 12).
Different capacities of transportation modes
In a technological context, the different capacities of transportation modes imply that a
change in one resource used in one link can force the replacement of many pieces of
equipment in other links. For instance, a new type of train with integrated transshipment
equipment working together with purpose-built lorries implies that many such lorries have
to be purchased at the same time. That is not necessarily a problem, since they represent a
much lower price per unit, but there is a high probability that the existing lorries are not
bought at the same time, thus representing different grades of depreciation. Replacing units
not fully worn out is always costly although a second hand market is often available.
Furthermore, if the intensely discussed 45-foot containers are to be introduced in Europe
and Japan, a large-scale replacement of cell-guide vessels, railway wagons as well as trailer
chassis and lorries is needed. The lobbying activities for the 45-footer has in Europe been
lead by two shipping lines, Bell Lines and Geest North Sea Lines (Cargo Systems, 1997/a).
These companies can benefit from larger transport units when investing in one new ship, at
the same time forcing changes in the rest of the system. Another reason for the European
reluctance is that the European Commission has helped a number of third world countries
106

to invest in equipment and infrastructure in order to transport 40-footers – allowing 45-
footers would make some of these investments obsolete (DE BOCK, guest lecture, 1996).
The standard 45-footer is expected to be restricted to use within North America and to portto-port
operations for many years to come. Nevertheless, the shipping lines mentioned
above have come up with a variant with cut corner castings, enabling boxes loaded onto
semi-trailer chassis to comply with the swing clearance for 13.6 m trailers (Cargo Systems,
1997/a, p. 6). The innovative solution to the problem has been approved by Transport
Commissioner Neil Kinnock as well as the UK and Dutch ministries of transport (Cargo
System, 1997/c, p. 8). Nevertheless, Bell Line cannot take advantage of the approval as it
ran out of business in June 1997 (Cargo Systems, 1997/g, p. 19).
The almost insurmountable problems and limited benefits of implementing the proposed
ISO series 2 containers – 49 ft long, 8 ½ ft wide and tall – are well illustrated in the final
report of COST 315 (ALFARO et al., 1994). Most of the problems relate to the replacement
of vehicles and vessels.
5.1.3 System oriented barriers
Even the transportation system itself contains barriers. It is especially difficult to introduce
new pieces of technology in systems lacking a formal system’s management in which
economies of scale are present. The facts that the depreciation times vary for different types
of resources and that ITUs and vehicles often must be repositioned before taking on a new
transport commission, also hampers technological development. For obvious reasons, the
multimodal adaptation also implies higher barriers than if the technology is to be designed
for a single transportation mode.
Lack of formal system leadership
As for most engineering of systems that include flows of any kind, engineering intermodal
transportation systems is much about identifying and removing bottlenecks along the chain.
As one bottleneck is removed, however, the narrow section is moved somewhere else in the
chain. What makes this continuous procedure especially difficult in the kind of system
studied here is that the chain is not controlled by a single actor. As described briefly in previous
sections and in detail in the licentiate thesis, a large number of actors make up the
intermodal industry in Europe. Hauliers, forwarders, terminal companies, railway companies
and leasing companies co-operate in order to offer transport services to the shippers.
Consequently, technological development is obviously hampered by the fact that no single
organisation can push for it along the transport chain, and that problems arise when the
benefits from the investments should be split among the actors participating in the transport
chain. The problem is further aggravated by the fact that road and rail transport interests
compete with their single-mode operations and have a long history of mutual conflicts. The
107

problem is especially urgent for the hauliers, since they are generally of a very moderate
size as seen in the table below.
Table 5-2
Hauliers and lorries operated for hire or reward in some European countries.
All data do not refer to the same year and are not directly comparable, but
they indicate the structure of the industry.
Country
Number of lorries
Number of
hauliers
Share of small
hauliers
Share of large
hauliers
Denmark 30 000 6900 44% = 1 lorry 1.6% >20 lorries
Finland 25 000 N.a. 90% < 3 lorries 1% >11
France
3.6 million incl.
2% > 50
N.a. 67% < 5 employees
own accounts*
employees
Germany 160 000* N.a.
Local: 50% = 1 lorry Local: 30% > 2 lorr.
Long-dist.: 36% = 1 l. Long-distance: n.a.
Italy 250 000** 200 000** 92% < 5 empl.*** 1.5% > 50 empl.***
Norway 30 000 15 000 67% = 1 lorry N.a.
Spain 750 000**** 500 000**** 98% < 6 lorries N.a.
Sweden 40 000 18 000 59% = 1 lorry 3% > 10 lorries
The Netherlands
The UK
56 000 8000 40% < 3 lorries 11% > 15 lorries
2.3 million incl.
own accounts*
N.a. N.a. N.a.
Sources: * = United Nations, 1993; ** = COOPER et al., 1991; *** = CARRARA, 1995;
**** = AGUADO, 1995. All other data from Swedish Hauliers’ Association, 1993. N.a. = data not
available.
Owner-driver hauliers can for obvious reasons not pay full attention to technological development
themselves, and their decisions on substituting vehicles and related equipment is
almost binary – change all or nothing 76 .
When changing a complex system, so called reverse salients (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 65), i.e.
an improvement in one sub-system gives deterioration in other sub-systems, often occur.
One example is that the Swedish terminal company Rail Combi AB invested in new gantry
cranes with automatic spreaders. The new cranes demanded standardised placement of lift
pockets and corner fittings in order to work automatically. Many hauliers with custommade
trailers could thus not use these for intermodal transport anymore. An obvious improvement
in one node made the network suffer, however for the sake of efficiency in the
long run and encouragement to those hauliers operating standardised equipment.
A further example is the Krupp Fast Handling System (see section 3.1.1 in the detached
appendix) that adds a lot of benefits to the integrated transport chain, but cannot be financially
motivated if only seen as the replacement of a conventional intermodal terminal
76 The role of small hauliers in relation to intermodal transport is elaborated in WOXENIUS (1995/b).
108

(SONDERMANN, 1997, p. 4). The core of the implementation problem concerning Krupp
Fast Handling System is thus about how to distribute the costs along the chain according to
the achieved benefits.
The European Commission has identified this set of problems and now tries to take a system’s
management role, paying for transport Research, Technological development and
Demonstration (RTD) and even supporting intermodal transport pilot projects (see section
6.2.12) in exchange for control of a sound development.
Smallest implementation scale
The full benefits of most new technologies are not utilised until they are implemented by
several users or in a certain scale. For instance, Alexander Graham Bell had more use for
the second telephone than he had for the first one. This can also be referred to as “the
ketchup effect” alluding to what happens when a bottle of ketchup is turned upside down.
Another, more scientific, term is “network externalities”. This effect refrains from investments
since the operators do not want to invest in technologies that cannot be fully utilised
until other operators have invested in similar technologies.
One striking example with an intermodal connection is the ISO-container that was implemented
at a slow pace until gantry cranes became prevalent in ports making the expensive
and badly utilised on-board cranes obsolete. The following transition of world trade into
containers is legendary as described in section 1.2.1. Moreover, in spite of the obvious advantages
of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) between transport operators, the pace of implementation
has been very slow. Although no operator wants to be last to implement EDI,
they obviously do not want to be first making the expensive mistakes without being able to
benefit from many connections (KANFLO and LUMSDEN, 1991).
Varying depreciation times for resources
Another barrier for new technologies in intermodal transportation systems is that the technical
resources, e.g. ITUs, vehicles, transshipment equipment and infrastructure, are economically
and technically worn out over different time spans. The high costs of replacing
resources before they are depreciated severely impede drastic changes of the technology.
For efficiency and economic reasons, lorries are exchanged for new ones approximately
every 12 th year, semi-trailers and containers every 10 th year while transshipment equipment,
railway wagons and container ships are used for 20-30 years with intermediate renovations.
General operation principles and infrastructure last for several decades if not centuries.
However, depreciation times are generally decreasing in the industry today and as is true
for computers, it is not because of technical wear and tear but because they become outmoded
more quickly.
109

The next few years is a convenient opportunity to change the technology in the global intermodal
systems since much of the equipment with the longest depreciation time, i.e.
transshipment equipment and rail wagons, has now served for some 30 years and largescale
replacement of resources is foreseen. Consequently, it is not believed that the postpanamax
vessels (see section 5.2.5) are appearing now just by chance, however helped by
the fact that the importance of the Panama Canal decreases. Nevertheless, it will not be a
total replacement over a short period of time and it is absolutely crucial to the system’s efficiency
that the new technologies can work together with the old ones.
Repositioning of system resources
As described in section 3.4.1, goods flows are – contrary to passenger flows – almost always
directed one way while vehicles and ITUs must be reallocated to the place where new
consignments are waiting. Far from all goods flows are balanced inducing a need for repositioning
within the network. An alternative to immediate reposition is obviously to store
resources – mainly ITUs – at certain places until there is a demand for movements from
that place. Hence, there is a barrier against technologies transferring ITUs directly between
lorries and rail wagons without possibilities for intermediate storage. There are also barriers
against technologies not suitable for empty positioning, e.g., bimodal systems with bogies
that can only be moved loaded with bimodal trailers or after being lifted onto dedicated
railway wagons.
This barrier is also the key to the limited success of collapsible containers such as Fallpac 77
and ECO-CARRIER, since the empty positioning of many containers on one rail wagon
implies empty positioning of wagons. The client may save freight charges in the short run
and some savings on the aggregate system level are also possible, but all in all, collapsible
units have not proven to be economical.
Consequently, the demand for reposition is both a catalyst and a barrier for implementing
certain kinds of new technology.
Single-mode operation
The bulk of intra-European freight transport volumes refers to single-mode transportation,
of which road transport has been most successful over the last 50 years. Despite many years
of system development it has proven very difficult to transfer goods flows from road to rail.
Rail is today more or less reduced to the transport of large shipments over relatively long
distances. One reason for this failure is that the road transportation system – after the initial
stage when lorries were used for serving conventional rail transport – has been developed
77 For further description and analysis, see WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1994, p. 6 and WOXENIUS et al.,
1995/b, p. 128.
110

according to single-mode optimisation rather than to efficient use together with other transportation
modes.
As indicated above, the ITU standards should facilitate use of vehicles corresponding to the
maximum allowed weight and dimensions for all links. In many countries, however, the
regulations favour single-mode operations. In Sweden, for instance, lorries are allowed to
be as long as 24 m and weigh up to 60 tons. These rules are badly suited for combinations
of standardised ITUs. Hence, articulated lorries with fixed superstructures can benefit more
from them, seriously hampering the use of domestic Swedish intermodal transport.
Nevertheless, as a consequence of entering the EU, Sweden and Finland have agreed to allow
even larger road vehicles – 25.25 m long – in order to facilitate fair competition from
foreign hauliers in the Scandinavian domestic markets. By use of different combinations of
swap bodies and trailers, three continental vehicles of 18.75 m (as described in section
5.1.1) can be reconfigured into two 25.25 m when arriving in Sweden or Finland. As a consequence,
even the Finnish and Swedish domestic hauliers now see reasons for using ITUs
instead of road vehicles with fixed superstructures.
For other European countries with comparable road regulations, the most significant parameter
for how easy single-mode road transport can be technically turned into an intermodal
system is the share of semi-trailers compared to articulated lorries. This division is
shown in the table below, however not as the absolute number of vehicles on the roads, but
as the number of newly registered vehicles. Nevertheless, these are not yet worn out, and
the table is regarded as a good hint on the actual share of semi-trailer tractors.
Table 5-3
Number of newly registered semi-trailer tractors and articulated lorries in
some European countries in 1988. (Source: worked up from BJÖRKMAN,
1992, p. 45).
Country
Semi-trailer
tractors
Articulated
lorries
Share of semitrailer
tractors
Norway 200 1 800 10 %
Finland 200 1 800 10 %
Sweden 500 4 500 10 %
Denmark 1 000 1 000 50 %
Germany 8 000 14 900 35 %
The Netherlands 5 500 1 900 75 %
Belgium 3 000 600 83 %
UK 17 500 600 97 %
Switzerland 200 800 20 %
Austria 400 1 600 20 %
France 16 000 4 000 80 %
Italy 10 000 8 100 65 %
Spain 6 000 400 94 %
111

A road transportation system dominated by semi-trailers facilitates a rather easy transition
into an intermodal system – intermodally adapted semi-trailers can be gradually implemented
– while a system dominated by articulated lorries implies higher investments in
swap body adapted lorries. The transition of the semi-trailer system, however, refers to
conventional intermodal transport – a high share of semi-trailers actually impedes the transition
into the small-scale intermodal systems frequently asked for in this dissertation. Furthermore,
the restricted loading profile on UK tracks (see figure 5-1) make intermodal
transport with standard pocket wagons (see figure 1-2) impossible. Instead, specially lowbuilt
wagons – such as the Thrall EuroSpine wagon (see section 5.2.6) – must be used.
Primarily the small hauliers – which constitute the bulk number of hauliers, as seen in
Table 5-2 – see difficulties in technical adaptation for using intermodal transport. The reason
is that such vehicles are not competitive for long-distance all-road transport. Consequently,
the choice of going intermodal is almost binary – use intermodal transport always
or never – for these small hauliers and their first choice is to stick with single-mode operation,
as is elaborated in WOXENIUS (1995/b).
In order to increase the market share of intermodal transport, it is of utmost importance that
the joint operation of several modes is not punished by restrictions compared to singlemode
operation.
5.1.4 Commercial barriers
Commercial barriers are only briefly dealt with in this dissertation. They are most significant
for competition between transportation modes, i.e. on a higher system level, but implementation
of new technologies also suffers from commercial barriers.
The most important commercial barrier is that the relationship between road transport companies
and railway administrations have been characterised by confrontation rather than by
co-operation. Technologically, this means that it is hard to implement new technical solutions
implying co-operation since both parties fear loosing customers to single-mode transport
by the other mode. This barrier is similar to the system-oriented barriers regarding lack
of systems management and single-mode operations but emphasises the direct competition
between the companies.
One example is that the hybrid bimodal technologies (see section 2.7 in the detached appendix)
have not been implemented at a large scale in Europe. Coda-E – a Dutch version of
the American RoadRailer technology – was regarded as a promising technology when it
was first proposed in 1972 by an employee at the National Railways of the Netherlands
(NS). Yet, no work was done to engineer the concept and construct a prototype until 1985,
112

when the Stork Alpha engineering group – which now owns the patent rights to the system
– undertook to advance the concept and presented a prototype in 1991. Reportedly 78 , this
was due to the fact that NS did not want to promote a technology based upon road technology
and the road transport industry’s unwillingness to promote any transport concept utilising
rail.
5.2 APPROACHES FOR OVERCOMING THE EFFECTS OF
BARRIERS
As was elaborated in the preceding section, implementing new technologies in intermodal
transportation systems is severely difficult. After defining the barriers, it is rational to outline
some ways of dealing with the negative effects induced by barriers. The European
Commission states the great importance of such research on how to solve the barrier problems:
“(…) a major research effort is still needed to provide solutions to the technological,
legal, logistical and institutional barriers which prevent the rapid customisation and integration
of technologies which are capable of making a real contribution to the seamless
transfer of goods and passengers from one mode of transport to another. Research
of this nature will have major benefits for both the efficiency and the competitiveness
of European industry (particularly for SMEs which are strongly represented in the sector).”
(European Commission, 1997/c, p. 30)
The bridging strategies presented here are intended to be ways of approaching sets of problems
rather than solving the separate ones described in the barrier section. Such an analysis
would be quite trivial and such solutions do not facilitate the radical improvements needed.
Consequently, the strategies are lines of thought rather than checklists for the systems designer.
By no means, the strategies exclude each other. Contrary, provided that they are not
contradictory, the more of them that can be encompassed the better are the prospects for a
successful implementation.
5.2.1 To conform firmly to regulations, standards and
prevailing technologies
The first and most obvious approach is simply to comply with the restrictions set by the
system environment. This approach is the safest one, but the price to pay for the large po-
78 Intermodal Shipper, 1997, p.1, citing Evert VAN DE LAAR of Rail Distri Centre Midden Holland BV.
113

tential market and wide geographical scope is that the possibilities for radical improvements
are restricted.
Knowledge of current, but also of future, standards is of utmost importance, especially
when designing international networks, which means that different national regulations
must be taken into account. For a single intermodal transport chain, the use of different
modes and different routes make it possible to achieve improvements. For instance, all-road
transport between Norway and Italy through Switzerland means a restriction to 28 tons although
much larger vehicles are allowed on almost the full distance (See Table 5-1 about
allowed vehicle dimensions in European countries). Options are then to go through France
or Austria or to use rail through the Alps. It is obviously the reason for the strict Swiss
regulations to stimulate the use of other routes or the rail mode.
Another example is export of fresh fish from Norway to Continental Europe. Since Norwegian
and Swedish road regulations are more generous than those in Germany, the vehicles
loaded with fish on ice is dimensioned for weighing 40 tons when entering Germany, that is
when part of the ice has melted. The weight in Norway and Sweden is then far above 40
tons per vehicle. Such load maximisation obeys the regulations, but only if the semi-trailers
are dimensioned for the higher load, which has not always been the case when exporting
Norwegian fish (PERSSON, interview, 1997). This was experienced as one of the problems
when trying to implement a Rolling Highway service for Norwegian lorries transiting Sweden
on the way to Germany. The railway wagons used in the service RoLa Scandinavia
were dimensioned for 40-ton vehicles and was thus not suitable for vehicles overloaded
with fish on ice (SANDBERG, conference presentation, 1996).
Another limitation of this approach is that new technologies swiftly become complicated
when different standards have to be followed. The high-speed rail engines used in the international
PBKAL-traffic (Paris-Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London) are built to meet the
requirements of several different electrical power supply systems as well as signalling systems,
hence adding to the complexity and cost of each engine.
5.2.2 To change the barriers or to obtain exemptions
According to the definition of barriers used in this dissertation, barriers can only be
changed through great difficulties or at high costs. Perhaps the most expensive barrier to
change is infrastructure. When new infrastructure is to be built, it is obviously more expensive
to dimension it generously, but substantial benefits might motivate the extra costs.
Double-stack capacity is of particular interest. Extending the European rail network for
double-stack trains is not realistic although French State Railways (SNCF) wants a Rolling
Highway corridor with very generous loading gauge (SINGER, 1995, p. 120). Another example
is the Betuwe line that is a projected rail link connecting the Port of Rotterdam to the
114

industries in the Ruhr area through Emmerich on the Dutch/German border. The link is
planned for opening in 2004 at a cost of USD 4.3 billion (ECU 3.7 billion) (Containerisation
International, 1995, p. 31). The National Railways of the Netherlands (ibid.) and the
Dutch Minister of Transport (Cargo Systems, 1997/e, p. 24) both call for it being built facilitating
double-stack trains like in the USA. Reportedly (KING, 1998, p. 59), it is now
decided to build the line with such a generous loading profile. The link is somewhat independent
thus possible to design with special clearance for shuttle trains and work on tunnels
and bridges has not yet commenced.
The really high costs, however, occur when infrastructure is to be changed. This is indicated
by the American railroad Conrail’s USD 97 million (ECU 83 million) clearance upgrading
program including 100 tunnels and 30 bridges facilitating double-stack trains with
9-foot 5-inches high containers (Cargo Systems, 1995/a). Although barriers can be changed
in course of time at a lower cost, the long depreciation times of infrastructure determine
that it is hard to overcome infrastructural hindrances.
Nevertheless, the regulative barriers guiding the use of infrastructure are often more restrictive
than the physical restrictions. If large benefits, especially for society, can be shown to
be realised, exemptions can be applied for and allowed by authorities. One example of such
an exemption is the lifting of the drive ban during nights and weekends in Austria for the
local road haulage around intermodal transport terminals (HANREICH, 1995, p. 8). The
principle of “give and take” rules, meaning that it is OK to disturb locally if the long haul is
undertaken with less disturbance. The European Commission has for the same reason advocated
that lorries carrying 40-foot ISO-containers to and from intermodal terminals should
benefit from 44 tons maximum weight compared to the general 40 tons (WOXENIUS et
al., 1995/b, p. 55). However, after strong lobbying, 44 tons will now be allowed for all lorries
in international traffic.
Exemptions can also refer to restricted parts of a network. By defining roads in different
classes, longer vehicle combinations can be permitted on especially suitable links. In certain
states in the USA, for instance, special legislation allows longer vehicle combinations
on the interstate highways requiring break-points adjacent to the highway before entering
local roads. Similar legislation is now proposed for Europe where roads might be divided
into three classes suitable for lorries with different unit load combinations (IRU, 1996 and
Volvo, pamphlet, 1996). On a core continental road network, the 25.25 m vehicles about to
be implemented in Sweden and Finland in 2003 (see section 5.1.3) might then be allowed.
5.2.3 To create closed systems
It is obvious that the barriers become less dramatic if the scope of the intermodal transportation
system is restricted. The limitation could regard the range of resource variants, e.g. to
115

limit an intermodal service to one strictly defined ITU type; the range of customers, e.g.
direct it to one shipper; or to limit a service to a geographical area, e.g. to serve only one
link in a network. Hence, the approach is about limiting the technological or commercial
openness of the system (see section 5.1). The principle is that by limiting the transportation
system, a more specialised technical solution could be implemented but one should bear in
mind that flexibility and economies of scale are jeopardised. Real world examples are so
frequent and obvious that no one is described here. In chapter 8, however, it is shown how
this strategy is applied when implementing a new intermodal concept.
In order not to limit the scope of a closed intermodal system, this could be designed as a
module in a larger system. Via gateways, some of the unit loads or even rail wagons can
interchange with other modules. This advantages of the fashion of operating a divided, yet
interconnected, network is actually the core message of this dissertation.
5.2.4 To control the transport chain under one management
A similar approach also aimed at keeping the complexity down, is to develop an intermodal
concept produced and managed by a single company or company group. The railways are
those most commonly applying this approach since they have a tradition of owning haulier
companies for supporting their wagonload system. Along with deregulation, however, roadbased
companies are likely to start up own intermodal door-to-door services, perhaps not in
the short term though, due to the currently low profitability in the intermodal industry
(STONE, 1998, p. 33). As for the previous approach, examples are obvious and rather common.
The task is strategically delicate since the railways hesitate before the risk of being criticised
for directly competing with their customers buying other intermodal core services,
that is the forwarders and hauliers.
5.2.5 To change technology in course of time during the
system’s investment cycle
Rome was not built in a day and neither are new transportation systems. However, if the
technology implementation is managed with long-term planning and persistence, the technology
transition can be less dramatic. Hence, resources can be planned and developed and
then implemented when the system and its environment have matured to include the new
type of technical resource.
One such example is the implementation of the maritime container by Sea-Land under Malcom
McLean’s management. As described in section 1.2.1, with the first generation of
container ships – modified World War II tankers – only a restricted number of ports were
116

called and conventional cranes made the container handling an arduous task. The second
generation employed on-board cranes, adding to costs and limiting stacking height and
width on deck, but facilitating calls at all ports possessing equipment for moving the containers
on the quay. First when many ports had invested in gantry cranes in the late 1960’s
the time was ready to introduce container ships, as we know them today.
The current leader in container shipping, Danish Maersk, is part of a company group – A.P.
Möller – that has a composition and legal status that allows it to keep its plans and operations
in utmost secrecy. The plans for building its new generation of K- and S-class postpanamax
vessels were only revealed to a limited number of ports under non-disclosure
agreements. The first ships were built by a shipyard in the A.P. Möller group allowing the
secret to be kept, thus giving Maersk a competitive advantage over other container shipping
lines. However, this secrecy also prevents a flexible use of the new ships since it delayed
other ports’ investments in sufficiently high and wide gantry cranes. Consequently, Maersk
trades the restriction of initial use to certain routes for competitive advantages through being
first with the post-panamax ships.
5.2.6 To optimise sets of resources together
At the cost of lost flexibility and interchangeability, one system resource can be altered in
order to accommodate a non-standardised resource that shows significant benefits in other
parts of the system. One example is that a new large unit load is allowed on road, but for
intermodal use, the rail wagons must be lowered to keep the wagon/unit load combination
inside the loading profile. The Dutch haulier Harry Vos Transportgroep and the National
Railways of the Netherlands introduce a large swap body together. The non-standard swap
body with internal measurements (length x width x height) 8.0 x 2.46 x 3.0 offers nearly
50% increased volume capacity compared to standard swap bodies. It is capable of being
moved throughout almost the entire European rail network but only in combination with an
especially low wagon. However, no wagons long enough to carry two units have yet been
constructed implying that they have to be loaded together with a 20-foot ISO-container
(Cargo Systems, 1995/b, p. 10). Hence, both the wagons and 20-foot containers must be
matched to the new units for efficient transport services, severely restricting the flexibility.
As mentioned in section 5.1.3, the main problem hampering intermodal transport in the UK
is that the infrastructure cannot accommodate the semi-trailers that today dominate road
transport, if they are loaded upon a standard pocket wagon (see figure 1-2) as in other EU
countries. An obvious alternative to increasing the tunnel and bridge clearances is then to
adapt either the semi-trailers or the rail wagons to enable the combined carriage to use the
existing rail network.
117

Technologies that address the problem include the Tiphook System (developed in Finland
and now abolished) in which semi-trailers with slightly cut upper corners were used, and
the restricted profile wagons EuroSpine by Thrall and the Piglet by Powell Duffryn Rail
Projects. The wagons are also adapted to the special requirements set for use in the Channel
tunnel and investments of some £400 million (ECU 570 million) (Cargo Systems, 1997/b,
p. 16) 79 will give a core network for piggyback traffic with standard semi-trailers. Since the
new wagons are alternatives to fully extend the loading profile at enormous costs, public
money might be used for investments in the new wagons (CHRAYE, interview, 1995).
5.2.7 To design one resource to make another superfluous
Instead of optimising combinations of two resources, a single resource can be designed to
accommodate the functions of the two resources. The strategies are similar but different to
the extent that the resources always go together giving more flexibility but adding costs.
Examples are side-loading semi-trailers and rail wagons, i.e. vehicles equipped with a hydraulic
lift that can transship containers to ground or between lorries and rail wagons, and
RoRo ships with internal loading ramps making it possible to call at any port with sufficient
open space on the quay. Also swap bodies can be transshipped with equipment mounted on
rail wagons – ABB Henschel’s WAS wagon and Mercedes Benz’ Kombilifter are examples
of wagons that can go between the support-legs of a swap body and lift it for further transportation.
The side-loading technologies as well as the swap body wagons are described in
detail in the detached appendix.
5.2.8 To implement an interface between system resources
Instead of changing the intermodal system over-night, it is possible to change one resource
while letting another remain unchanged for a while. Introducing an interface between the
resources can solve this. Interfaces can also be used permanently when pieces of technology
representing different systems must fit together for certain transport commissions. The
most common interface is the semi-trailer chassis that is used as an interface between an
ISO-container or swap body and a semi-trailer tractor. In American intermodal systems, the
container is used as an ITU on the sea and railway links with very efficient, large-scale container
ships and double-stack trains. Containers are lifted onto trailer chassis at intermodal
terminals and the units are then treated as semi-trailers during delivery and pick-up operations.
The benefits of containers at sea and on rail are thus combined with the benefits of
semi-trailers on road.
79 Other – but earlier – sources are more positive, e.g. The Piggyback Consortium (1994): £70 million (ECU
100 million) and SUTCLIFFE (1995): ECU 120 million.
118

A good example of how to use an interface during a transition period is the strategy advocated
by German State Railways (DB AG) for implementing the intermodal small-container
system Logistikbox. The boxes are of two different sizes, one for four and one for six Europallets.
They are handled with forklifts and special road vehicles. In the long run they are
supposed to be transshipped directly to dedicated rail wagons. Before the network and the
demand is fully developed, however, two of the bigger boxes and one of the smaller are
supposed to be loaded together upon a swap body frame to be handled as every other swap
body in the normal intermodal system. The concept is described in detail in the detached
appendix.
Interfaces can also be used in order to accommodate non-standardised equipment in the
standard system. One example, the Hungarian Basket Car, however, represents a less clever
way of addressing the problems of resource unification. The purpose is to accommodate
semi-trailers that are not technically adapted to intermodal use through loading them upon a
steel “basket” that is equipped with standardised lift pockets. Also the rail wagon is purpose-built
and the technology looks very awkward in the figure below, where a long swap
body is loaded upon a semi-trailer chassis, which is in turn loaded upon the basket that is
lifted by a counter-balanced truck to the rail wagon. Hence, a Russian doll solution with a
very small net to gross load ratio is applied.
Figure 5-2
The Intermdodal Railway Basket Car. (Source: Hungarian State Railways,
product brochure, 1995).
For port to port operations, several European shipping lines have invested in RoRocassettes.
Loads as heavy as 70 tons are loaded upon cassettes making up an interface between
the terminal tractors and the cargo, often paper rolls and sheet metal coils. New de-
119

velopments intend to bring the cassettes, however with less payload, outside the port gates
and go unbroken with road and rail.
The plans have been taken ahead in a co-operation scheme between the shipping line Tor
Line, the Port of Göteborg and the stainless steel manufacturer Avesta-Sheffield. Avesta-
Sheffield has production units in both Avesta in the middle of Sweden and in Sheffield in
the UK. Today, steel slabs are moved by rail from Sheffield to Immingham where they are
transshipped to large-sized cassettes for the sea voyage to Göteborg. After a second transshipment,
they are transported by rail to Avesta. After refining to steel plate, 80% of the
products are send back to Sheffield in form of coils (ALGELL and SIMERT, 1997). In order
to decrease handling operations, it is suggested that cassettes are used even for the rail
legs of the transport chain using low rail wagons with the spring package on the inside of
the wheels that are now tested (Transportjournalen, 1997/a, p. 17). The technology is further
described in the detached appendix.
5.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter, the barriers facing actors when they have decided to implement new pieces
of technology into the existing intermodal transportation system was described and analysed
followed by the presentation of some approaches on how to overcome the effects
caused by the barriers.
It is a truly troublesome task to implement new pieces of technology into existing intermodal
transportation systems. The above argumentation is here synthesised into some advice
for intermodal transportation system operators or designers with technological renewal on
the agenda:
• Investigate and analyse barriers carefully before developing and implementing new
technology!
• Emphasise the network effects!
• Decide upon the scope of the new technology!
• Go through the investment analysis algorithm many times and fix variables along the
path!
• Unless you are very sure – obey the rules stipulated by regulations and standards or
implement small parts of new technology gradually!
It should be kept in mind that the whole field of renewing intermodal transportation systems
is a very delicate and complex matter. The systems designers as well as inventors
should be humble before the interrelations within the system and not think that one single
technology should solve all problems globally and certainly not within a short period of
120

time. However, an example of a vigorous attempt on implementing a new concept is described
in chapter 8 including a discussion on how barriers are treated.
121

122

6 TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGY IN
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Systems (2)
Transportation systems (3)
Intermodal transportation systems (4)
Actors Activities Resources (5)
Transshipment
technologies
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies (7)
A particular small-scale concept (8)
importance than domestic ditto.
One of the main economic features of intermodal
transport is that the additional costs of terminal handling
and local road haulage implies that transport relations
must exceed a certain minimum distance to allow
competitiveness with all-road transport. In Europe, this
minimum distance is frequently referred to as being at
least 500 kilometres, which logically leads to the fact
that international intermodal transport is of greater
Contrary to this logic, nationally restricted railway administrations and subvention schemes
have implied that domestic markets for intermodal transport are more prominent than international
ones. This has resulted in limited geographical market sizes and thus relatively
short transport distances. This has in turn lead to the employment of standardised and flexible
systems, i.e. systems technologically open for all types of unit loads. The prime reason
for this is that a large portion of the available market has to be covered by a single system
in order to capture the transport volumes needed for utilising the economies of scale in both
rail haulage and terminal operations.
Nevertheless, continuously lower prices for road haulage has induced severe problems for
intermodal transport over distances in the range 500 to 800 kilometres. Logically, there are
two major solutions to the problems. The first solution is to extend the distances with preserved
technology, which means increased significance of international transport markets.
The other solution is to address the penalising costs and design new system modules for
serving geographically restricted markets. This will logically lead to the division between
one large-scale system for direct connections between terminals in the major European
conurbations and a set of re-engineered system modules featuring local adaptation and connections
to other modules.
So far logical reasoning based upon well-known facts and easily identifiable trends. But is
it so? Well, the competitiveness of intermodal transport is obviously determined by a truly
wide range of factors, but the logical reasoning above is accepted for now. This chapter is
then dedicated to the question whether there are prospects for such a development rather
than trying to prove the logical reasoning.
It is clear that there is a prominent technological conservatism among the operators and innovations
are not likely to be found in the mature transportation modes, but rather in the
interfaces between these. Is it then so simple that gantry cranes and counter-balanced trucks
123

are superior to any other technology or are there alternatives around the corner that wait for
implementation as complements solving more specific tasks?
Hence, it is rational to address the complex issue of technology transition in intermodal
transportation systems by starting out from the terminals and the transshipment technologies
that have been proposed or developed but still wait for implementation. This can, however,
not be done with a ceteris paribus approach restricting the level of analysis to the
terminals. Instead, the transshipment technologies must be studied against their intended
use as an integrated part of an intermodal system.
In this chapter, the development of intermodal transshipment technologies is analysed from
two slightly different angles, both in a systems context. The first one relates the developed
transshipment technologies to the alternative ways of trafficking the rail part of the network
that were presented in section 4.2.1. The requirements on transshipment technologies that
each traffic design entails are deduced and then technologies fulfilling them are identified.
In the second study, it is investigated whether national or Europe-wide conditions and applied
policies have been prevailing for the development of new transshipment technologies.
Both analyses aim at showing that there are alternatives to the conventional transshipment
technologies and that they are suitable for solving specific tasks in a modular intermodal
transportation system.
The technologies referred to are all presented in a rather comprehensive way in the detached
appendix. Hence, the technologies are only briefly described or just mentioned by
name here.
6.1 THERE ARE TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR
ALTERNATIVE NETWORK DESIGNS!
A wide range of factors influence the choice of traffic design to be employed in intermodal
transportation systems. The choice of traffic design then decides which level of performance
that has to be met by the terminals and thus the choice of transshipment technology.
The analysis in this section is based upon the alternative ways of trafficking the rail part of
the network that were presented in section 4.2.1. For each of the five traffic principles, the
requirements on the terminals and the transshipment technology are analysed, and examples
of technologies that have the qualifications for fulfilling the demands are given. However,
no example is given for the fifth traffic design – flexible routes – that is still a utopia
in European rail transportation.
The underlying factors and the interrelations between them are illustrated in the figure below.
The lower part of the analysis model is emphasised here, since the upper part was
dealt with in section 4.2.1.
124

Geographical and infrastructural
factors
Unit-loads or
rail waggons
Traffic design
Demand
Goods flow
-amount
-type of unit-loads
Transport quality
Available technology
Terminal design
Figure 6-1
Interrelations between the factors influencing traffic and terminal design.
The analysis is also based upon a number of prerequisites concerning the level of analysis.
The intermodal network modules in question cover the geographical size of a major European
country or a large region. The task of the modules is to transport ITUs from one terminal
to another, i.e. the road haulage is performed outside the analysed system. Using this
demarcation, the shipper or forwarder with a full ITU is the system’s customer. For facilitating
international traffic, compatibility is focused on the exchanged resources while the
employed transshipment technologies might well be adapted to the special requirements
given by the used network principle.
Furthermore, the analysis is implicitly based upon four analytic questions about the performance
and operation of the intermodal system:
• Should the module be operated with fixed train sets or marshalling, i.e., should the rail
wagons or the ITUs be transferred in the terminals along the route?
• Should the transshipment technology be capable of ITU transfer in a short period of time
or is loading/unloading permissible throughout the day?
• What are the capacity requirements, i.e., should the terminals be efficient high-capacity
facilities, or are low-cost, low-capacity terminals sufficient?
• Should the system module be technologically open for all ITUs or should it be a specialised
solution?
Parts of the rendering are worked up and updated from three earlier articles (WOXENIUS
et al., 1994, WOXENIUS, 1997/b and 1997/c) and the co-authors of the first article Johan
HELLGREN and Lars SJÖSTEDT are herewith credited.
6.1.1 Terminals for direct connections
In a direct connection design, there is no central terminal in the system. Instead, all handling
of the unit loads is performed at terminals near the consignor and the consignee. This
means that the goods volume passing any one terminal is limited, thus reducing the capac-
125

ity requirements on the terminals. The transfer time requirements depend on how long the
trains stay at the terminal. If trains stay at the terminal throughout the day – as is customary
in Europe today – this becomes a non-critical parameter. Nevertheless, due to the demand
from customers, the terminal is mainly utilised in some early morning hours and some late
afternoon hours, when quick transshipment is needed.
Despite the large number of transshipment technologies developed over the last 30 years,
the intermodal terminals look rather much the same throughout the world – a gantry crane
overreaching some railway tracks and lorry driving lanes is complemented with large
counter-balanced trucks. Large and complicated terminals are needed for handling many
different types of ITUs and the costs must be distributed between a large number of transshipments.
The trains remain at the terminal throughout the day, contain a fixed number of
wagons and are operated following the direct connection principle. On connections with
small or irregular flows, some wagons might be marshalled between departure and arrival
terminals.
An alternative to the traditional transshipment technology is to equip the vehicles and ITUs
for independent transshipment, i.e., applying the approach “to design one resource to make
another superfluous” as described in section 5.2.7. The interesting feature of these systems
is that the terminal requirements are virtually restricted to a track in the driving lane.
Hence, the terminal investments and localisation becomes much less crucial and definite.
Also simple sidings at the premises of the consignor and the consignee can be used as terminals.
It is questionable, however, if trains operated directly between the private sidings of
the consignor and the consignee can be referred to as intermodal trains.
An example of such a solution is a rail wagon designed for lifting swap bodies or cassettes.
The restriction to direct connections is due to the fact that the wagons run underneath prepositioned
swap bodies or cassettes and lift them in one operation. Brand names include
Mercedes-Benz’ Kombi-Lifter, ABB Henschel’s WAS Wagon, AGEVE’s Supertrans, the
Wieskötter System, Rautaruukki’s Wheelless System and Chalmers’ Titan cassette system.
The two former brands are now entering service while the others are still on the drawing
board or have been abolished.
Also bimodal systems 80 are practically limited to direct connections. The reason is that the
concept requires purpose-built trailers and bogies as well as that the bogies cannot easily be
repositioned empty, i.e. they face the barrier induced by the need for repositioning of sys-
80 Brand names of bimodal systems include Wabash’s Road Railer, Coda-E, A.T. Kearney’s Cars,
Breda/Ferrosud’s Carro Bimodale, Fruehauf/Talbot/Remafer’s Kombirail, Innotermodal’s 3R International system,
Reggiane’s Proteo, Sambre et Meuse’s Rail Trailer, Technical University of Warsaw’s Tabor Bimodalny,
Trailer Train Limited’s Trailer Train and Transfesa’s Transtrailer.
126

tem resources. Some bimodal technologies, however, are today running in commercial services.
6.1.2 Terminals for corridors
In a system based on the corridor design, each train passes several terminals during one
day. Terminal transfer times must therefore be kept at a minimum, which must be considered
when choosing the terminal handling equipment to be employed. On the other hand is
only a limited amount of goods handled at each terminal, accordingly limiting the capacity
requirements. Since trains are available at each terminal only for a limited period of time,
storage space for unit loads must be provided at the terminals, and there should be no need
for road vehicles and rail wagons to be co-ordinated at the terminals.
Demands for transshipment ability of all types of ITUs might lead to conflicts with the requirement
of fast transfers, because, for instance, semi-trailers are unsuitable for horizontal
handling.
Germany with a huge demand for transportation along the industrial zones, e.g. along the
Rhine, is the leading country when it comes to developing high-capacity corridor terminals.
Immensely capital-intensive concepts have been presented by Krupp (Fast Handling System),
Noell (Fast Transshipment System) and, slightly cheaper, by Mannesmann Transmodal
(Transterminal). Some of the new concepts are now being constructed (O’MAHONY,
1996).
More interesting to an extensive implementation throughout Europe are the small-scale corridor
terminals suitable also for relatively small flows. In Japan, forklift trucks are used at
intermediate stops along terminals in JR Freight’s Multi-functional freight track system.
Some horizontal transshipment technologies for corridor use have also been presented.
Among the promising ones, the CarConTrain and the Kombiflex have Swedish origin,
while the Mondiso Rail Terminal is Dutch.
6.1.3 Terminals for hub-and-spoke designs
The chief characteristic of the hub-and-spoke design is that all consignments pass through a
central terminal. Hence, this terminal has to accommodate an extensive flow of goods. It is
therefore of paramount importance that the hub terminal has a large capacity and that it is
able to offer short handling times. As is true for the corridor design, semi-trailers can only
be used if transshipment times are kept short. Only rail-rail transshipment takes place at the
hub terminal implying that it is actually not a true intermodal terminal. The satellite terminals
can be conventional ones with gantry cranes and forklift trucks.
127

France is the archetype of a hub-and-spoke system, not only when transportation is concerned.
A hub-and-spoke network is then almost axiomatic, and CNC 81 operates such a
network (NIERAT, 1995/a, p. 10). Accordingly, the French are leading the development
with Technicatome’s gigantic Commutor system, but they are being challenged by German
Noell with the Mega Hub Concept, by Austrian Pentaplan with the High Capacity Terminal
and by Swiss Tuchschmid with the Compact Terminal. The latter development schemes
also aim at the emerging market for gateway terminals for transshipments between trains
operating in different network modules while the Commutor only operates with purposebuilt
wagons that make the technology less feasible as a gateway terminal.
6.1.4 Terminals for fixed routes
A fixed route design faces roughly the same requirements as a corridor one, but on a
smaller scale. Short train to train transshipment times at gateway terminals, or alternatively
marshalling so that the last wagons in the train are to be decoupled at marshalling yards, are
therefore a crucial requirement. However, it is generally difficult to plan such routes that
the last wagon is always the one to be decoupled. In order to make this design feasible, it is
therefore necessary to restrict the types of ITU admitted or to employ a handling technology
that can accommodate all types of ITUs. Serving as gateways between network modules
can be a future task for the traditional intermodal terminals that today are generally
badly utilised during the mid-day and mid-night hours.
In a current development project called “Light-combi”, Swedish State Railways (SJ) initially
plans to employ forklift trucks travelling with the trains and operated by the rail engine
drivers at terminals. The services will be technologically restricted to swap bodies and
containers. Although the corridor network design is prioritised, also direct connections and
loop trains will be mixed in a relatively dynamic fashion. The plans are to build 30-40
small-scale terminals that will be connected by traffic along about ten rail corridor lines
with an average length of some 600 kilometres. Each corridor will connect between five
and ten small terminals (YOUNG, 1997, p. 111). The Light-combi corridors will be linked
to the conventional “Heavy-combi” network and to international lines using conventional
terminals as gateways (LARSSON, 1996, p. 3). The concept is further elaborated in chapter
8 and in the detached appendix.
81 CNC stands for Compagnie Nouvelle de Cadres and the company is SNCF’s subsidiary for container transport
by rail.
128

6.1.5 Terminals for flexible routes
In this design, the train sets traffic routes, along which loading and unloading operations
are performed on several occasions. The transshipment capacity required is limited since
only a few ITUs are handled at each terminal.
Nevertheless, due to the rigidity of train timetables, this is currently no option for intermodal
transport. With future information systems and enhanced availability of tracks, however,
dynamic timetables are foreseen for freight trains.
6.2 THERE ARE TECHNOLOGIES CONFORMING TO
NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS!
Transportation systems are designed according to geographical and infrastructural conditions
as well as to the demand for transport services in terms of transport relations, volumes
and demanded service quality. These factors are especially important for developers of intermodal
transportation systems that must consider the preconditions for all links and all
nodes in the transport chain.
This study aims at analysing whether national or Europe-wide conditions and applied policies
have been prevailing for the development of new intermodal transshipment technologies.
The study is demarcated to the EU countries, excluding Eire, Greece, Portugal and
Spain but including Norway due to its close connections to the EU, and Switzerland due to
its significance for intermodal transportation crossing the Alps. For each country, current
development projects are checked against the prevailing conditions and policy. The national
level is chosen since the railway networks and transport policies are rather national
than regional. For future intermodal systems, however, the significance of national borders
is anticipated to decrease.
The analysis is prepared using a set of complex data and information gathered through
studies of numerous product brochures, scientific articles, industry journals and through
attendance to conferences and exhibitions, all during a long time of accumulated research.
The topography and demography is studied in various geography books and atlases. Most
of the described technologies and concepts are described in the detached appendix and literature
references concerning the specific technologies are not repeated here. The findings
in this analysis are also summarised in a table in Appendix A.
The rendering is a worked up and updated version of three earlier articles (WOXENIUS et
al., 1995/a and 1996; and WOXENIUS, 1996) and the co-authors of the two former articles,
Johan HELLGREN, Ola KARLSSON (now HULTKRANTZ) and Lars SJÖSTEDT
are herewith credited.
129

6.2.1 The analysis reference model
Mother nature stipulates the basic conditions for all human activities, transportation certainly
not excluded. The pattern of mountains, marshes, seas, lakes and rivers influences the
choice of transportation mode and the cost of establishing the infrastructure and transport
networks. Nature has also influenced the geographical pattern of other human activities.
Location of natural resources, the climate and the soil all influence where human beings
have decided to settle and thus indirectly the demand for transport services. Hence, the topography
and demography of a country affect the intermodal terminals both by stipulating
possible rail links, i.e. the configuration of the network, and the competitiveness of intermodal
transport services. Together they determine the total goods flow for the terminals to
handle. The theoretical base for the network configuration is presented in section 4.2.1 and
the related requirements for transshipment technology were defined in the preceding section.
According to MANHEIM’s (1979, p. 13) basic relations model, the performance of the
transportation system in the long term influences localisation of manufacturing and other
human activities. However, this long-time interdependence is ignored in this analysis since
intermodal transport is only a part, and so far only a marginal part, of the total transportation
system serving Europe.
Another factor that influences development of transshipment technologies is the current
intermodal transportation system, e.g. the structure of the industry and its present market.
The focus of the analysis is on significant differences from what can be considered as “average”
European conditions. The competition with road transport is especially emphasised.
So far, European intermodal transport has generally proven to be unprofitable for the companies
involved while the society as a whole has benefited from the limited degree of external
effects related to the transportation system. In line with EU Directive 91/440 (The
Official Journal, 1991), the national railways are now transformed into organisations with
strict business economic profitability goals. Hence, until the external costs have been internalised,
publicly funded Research and Technological development and Demonstration
(RTD) will continue to play an important role in the design of intermodal transportation
systems, and particularly the interface between the relatively mature road and rail transportation
modes. Most notable of these programs are arguably the European Commission’s
framework programmes, but the issue is also addressed by national programmes and
smaller programmes run by the Commission.
A reference model can thus be outlined. The included factors are: the general preconditions,
e.g. topography and demography, the current intermodal transportation system regarding
infrastructure, production system and competition and governmental and EU policies
for financing RTD, investments and transport service operation. These factors all affect
130

the general lists of functional requirements for new terminal technologies that apply to each
country or the EU as a whole. Of course, the lists lined out here are restricted to a logical
analysis at a general level; the lists actually guiding technology development might be quite
different in single cases. Finally, country by country, a number of development projects are
compared to the special features expected to guide the development. The model is graphically
presented in the figure below.
General
preconditions
Topography
Demography
Current
intermodal
transport system
Infrastructure
Production system
Market situation
Government
and EU
policies
R&D
Financial
support
Deduced requirements
for new terminal
technologies
Correspondence?
Development
projects
Figure 6-2
The reference model guiding the analysis.
A similar approach is taken by BUKOLD (1996) when mapping the genesis of intermodal
transport in Germany, France and the Netherlands, but as it was published after the original
version of the present study; it has not been a formal influence. In the rest of this chapter,
the reference model is applied to a number of European countries that are listed in a purely
geographical order, starting from the north.
6.2.2 Norway
Norway is largely mountainous with a large number of fjords and inlets that cut inland from
the coast and the winter climate is extremely harsh. Rail transport to the northern parts goes
through Sweden because the Norwegian national rail network misses a link to the far North.
This means that nature dictates a hub-and-spoke structure or a corridor with rather long
feeder links. The topography also implies that coastal shipping is competitive. In addition
to the barren topography, the scarcity of population means that intermodal transport is only
feasible in some areas. Any funding programme for intermodal technology development
has not been identified during this study and much of the research related to Norwegian
intermodal transport concerns commercial issues and how to connect Norway to
Continental Europe (e.g. BJÖRNLAND, 1993; BRYNE and LJUNGHILL, 1995 and TØI,
1989). In short, the preconditions in Norway do not favour intermodal transport.
Any concept dedicated to the Norwegian intermodal transportation system must facilitate
small-scale handling and a low fixed to variable cost ratio. Coastal shipping and the harsh
131

climate must also be taken into account in the design process. These problematic conditions
together with the small domestic market are constraints leading to the fact that the Norwegians
have not come up with any important intermodal transport technologies. However,
the Norwegians are not technology unfriendly and some systems developed in other countries
have been commercially implemented or tested, e.g. a bimodal system (HINDLEY,
1992, p. 73) and the small-box concept LLB. Moreover, during the autumn of 1996 Swedish
State Railways (SJ) ran commercial tests with a rolling highway service aiming at Norwegian
lorries transiting Sweden but the service did not prove to be particularly successful
(see section 5.2.1).
Since there are neither good preconditions for intermodal transport nor any important
achievement when technology development is concerned, it could be stated that there is a
correspondence according to the analysis model.
6.2.3 Finland
Finland is situated on the eastern side of the Gulf of Bothnia, which means that most connections
to and from Western Europe comprise a sea leg. Therefore, a multimodal system
(road-rail-sea) is often required. On the infrastructure side, the wider gauge of Finnish rail
tracks means that there is no use transporting intermodal transport wagons between Finland
and Western Europe 82 . A large part of the flow between Finland and Continental Europe
goes through Sweden strengthening the importance of multimodal adaptation due to the
second sea leg still needed. Much of the flows concerns forest products generally better
suited for conventional rail transport and shipping.
Due to the paucity of population, intermodal transport only exists in some regions in
Finland. In addition, the large size of lorries – 22 m and 56 metric tons – further reduces the
competitiveness of intermodal transport and yield lorries that are not adapted for carrying
unit loads. However, after entering the EU, Finland and Sweden have agreed to increase the
permissible vehicle length to 25.25 m in 2003 in order to make it easier for foreign hauliers
to compete domestically in Scandinavia. As described in section 5.1.4, the new rules favour
lorry configurations based upon unit loads more then the present rules.
Furthermore, the Finns are earnest in their intention to serve as the main gateway to Russia
and the Far East by the Trans-Siberian railway. The long experience of trading with the
Russians makes the transport route via St Petersburg and the Port of Kotka very interesting
until new and efficient rail links have been built directly between Russia and Western
82 The bogies of conventional freight wagons, however, are exchanged at the border in Haparanda/Tornio and
in the port of Turku/Åbo in Finland. The latter investment has enjoyed funding from the EU PACT Programme
(European Commission, 1996/b, p. 33).
132

Europe. The gateway role has led to a concentration to ISO-containers that are suitable for
transportation in Russia and can be used for sea transport directly to markets overseas.
Finland’s geography calls for transshipment technologies that are suited for transshipment
between the vehicles and vessels used in road, rail and sea transportation. The focus on
ISO-containers calls for equipment that is specially adapted to that unit load. The modest
population in Finland, however, implies that there is no demand for high-capacity equipment.
The Finns have been quite active in developing intermodal technologies. Technologies that
have been developed in Finland include the port-to-port cassette system Rolux, which has
been proposed to be extended into the truly multimodal Wheelless System. Moreover, the
Biglo side-loading trailer and Partek’s Multilift (in chain-lift and hook-lift versions) address
the demand for road-to-ground transshipment of ISO-containers in small-scale operations.
The technologies can also be used for small-scale horizontal road-rail transshipment.
In fact, Partek has co-operated with Finnish State Railways (VR) in developing the chainlift
version of their Multilift into the TTT-system, a concept where ISO-containers and swap
bodies are transshipped horizontally between a lorry and a purpose-built railway wagon.
The developed technologies match the established specification well. In addition, the Finnish
supply industry has presented the Tiphook system for horizontal semi-trailer transshipment,
however developed for UK conditions (see more in the UK section below).
6.2.4 Sweden
As is true for all Nordic countries, Sweden’s small population dictates that intermodal
transport is not feasible in all areas. However, as Sweden is oblong, the distances required
for intermodal competitiveness are present between several of the largest cities. Swedish
road regulations permit even larger vehicles than the Finnish ones – 24 metres and 60 metric
tons is allowed – which further reduces the competitiveness of intermodal transport. Articulated
lorries today dominate Swedish domestic road transport but as mentioned in the
section above, Sweden and Finland have agreed to change the road regulation into one that
favours road vehicle combinations using ITUs.
SJ with subsidiaries dominates the production of the core intermodal service. Small private
hauliers generally operate the local road haulage activity and some terminals are privately
owned. Nevertheless, SJ’s monopoly on the main lines is now challenged by the private
railway company BK Tåg that launches a new intermodal container service between Karlstad
and Göteborg in March 1998 (Göteborgsposten, 1998, p. 11).
Swedish national RTD policy aims at stimulating development of technologies suitable for
low-density demand and for short sea shipping. This is in line with Sweden’s limited popu-
133

lation and peninsular lie, although the importance of the latter fact will be diminished once
the Öresund Bridge is finished in the year 2000. The directive to a parliamentary committee
for analysis of the future of Swedish transportation revealed a desire for stronger governmental
involvement and the establishment of further integration between the transportation
modes as well as increased environmental concern. The committee proposed measures for
internalising external costs, that is increasing the tax assessment of road traffic (Kommunikationskommittén,
1997), but the committee report was badly received by virtually all bodies
to which it was referred for consideration. The issue of fuel taxes is truly delicate – not
least since diesel taxes negatively influence the competitiveness of the Swedish export industry
– and the government bill based upon the committee proposal does not include any
increase in taxation.
The most notable factors that influence the development of transshipment technologies in
Sweden are the limited population density, which means that technologies for low-density
flows are needed, and the peninsular position, which means that short sea shipping and ferries
need to be integrated into the operations. The first factor is more generally prevailing
than the second, and therefore most development projects have been aimed in that direction.
Besides several versions of counter-balanced trucks, Swedish low-capacity technologies
include Kombiflex, CarConTrain PLUS, the Stenhagen System, C-sam and a special container
technology for dry bulk material transportation. Other, now abolished examples are
the C-sam 83 small box system and Supertrans. The multimodal TITAN cassette system proposed
by Chalmers University of Technology addresses both small scale transportation and
the peninsular lie, while HIAB’s hook-lift and different brands of side-loading trailers, focus
on serving the short and deep sea shipping markets with hinterland distribution. Furthermore,
FlexiWaggon, a twisting rolling highway wagon designed for the coming 25.25
m vehicles, and Berglund’s G2000 RoRo are new developments of rolling stock with internal
handling aiming for the small-scale market.
Despite the fact that development of small-scale intermodal transshipment technology has
been governmentally sponsored through the general programme for technology development,
SJ’s intermodal transport company Rail Combi insists in investing largely in conventional
terminal technology – by SJ referred to as Heavy-combi. At the staff level, however,
SJ has presented ideas for a small-scale intermodal transportation systems including the use
of small counter balanced trucks and new domestic containers (NELLDAL, 1994). Moreover,
as described in section 6.1.4, 7.3, chapter 8 and in the detached appendix, SJ runs a
development project lining up the schemes for a Light-combi system for geographical outreach
and as a complement to the large-scale intermodal system. The preliminary plans
83 Also sold under the brand names LLB, Mini-link and Maxi-link.
134

comprise 30-40 terminals covering most parts of Sweden with international connections
available through terminals in Oslo, Trondheim and Haparanda/Tornio, several Swedish
ports and a gateway terminal in Malmö.
In general, the Swedish inventions contribute to solving the special needs for the Swedish
market but have also attracted attention from foreign markets since the conditions that for
long have been prevalent in Sweden are rather congruent with those for future small-scale
network modules in other European countries.
6.2.5 Denmark
From a transportation point of view, the dominant geographical feature of Denmark is its
position as a gateway between the rest of the Nordic countries and continental Europe. In
addition, Denmark in itself is too small for substantial domestic intermodal transport, which
further strengthens its role as a transit country. Mainly for the same reason, rail cargo services
in general are in severe trouble. Another dominant feature is Denmark’s abundance of
islands, which means that all transit transport will comprise at least one ferry leg until the
fixed connections over the Great Belt and Öresund are completed 84 . For Danish road transport,
the dominant market feature is that articulated lorries are more frequently used than
semi-trailers.
Since 1990, the Transport Ministry has financed 17 research projects related to intermodal
transport through its Transport Council (European Commission, 1996/b, p. 37). None of
these, however, have come up with important technological solutions.
As is the case with Norway, Denmark has not established itself on the map of intermodal
transport technology inventions. However, a small container service called +box was tried
but is now discontinued, reportedly 85 after a patent dispute with the Swedish company Lagab
over the similarity to their C-sam concept. Moreover, a commercial service employing
bimodal technology connects Denmark with Italy. The cargo – meat southbound and vegetables
northbound – calls for refrigerated units and the project indicates that the Danish intermodal
transport industry is open for new technologies. The role as gateway for the other
Scandinavian countries also means that some technology adaptations are needed.
The conclusion for Denmark is as for Norway – no real potential and no important achievements.
84 The rail tunnel under the Great Belt opened for operations on 1 June 1997, while the bridge for road traffic is
due on 14 June 1998 (OHLSEN, www-site, 1998). The Öresund bridge will connect Denmark and Sweden
early in the year 2000 (UIRR, 1997, p. 11).
85 TORKELSSON, telephone interview, 1997.
135

6.2.6 Germany
Despite high costs for the east-west reunion, Germany is still the economic hub of Europe.
This means that a major demand for transport services is generated within the country. The
fact that Germany is the world’s number one export country adds to the huge demand for
goods transport. In addition, Germany’s geographical position in the heart of Europe means
that a lot of transit traffic flows through the country
Topographically, Germany is flat in the north and increasingly mountainous in the south.
The large flows of German intermodal transport means that the traffic to a large extent can
be arranged as direct connections, but the industry concentration along the river Rhine and
other inland waterways makes a corridor layout feasible. Integrating road, rail and inland
waterways is obviously a task for German transportation system designers.
Furthermore, Germany is heavily populated with industry particularly concentrated to areas
such as the Ruhr. This means that space for intermodal terminals is limited and, due to road
congestion, the size of pick-up areas is rather determined by haulage time than distance.
The size of the German intermodal transport market means that RTD on transshipment
technology is largely market-driven and therefore governmental RTD policies less consequential.
Nevertheless, some technologies have emerged through governmental sponsoring,
mainly through a programme in the late 1970’s. Moreover, German intermodal transport
has benefited from substantial economic help for terminal investments, i.e. the demand side
of the intermodal transport terminal equipment market is sponsored rather than the supply
side. An example is the project, “Technologieplattform 2000+” that has attracted governmental
funding after an initiative from the leading transport and terminal operators: DB
AG, Kombiverkehr, Transfracht and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Strasse
(DUSS). The project aims at increasing the productivity in all links in the intermodal transport
chain (HAASS, 1996).
Further political initiatives influence the development of the German intermodal terminal
network. An obvious one is to fully integrate the eastern parts of Germany into the network,
which requires large-scale investments in new terminal equipment. The government investment
plans for 1996-2012 amounts to about DM 4.1 billion (ECU 2.1 billion) for construction
of new transshipment terminals and improvement of existing ones (LARSSON,
1996, p. 2). According to SEIDELMANN (1996), the clearly defined aim is to increase the
amount of goods moved by intermodal transport from 30 million tons today to 90 million
tons in 2010. Together with Deutsche Bank, the government has released DM 400 million
(ECU 200 million) for constructing seven new intermodal terminals with DM 200 million
(ECU 100 million) in reserve (O’MAHONY, 1996, p. 39).
136

The high population density and concentration of industry in Germany mean that transshipment
technologies need to be suitable for fast transshipments along corridors. Terminal
operations should also be possible on small terminal surfaces. Another requirement is that
integration with inland waterways should be possible since these have the potential for carrying
a significant transport volume.
German transshipment technologies that facilitate fast transshipment in a corridor network
with limited space requirements, include Noell’s Fast Transshipment System and the Mega
Hub Concept, Krupp’s Fast Handling System (FHS), Thyssen’s Container-Transport-
System (development discontinued) and Mannesmann’s Transmann. The governmentally
funded building scheme mentioned above includes Krupp FHS in Dresden, Transmann in
Erfurt 86 and Noell’s Mega Hub Concept in Lehrte (O’MAHONY, 1996, p. 39).
The development programme of the late 1970’s resulted in a large number of technologies,
none of which are used in German intermodal transport today, since they do not meet the
requirement of fast transshipment. DEMAG presented a variant of the conventional gantry
crane able to transship containers and swap bodies under the overhead contact line, a solution
also advocated by Aachen University of Technology. More outspoken small-scale
technologies include the Ringer System, LogMan’s Container FTS, the Hochstein System,
Umschlagfahrzeuge Schwanhäuser/Lässig (ULS) and the Wieskötter System.
Small-scale transshipment technologies also include various bimodal concepts as well as
rail wagons equipped for lifting swap bodies like ABB’s WAS-wagon and Mercedes Benz’
Kombi-Lifter. Roland-System Schiene-Strasse (RSS) aims at horizontal transshipment
(turntable wagons) of bulk containers with low-value cargo, and Entwicklungsteam Kölker-
Thiele’s ALS is an innovative device for transshipping semi-trailers horizontally between a
platform and dedicated rail wagons by use of caterpillar treads.
Moreover, German development includes new unit loads and intermodal vehicles. Stackable
swap bodies have been developed for the purpose of stacking at terminals, easier handling
with top-lift spreaders and also for integration with navigation on inland waterways
(SEIDELMANN and FRITZCHE, 1993, p. 11). DB Cargo has also marketed a small-box
system, Logistikbox but the commercial development has reportedly been halted. DB
Cargo’s CargoSprinter is a diesel-powered train module designed for flexible use of the intermodal
network.
Most of the many transshipment technologies developed in Germany are in accordance
with the established specification.
86 The construction of the Transmann has later been abolished and Krupp’s contract has been changed into
planning for a terminal near Essen (DE BOCK, E-mail message, 1998).
137

6.2.7 Benelux
The Benelux countries are, with the exception of the Ardennes region in the southeast, flat
and populous. In addition, they are not large enough to warrant significant domestic intermodal
transport, especially apparent in the case of Luxembourg. Instead, the main source of
intermodal transport demand is the hinterland transport by rail or inland waterways of containers
that flow through the major seaports in the area. Of these, Rotterdam is a traditional
road-port and Antwerp is a traditional rail-port (DE LEIJER, 1995, p. 1). The small volumes
of intermodal transport in the Benelux is slightly misleading since many hauliers pass
the borders on rubber wheels and enter intermodal services at foreign terminals (ibid., p. 2).
German policies for supporting DB AG and the German container ports also restrict the intermodal
flows in the Benelux countries.
The Dutch government has launched a large programme supporting intermodal transport –
NLG 160 million (ECU 73 million) have been earmarked for developing the terminal network
until 1999. Additional NLG 20 million (ECU 9 million) are dedicated to promote intermodal
transport during the same period (Ministry of Transport in the Netherlands, 1994).
Still, the road lobby is very strong (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 143). With the high number of
maritime containers and the widespread network of inland waterways, the intermodal concept
is wide in scope in the Netherlands. Terminals for transshipments between inland waterways
and other modes of transport are emerging rapidly. The current terminal investments
are divided into three levels, of which the lowest is a concern for local authorities
meaning less co-ordination in the network (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 148 and DE LEIJER, 1995,
p. 4).
The Belgian situation is unclear, and revitalisation of the Belgian State Railways (SNCB)
continues in a slow pace. Another national feature is that investments in the rail transportation
system of Belgium are not based upon SNCB needs, but decided upon by the regions
and based upon a 60/40 distribution between Flanders and Walloon (DE LEIJER, 1995, p.
3). The Belgian UIRR-company T.R.W. and the container company Interferry do investments
in terminals.
Luxembourg has one terminal and for obvious reasons small and purely international flows,
yet the country is represented within the UIRR by Combilux.
To handle hinterland transportation in the Benelux, transshipment technologies need to be
adapted to ISO-containers. In addition, the transshipment technologies need to function
well with inland waterways and make efficient port handling possible. The small size of the
countries implies that international standards should be obeyed. Especially Dutch road
138

hauliers are famous for being cheap and efficient 87 and semi-trailers dominate road transport
in the region (see Table 5-3). Nevertheless, ISO-containers and swap bodies dominate
intermodal flows (DE LEIJER, 1995, p. 1).
Dutch companies dominate the innovation of intermodal technologies in the region. Efficient
seaport handling is achieved by the ECT/Delta Sea-Land System. However, the large
amount of containers generates substantial amounts of traffic to the port area and the urban
area suffers from pollution and congestion (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 145 and KING, 1998, p.
59). In order to decrease these problems, ECT – the company that operates the container
port – plans an innovative new infrastructure. The infrastructure – CombiRoad – will be
used for moving the interface to road, rail and barge traffic from the actual port area
(HEERE, 1997 and LEYN, 1995) and in the long run perhaps also for connecting the ports
of Rotterdam and Antwerp.
The Coda-E bimodal system 88 and the development of a domestic small-container (10-foot)
system – Rail Distributie Nederland – for flowers and vegetables are examples of road-rail
technologies, the latter a contradiction to the fact that the Netherlands is geographically
small. In addition to these, the Abroll Container Transport System (ACTS) and an inclined
plane technology, N.C.H. ISO 2000/4000, have been developed for the special needs for
transshipment and distribution generated by ISO-containers. The manufacturer of the latter
technology has also come up with an idea of integrating transport on roads, tracks and
inland waterways in the Mondiso Intermodal Transportation System. Besides N.C.H. ISO
2000/4000, the system comprises the horizontal road-rail transshipment equipment
Mondiso Rail Terminal and barges equipped with onboard gantry cranes (N.C.H. Hydraulic
Systems, video, 1995). Further Dutch innovations for intermodal transport on inland waterways
include an automatic barge loading system – the Rollerbarge – proposed by cooperating
consultants (HUIJSMAN, conference presentation, 1995) and a barge chain concept
with the appropriate name the River Snake (RUTTEN, 1995, p. 88).
Also in the case of the Benelux, the correspondence between the national requirements and
the actually developed technologies is satisfactory.
6.2.8 The UK
Although rail transport was invented in the UK, politicians are generally considered to have
an anti-rail attitude (SUTCLIFFE, 1995, p. 9). In addition, much of the rail network can be
87 In 1990, Dutch hauliers transported 27% (in tonkm) of border-crossing road transport within the EU, whereas
the Netherlands only accounts for 5% of its Gross National Product (BUKOLD, 1996, p. 143).
88 The Coda-E project has received funding from EUREKA – an action at the European level, however without
direct EU funding (European Commission, 1996/b, p. 36).
139

seen as being in less than mint condition. The UK also differs from continental Europe in
that it has a severely limited loading profile on rail, which means that semi-trailers and
some swap bodies have to be limited in height to be rail-transportable. This is a serious
problem to intermodal transport since semi-trailers heavily dominate road transport in Britain
(see Table 5-3). Nevertheless, the Channel Tunnel has lead to a boost for intermodal
transport based upon containers and lower swap bodies of semi-trailer length.
The main problem that dictates the specification for transshipment technologies in the UK
is, accordingly, the need for equipment that allows intermodal transport with semi-trailers
of standard size. Consequently, current RTD policy is aimed at making piggyback transport
possible on the existing infrastructure. An obvious alternative to increasing the tunnel and
bridge clearances is to adapt either the semi-trailers or the rail wagons to letting the combined
carriage use the existing rail network. In addition, the Channel tunnel places specific
demands on the technology that is to be used in connection with this traffic.
Technologies that address the main problem include the Tiphook System (developed in
Finland and now abolished) in which semi-trailers with slightly cut upper corners were
used. Also the bimodal technology Trailer Train presented by the British company Tiger
and the restricted-profile wagons EuroSpine by Thrall and the Piglet by Powell Duffryn
Rail Projects, as described in sections 5.1.3 and 5.2.6, address the problems related to semitrailers.
Also some small-scale intermodal systems have emerged in the UK. British Rail (BR)
tested the Swedish CarConTrain concept and has come up with the similar technologies the
Self-Loading Vehicle and a rail wagon with elevating twistlocks, which operates together
with a lorry with a roller trolley. The similarity to the CarConTrain lies in that they propose
solutions for horizontal transshipment of ISO-containers. Also Blatchford’s Stag technology
addresses this issue, but the solution is a side-loading equipment mounted on a semitrailer.
Furthermore, Cholerton Ltd of Isle of Man has come up with Shwople, a terminal equipment
built between the tracks for the purpose of lifting semi-trailers and swing them perpendicular
to the tracks for semi-trailer tractor handling. Other than that, a rolling highway
technology is used for the Channel tunnel traffic. So far it is limited to the core tunnel distance
that has a very generous loading profile as shown in Figure 5-1.
In all, the British attempts are reasonably congruent with the logically deduced requirements.
140

6.2.9 France
The French rail network is – as is much of the society as a whole – largely centred on Paris,
which assumes the function of a national hub. In the different regions, very different preconditions
exist. The country’s topography ranges from plains in the north to the extremely
mountainous Southwest and Southeast. Industrial regions coexist with purely rural regions
as well as regions dependent on tourism. France also serves as a transit country for transports
to Italy as well as to the Iberian Peninsula, where a wider rail gauge is employed.
The intermodal transportation system of France is today much of a domestic phenomenon.
This is illustrated by the fact that the French UIRR-company Novatrans was accountable
for 22% of the consignments transported domestically by the UIRR companies in 1996, but
only for 7% of the consignments moved internationally (UIRR, 1997, p. 9). Two facts,
however, keep the statistics of international intermodal moves on French tracks lower than
they actually are. First, most of the intermodal traffic crossing French borders can be referred
to as transit between Germany and the Iberian Peninsula (AGUADO, 1995), traffic
that does not show up in Novatrans statistics. Second, French trade with Germany and the
Benelux countries often contains one domestic intermodal transport service, but due to lack
of technical and infrastructural standards the goods passes the border on rubber wheels.
French State Railways (SNCF) enjoys a strong position in the French society. The intermodal
RTD policy, of which SNCF is responsible for a large part, is aimed at developing fast
and large-scale transshipment technologies, which is consistent with the hub-and-spoke
structure of the rail network. Another problem to solve is the impact of the substantial transit
traffic by articulated road vehicles. In addition to this, technologies are also required for
use in the Channel tunnel. French intermodal policy aims for doubling the volumes between
1995 and 2002. The investment aid to intermodal transport amounted to FRF 300 million
(ECU 45 million) in 1995, six times as much as earlier financial help (NIERAT, 1995/a, p.
2).
Two development projects aiming for the hub function are Commutor and an automatic
marshalling yard. The question is thus whether ITUs should be transshipped or wagons
should be marshalled. SNCF also advocates the construction of the Autoroute Ferroviaire –
a dedicated rolling highway corridor with a very generous loading gauge (SNCF, wwwsite,
1997). The long-term project has a stated aim of relieving the environment from emissions,
mainly from lorries driving from the northern parts of France all the way to Italy.
The development project started in 1991 and a prototype of the articulated wagon built by
Lohr Industries has gone through technical tests. SNCF hopes to commence cross-Alpine
traffic in 2006 (DE GUILHEM and MONTELH, 1996, p. 15). Lohr Industries has also developed
the Modalor wagon for small-scale handling of semi-trailers and, in fact, also
SNCF Fret has presented a small-scale technology: Multi-berces that is similar to the Dutch
ACTS, the German RSS and the Finnish TTT-system.
141

The large-scale technologies match the specifications very well, while the small-scale technologies
is regarded to be rather far from the French attitude towards advanced technology
that is regarded as a phenomenon between culture and religion.
6.2.10 Switzerland and Austria
Switzerland and Austria are largely dominated by the Alps, which means that the rail network
is largely confined to the available mountain routes. Together with France, both countries
receive a substantial amount of transit traffic as they form a link between northern and
southern Europe. Existing tunnel profiles are limited implying a dominant use of swap bodies
instead of semi-trailers, although specially adapted units with cut upper corners can go
through the Alp tunnels.
For environmental reasons 89 , road traffic is severely restricted 90 and intermodal transport is
subsidised (HANREICH, 1995, pp. 8-9 and WARMUTH, 1995, p. 29-30). The technical
problems concerning emission evacuation, safety measures and tunnel dimensions all favour
rail or rolling highway shuttle solutions instead of the road tunnel alternative. The
Channel tunnel is a recent example of this technical choice, and the projected base tunnels
in Switzerland will most probably be built purely for rail traffic and rolling highway shuttles.
This will obviously favour intermodal transport, since once the terminal costs are paid,
the rail distance can favourably be extended outside the tunnel openings. This is also the
main reason for the high market share of intermodal transport in alpine crossings today.
Austria also faces problems with the east-west traffic with severely polluting lorries from
the former Eastern Bloc. This traffic was transferred to rail by use of up to 80% subsidisation
for rolling highway services together with high road tolls. From the beginning of 1995,
however, this traffic is to a large extent lost to road again since Austria has been forced to
lower the road tolls and decrease enforcing activities according to EU regulations.
Neither Switzerland nor Austria is large enough to make traditional domestic intermodal
transport feasible for time-sensitive cargo. Consequently, RTD policy is aimed at developing
transit traffic solutions and small-scale terminal technologies for low-value cargo. One
example of supportive measures is the Austrian government’s Innovation and Technology
Funds, of which a major theme is to develop integrated transport. Operators, users and research
bodies must co-operate in the projects (European Commission, 1996/b, p. 37).
89 The great environmental concern in the Alp countries is highlighted by the fact that the trees on the Alp hillsides
offer very efficient avalanche protection. Dead trees protect the valleys much worse.
90 A Swiss referendum in 1994 voted for enforcing transiting lorries to use rolling highway services for crossing
the Alps (SJÖSTEDT, et al., 1994, p. 4) but the EU is set to push ahead with a 40-ton road corridor with low
transiting fees (KÜLPER, 1997, p. 3).
142

In summary, the conditions for Switzerland and Austria generally require technologies for
transit traffic through the Alps and, in addition, small-scale solutions for the much less
dominant domestic transports.
Standard rolling highway technology is used for the transit traffic of articulated vehicles.
Technology development on decreasing maintenance and problems related to the small
wheels’ speed of rotation is emphasised. Existing small-scale technologies include the
ACTS 91 and other turntable systems as well as Voest-Alpine’s and Karl Meier’s sideloading
trailers. Contrary to the domestic needs, Swiss Tuchschmid Engineering advocates
its Compact Terminal and Austrian Pentaplan its High Capacity Terminal for meeting a future
demand for large-scale intermodal transport. These high-capacity technologies aim for
the market of gateway terminals and terminals for fixed routes, flexible routes and corridor
traffic designs. The Rolling Shelf by Jenbacher, is perhaps not a true intermodal transport
technology since it is intended for palletised goods and not ITUs, but it is still interesting
since it competes for the same market.
In all, there is a certain correspondence between the requirements induced by national preconditions
and the developed technologies.
6.2.11 Italy
Besides the Po-valley, Italy is mostly mountainous. The most outstanding regional difference
is that the industry is concentrated to the northern parts, whereas the southern regions
are more rural. Due to Alpine transit by intermodal transport, Italy is one of the large European
intermodal transport countries when it comes to international traffic. In fact, together
with Germany, Italy accounts for 95% of all international intermodal transport in Europe
(BUKOLD, 1995). Italy also serves as a transit country for transport to Greece via the Port
of Brindisi and shuttles connecting the industrialised northern Italy with Rotterdam and
other main container ports have been successful in recent years. They are actually so successful
that privately owned operators fight for the market.
The length of Italy implies competitiveness also for domestic intermodal services. For domestic
traffic, Italy’s UIRR representative CEMAT reported 16% growth in 1996, chiefly
over longer distances (UIRR, 1997, p. 9).
On the network operation side, the terminals in the north sometimes operate as gateways
between domestic and international intermodal transport. For the domestic services, the
91 ACTS is developed in the Netherlands, but Swiss Tuchschmid manufactures components and has supplied
wagons to both the Swiss State Railways (SBB) and Austrian State Railways (ÖBB) (ERNI, 1995).
143

length, narrowness and demographical constitution of Italy make a corridor solution feasible.
There is a broad political support for Italian intermodal transport (CARRARA, 1995, p.
“A”). At the moment, the governmentally sponsored RTD programme is focused on the
intermodal transport related issue of freight villages 92 (interporti), primarily on
management and not on technology.
Italy needs technologies that are suitable for use as connections to the transit traffic through
the Alps and, in addition, corridor solutions for the less dominant, but still substantial, domestic
transportation.
As an exception from the RTD policy supporting freight villages, the basically domestic
Italian RTD project TR.A.I. 2000 has resulted in a full-scale prototype/laboratory (MAGNI,
letter, 1997) and a basic operative scheme for a horizontal transshipment technology with a
capacity of 30 to 50 TEU/hour has been presented. The presented technology is regarded as
suitable for a corridor traffic design. Under the acronym FL.I.H.T.T. (Flexible Intermodal
Horizontal Transshipment Techniques), the project has proceeded with funding from EU’s
Fourth Framework Programme, but it is now terminated.
Besides conventional rolling highway technology, a bimodal technology is now used as described
in the section for Denmark. Existing small-scale technologies include the Firema
Twistwagon (a turntable system for complete lorries) and also the Ferrosud/Breda bimodal
system called Carro Bimodale.
The correspondence according to the analysis model is reasonably good for the case of Italy.
6.2.12 The European level
The geographical and demographical conditions for Europe as a whole are for obvious reasons
just a compilation of the national features. However, seen as a unit, one can note that
the central parts are densely populated in contrast to the outskirts. Mountainous areas and
sounds also screen off some of the main parts of Europe from each other. The crucial point
for international intermodal transportation systems is the technical compatibility of infrastructure
and exchanged technological resources, mainly load units and rail wagons. The
European Commission has a great harmonising role to play in these fields.
92 For excellent reading about freight villages, see HÖLTGEN, 1995.
144

Transportation has a long tradition of being thoroughly regulated by governmental bodies.
The transport market is being deregulated, but public organisations still play a decisive role
in the development of tomorrow’s transportation system. The European Commission is
very active in the field, especially concerned with how to establish the conditions for a truly
common market, yet in a sustainable manner 93 .
The giant four-year Fourth Framework Programme for RTD comprising a total budget of
12.3 billion ECUs, is the most important single action for promoting the development of
new intermodal transshipment technology. Transport-related research features are present
in four of the specific programs of the framework: Telematics (DG XIII), Industrial and
Material Technologies (DG XII), Non Nuclear Energy (DG XVII), and, of course, Transport
(DG VII). The transport RTD budget is 240 million ECUs, and it aims at increasing
efficiency and environmental friendliness in transportation systems. It also aims at facilitating
interconnections between different transport networks and modes, which means that it
is largely dedicated to different types of intermodal transport technology.
The research tasks in the dedicated area of Integrated Transport Chains have been defined
along two axes – quality of the network and quality of the terminals/transfer points. Intermodality
will also play a very important role in the successive Fifth Framework Programme
with a marginal increase of the total budget to 12.7 billion ECUs, which, however, is a decrease
in real terms. Intermodality is selected as one out of 20 key actions (European Commission,
1997/b, pp. 27 and 50-51, and www-site, 1998).
A special EU-project, SCIPIO (Study for a Comprehensive International research Program
in Intermodal Operation), has suggested how the European research efforts in the field
could be better utilised. The project came up with the proposition of using a “systemic approach”
for intermodal research in order to incorporate a wide range of issues, such as sustainability,
external effects, efficiency and profitability (European Commission, 1997/d, p.
88).
The development of Trans-European Networks (TENs) for rail, highways, inland waterways
as well as intermodal transport as such, obviously influences intermodal transport. In
fact, much of the calculated revenues of rail infrastructure projects stem from expected future
intermodal freight trains (BUKOLD, 1997, p. 2). Interesting to notice is that the terminals
are part of the intermodal transport network outlined by the EU (European Commission,
1995/b, and European Commission and European Investment Bank, 1996). However,
the situation is not clear and the EU neither has the available funds nor the authority to
force national governments to establish the networks (DE BOCK, guest lecture, 1996). If
93 The European legal framework for intermodal transport is analysed by DOLFEN (1993, pp. 12-17) and a
short review of the policy documents issued by the European Commission is forwarded by STONE (1998, pp.
30-32).
145

the EU is convinced of establishing the network including terminals, it will strongly affect
coming terminal technology development and investments. For reasons generally referred
to as the cohesion of the Union, the EU tends to spend money on infrastructure not in central
countries with massive transit flows but in the periphery, which logically should be
more of a domestic issue. Nevertheless, the general attitude of the European Commission is
that it trades subventions for a certain degree of control (CHRAYE, interview, 1995).
For developing commercial intermodal services, the PACT programme (Pilot Actions for
Combined Transport) plays a significant role. Some of the available funds have been spent
on terminal investments, but not specifically on technology development (European Commission,
1995/a and 1997/a).
The funds made available by the European Union for intermodal related RTD are in the table
below presented divided upon programmes and tasks.
Table 6-1
EU funding of programmes and themes related to intermodal transport. The
amounts are in million ECUs and relate to the period 1991-1998. (Source:
worked up from European Commission, 1996/b, p. 24).
Brite
Euram
2 nd /3 rd
framew. pr.
TENs
Other programs
PACT
4 th framework programme
Transport
Telematics
Transport
Telematics
Cohesion
Funds
Row
totals:
Transfer point
efficiency
7.2 - 2.1 2 - 54.4 4 34.6 104.3
Intermodal network
efficiency
4.4 - - - - 60.9 7.6 30.1 103
Information technology
and services
- 20.2 - - 9.3 10.9 2 - 41
Intermodal transport
market
0.9 - - - - - 0.2 - 1.1
Transport means 0.9 - - - - - 0.5 - 1.4
Column totals: 13.4 20.2 2.1 2 9.3 125.2 14.3 64.7 252
As is customary, funds for investments in infrastructure and telematics are more generous
than those for movable resources since the latter is regarded as a concern for the transport
operators.
In addition to the above financing, intermodal transport is also one of the fields prioritised
in the Task Force initiative forwarded jointly by three general directorates of the European
Commission (European Commission, 1997/c, pp. 29-33). The programme deals with intermodal
transport and transport telematics for both passengers and freight. The freight part is
funded by ECU 5 million for demonstrations and ECU 1 million for studies (DE BOCK, E-
mail message, 1998).
146

Moreover, the European Commission supports COST (an acronym for European Cooperation
in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) actions. EU provides administrative
and financial support for the co-operative dimension, but all research is carried out
and funded nationally (ALFARO et al., 1994, p. III). 25 countries are involved in the programme,
i.e. not only EU Countries. The COST action most relevant to this dissertation is
COST 315 on Large Containers in which the standardisation of ISO series 2 containers was
dissuaded (ibid., p. X-XI).
Other organisations undertaking actions for co-ordinating intermodal transport on the EU
level are European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) (e.g. ECMT, 1993/a,
1993/b and 1995) and UN ECE (United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe) (e.g.
UN Economic Commission for Europe, 1990). For issuing technical and operational standards
for general European railway traffic, the International Union of Railways (UIC) also
maintains a strong role.
The extensive investments in current technology are also important to take into consideration.
So far the employed technology is comparatively homogenous in Europe, but making
future modular networks compatible is a task well suited for co-operative actions at a European
level. KIRIAZIDIS (1994) states that such efforts have not been forthcoming from the
EU prior to the Fourth Framework Programme, but the compatibility between the two turntable
systems ACTS and Multi-berces was tested on a European level in 1992. The tests
showed that rather small changes would allow better compatibility between the two concepts
(BORHART, 1993).
Today’s intermodal transportation systems are generally compatible since the terminals
contain all specific equipment for the transshipment operation. Most terminals active today
were also established during a short period of time implementing the best technology available
at that time. This means that gantry cranes and counter-balanced trucks dominate at the
European intermodal terminals. Wagons are rather universal and even more so are the
ITUs. Exceptions are semi-trailers intended for use in the UK or on Alpine transit routes as
well as 2.77 m high swap bodies that are not compatible with all current European rail loading
profiles.
The analysis here and the detached appendix, however, show that most developed, but not
yet implemented, technologies correspond to national or regional preconditions rather than
to those common for the EU as a whole. Also BUKOLD (1994, p. 134) has come to the
conclusion that the European countries’ geographical structure and the intermodal freight
volumes have shaped national intermodal philosophies. This should not be seen as a problem,
but as a possibility for implementing locally adapted system modules. In order to facilitate
for these modules to attract sufficiently large goods flows, it is of utmost importance
that the exchanged resources, i.e. ITUs and rail wagons, are compatible between the European
countries and regions.
147

Nevertheless, many of the new systems are, as is shown in the detached appendix and in the
table in Appendix A, to a large extent designed with dedicated wagons and all ITUs are not
technically suited for the new systems. The specialised wagons give rise to geographically
restricted network modules and services. Of course, the gateway principle with transshipment
at network module interfaces is viable, but it is certainly better with compatible systems
and – where the demand is sufficient – direct trains operated directly between two
terminals. Hence, in order to avoid a scattered European intermodal transportation system
with pronounced national intermodal transport networks due to incompatible technology
choices, the EU has an important co-ordinating role to play in the future.
6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The issue of technological renewal of the European intermodal transportation system is
quite urgent. Profitability is low and intermodal transport is continuously pushed upwards
in terms of shortest competitive distance. Political initiatives for supporting intermodal
transport thus easily result in that market shares are captured from all-rail rather than from
all-road, hence violating the goals from society. Moreover, as argued in section 5.1.3, one
barrier for new technologies in intermodal transportation systems is that the resources – e.g.
ITUs, vehicles, transshipment equipment and infrastructure – are depreciated and technically
worn out over different time spans. The depreciation time for gantry cranes is about
30 years, which means that many of the cranes acquired when Europe’s intermodal system
was introduced on a large scale, now have to be replaced. The depreciation time for
counter-balanced trucks is slightly less, but they were, on the other hand, introduced later.
Consequently, there is a need for investments at the European intermodal terminals, an occasion
that can be used for redesigning the system.
The two analyses in this chapter show that there are alternatives to reinvesting in conventional
intermodal transshipment technology, i.e. in gantry cranes and counter-balanced
trucks. The selection of technologies is truly wide and so is the range of requirements they
are intended to serve. Many of the new technologies offer features adding to the competitiveness
on restricted markets rather than on a European level. A prerequisite for enhanced
system performance, however, is that the principles for operating the rail network is
changed first. An operator with technological change on the agenda can thus decide upon
the technological and commercial openness, investigate the prevailing requirements in detail,
decide upon a network operation principle and then select and possibly adapt a technology
that fits the demands.
Consequently, there are prospects for redesigning a part of the European intermodal transportation
system into a system made up from network modules connected through gateways.
One thing is clear, a fundamental rethinking is needed if intermodal transport is to
148

ecome a serious complement to the lorries on the important medium transport distances of
200-500 kilometres.
149

7 SMALL-SCALE TRANSSHIPMENT
TECHNOLOGY IN INTERMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Systems (2)
Transportation systems (3)
Intermodal transportation systems (4)
Actors Activities Resources (5)
Transshipment
technologies (6)
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies
A particular small-scale concept (8)
In order for European intermodal transport to be
competitive on short and medium distances, regional
systems must be designed to adapt to local preconditions
rather than to any general preconditions prevailing in all
of Europe. The network modules are also likely to
succeed only if the trafficking of direct connections is
abandoned for more advanced principles for operating
the rail network. As was shown in the preceding chapter,
there are transshipment technologies suitable for serving such advanced network operation
principles.
Based upon my general knowledge of the intermodal system, the systems analyses and the
analytic elements presented in earlier chapters, the deduction in the introduction of chapter
6 is here deepened into a brief scenario on how the European intermodal transportation system
can be developed. I assert that the development must follow four main lines in order to
compete successfully with single-mode road transport.
The first development line is aimed for the large flows over relatively long distances. For
natural reasons, these services are most economically produced with direct full trains between
end terminals. The terminals employ well proven large-scale transshipment technology
or any of the advanced large-scale technologies described in the detached appendix.
This part of the transition is well under way since measures for improving productivity implies
that the current networks are split up, focusing profitable direct connections (STONE,
1997, p. 3).
The second and third development lines are far more interesting; how should the substantial
market for transport over short and medium distances – 200 to 500 kilometres – be approached?
The second development line aims for the part of this market that involves
densely populated areas generating large and concentrated flows. This market will be approached
by introducing corridor trains. The trains will cross all over Europe along such
corridors and make frequent but short stops at road-rail transshipment terminals.
The third development line involves small, short and dispersed flows. The key to improved
competitiveness in this part of market, is to firstly renew all of the train operation system.
However, also the employed transshipment technology must be renewed since that is a prerequisite
for implementing advanced train operation principles. Although the total of these
flows are of a significant magnitude in Europe, the dispatched volumes might be small for
150

each network module and each terminal, calling for small-scale technologies keeping investments
and operating costs at a reasonable level. In order to secure a certain amount of
freight, the network modules will collect and distribute ITUs in connection with large-scale
shuttle and corridor services. Another task for the small-scale systems is to take care of the
small flows of ITUs and build them up for new large-scale direct train and corridor services.
The rest of the chapter is dedicated to this part of the intermodal transport market.
The fourth development line is rolling highway services where complete lorry combinations
are driven onto low-built rail wagons. The purpose of using this expensive solution with a
bad net to tare weight ratio is to overcome hurdles related to the geography or the infrastructure,
or use the drivers’ sleeping hours productively. The concept does not fulfil the
applied definition of an intermodal service, but it is still included here as it is generally discussed
together with the downright intermodal concepts.
This brief scenario is further deepened and discussed in section 9.2. Together with the descriptive
parts of section 1.2, it is used for outlining the requirements for new small-scale
transshipment technologies in the next section. The scenario and the list of requirements are
then used for evaluating the suitability of a large number of transshipment technologies for
small-scale operations.
7.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL-SCALE TRANSSHIPMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
A systems design approach (see section 2.2.1) is used here to identify the characteristics
required for a future small-scale intermodal system. The approach assumes that the system
is a pure technical system consisting of organisational components that allow a systems
management to “redesign” it. This simplified approach is found suitable at this detailed system
level, however respecting the substantial problems occurring when implementing the
new technical resources dealt with in section 5.1 as well as the approaches for overcoming
their effects presented in section 5.2.
First, system requirements are defined and then these are used for determining the functional
requirements of the technical resources. The background of the analysis is taken from
the descriptive parts of section 1.2 and from the scenario briefly reproduced above and
more comprehensively in section 9.2. The third development line including innovative network
principles for serving small and dispersed flows over short and medium distances
(200-500 kilometres) is emphasised. These networks must obviously be very well adapted
to local and regional conditions, but in order to attract larger quantities of goods, they must
also be well adapted for regional collection and distribution of long-distance cargo. In order
to avoid repetition, the requirements are summarised first in section 7.2.2 where they are
used as input to the evaluation of small-scale transshipment technologies.
151

The rendering is worked up from an earlier research effort with a concentration on marine
transportation (WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1994).
7.1.1 System requirements
The system requirements presented here are general guidelines for the overall system, outlined
with the purpose of decreasing the risk for sub-optimisation when designing the resources.
The system looked for should be an open system 94 for rail and road, and preferably also for
sea transportation. This implies that it must conform to standards, enabling implementation
without restrictions in the whole of Western Europe. As an alternative, closed system modules
can be designed to meet specifications for strictly defined transport commissions – determined
by certain kinds of goods, transportation modes, users or geographical outreach.
In order to attract larger quantities of goods, however, they must facilitate interoperability
with the technologies currently used for large-scale intermodal transport. Thus, the interchanged
system resources – ITUs and perhaps rail wagons – should preferably be strictly
standardised.
The transshipment technology must facilitate quick, flexible and safe unit load transfer between
transportation modes. Loading of entire vehicles of different transportation modes
upon each other should be avoided and so should the need for co-ordinating vehicles at terminals.
Hence, an intermediate storage function is needed.
Low cost terminals are a prerequisite for sufficiently dense terminal networks also in areas
without large goods flows. A low number of personnel needed to handle the units must be
kept. The drivers of the different vehicles ought to be able to transship the ITUs without
support from terminal workers. Terminal equipment must use simple technology with a
high level of reliability in order to keep breakdowns, maintenance and repairs at reasonable
levels since technical personnel cannot be employed at all terminals.
A high relation between utility load and tare weight must be sought for. This is not critical
for shipping, but it is important to rail transport and vital to road transport. The system
should also allow the utility cube to be maximised according to road and rail permissions.
Furthermore, it should be possible to implement the system gradually so that the implementation
costs remain at a reasonable level. Implementation barriers are, as described in section
5.1, not only of a technological nature, but they are also – and perhaps to a larger ex-
94 For further reading about commercial and technological openness of intermodal transport systems, see the
introduction of chapter 5 and SJÖSTEDT et al. (1994).
152

tent – found in a conservative business structure. Thus, completely new systems must show
solid benefits to raise any interest in the transport industry. Consequently, the system
should fit into the physical transportation system as well as the business structure of today
and the foreseeable future.
7.1.2 Functional requirements
Functional requirements are here defined as requirements applicable to the different functions
of the system, as presented in the model in section 4.1.3 above.
Load-carrying function – unit loads
Load units can either be system specific or generally standardised, then referred to as unit
loads or ITUs. To fulfil the system requirement of gradual implementation, the system must
at least be able to handle 20-foot and 40-foot ISO-containers. Since these form a vast majority,
handling of these units must be regarded as being of prime importance, both from an
economical and a transport technological point of view. Also the pallet-wide containers that
are becoming more common have to be encompassed in the system.
Moreover, the high number of swap bodies in Europe and the interface similarities with the
ISO-container indicate that the system also should be open to swap bodies in the shorter
range (up to 7.82 m). This should also make road hauliers and forwarders more interested,
since swap bodies are better suited for European inland transport than ISO-containers.
Due to their high cost and weight, semi-trailers are not considered as suitable in the intermodal
system, but could be included in the road transport function as in US intermodal today
(see section 1.2.2). Specific ITUs with a similar interface but optimised to system use
might be developed and implemented gradually or operated within restricted network modules.
When choosing among existing ITUs or developing system specific dittos, the criteria
should be to maximise utility cube and weight using the principle of the lowest common
denominator for the transportation modes involved. This is especially important when the
cross-section is concerned. It might be better to specify length as combinations of ITUs in
order to utilise the full length of road vehicles and rail wagons 95 . In addition, it is then easier
to offer an ITU size that fits to single shipper’s demand. The obvious advantage is –
95 As is previously mentioned, a consequence that Sweden and Finland have entered the EU, they have
agreed to allow road vehicles of up to 25.25 m long. The purpose is to facilitate fair competition from foreign
hauliers in the Scandinavian domestic markets. By use of different combinations of swap bodies and trailers,
three continental vehicles of 18.75 m can be reconfigured into two 25.25 m units (IRU, 1996/b and Volvo, pamphlet,
1996).
153

obeying the principle of unit loads – that the unit remains consolidated through the whole
transport chain from consignor to consignee. This implies that the interface between ITUs
and vehicles might not be strictly standardised. Today, containers and swap bodies need
adjustable twist-lock positions on vehicles while semi-trailers of different length can be
used if the coupling to the towing tractor follows international standards.
The technological openness in terms of ITUs must be strictly defined in order to enable
standardisation in other components throughout the system. Flexibility is a good thing, but
not if the transportation system has to be designed for every possible measurement of ITUs.
Nevertheless, adjustable fitting positions are not wanted but could be admitted also in future
intermodal systems.
Transport function – vehicles and vessels
Together with infrastructure, vehicles and vessels comprise the heavy investments in all
transportation systems. This implies that, in order to fulfil the demand of gradual implementation,
a new intermodal system must include the currently dominating types of vehicles
and vessels. If not, it must show tremendous benefits or match current trends in vehicle
development. However, as for ITUs, new system-optimised equipment might be developed,
but the importance of a standardised interface should not be underestimated. Simple and
cheap transshipment technology handled by the lorry driver might imply vehicle-internal
equipment.
Transshipment function – transshipment equipment
From a cost and handling point of view, a suitable horizontal transshipment technology is
required. The terminal must be very simple, perhaps just a flat surface of a certain size. It is
an advantage, if the driver of lorries or trains can transfer the ITUs alone. However, this
decision must follow a wide range of regulations and unmanned terminals are not always an
option for the transportation systems designer.
For a wide European implementation, transshipment should be performed under the overhead
contact line used for powering electric locomotives. Thus terminals can be built at
side-tracks along the main lines and diesel-powered shunting locomotives can be made obsolete.
For flexibility reasons, there should be no demand for simultaneous presence of transport
equipment of different modes. If there is, one of the prime benefits of using unit loads
(HULTÉN, 1997, p. 1 and WOXENIUS, 1993, p. 33) is lost. Consequently, a storage function
is needed at terminals. The system must permit easy transfer between this storage and
154

vehicles. Finally, in order to enhance the security on the lines 96 as well as the transfer speed
and reliability, the load securing must be simple and fast.
7.2 WHICH NEW TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES ARE
SUITABLE FOR SMALL-SCALE OPERATIONS?
The usefulness of intermodal transshipment technologies can be evaluated in detail first
when the network principles and offered transport quality of an intended intermodal service
have been firmly defined. Nevertheless, here follows an evaluation of the technologies described
in the detached appendix according to the brief scenario in the introduction of this
chapter and the requirements for small-scale intermodal systems outlined in the section
above.
The weight criterion method – as is described in Appendix B – is developed for being useful
when carrying out an evaluation of alternative solutions according to several criteria.
The purpose of the method is to force the analyst – in this case me – to perform a thorough
comparison in order to assess the alternatives as objectively as possible. It is best suited
when the number of criteria is large and there is no obvious ranking between them. The
evaluation method was originally developed for evaluating alternative solutions in the machine
design process (BJAERNEMO, 1983) but it is rather general and it has previously
been used for evaluating intermodal transportation systems 97 .
A question that has to be addressed is whether the weight criterion method is useful for the
present evaluation task. Well, there is always a problem when soft aspects are attacked using
“objective” or quantitative methods, by FORRESTER well formulated as:
“The objective test is useful if the underlying assumptions for it are sound and if the
judgement criteria are not amenable to direct application but must be interpreted
through an intermediate quantitative procedure. The danger is that the quantitative procedure
will take on an aura of authenticity in its own right. It becomes a pseudoscientific
ritual. The underlying assumptions based on judgement or merely faith may be
forgotten. The objective test, which may have been sound for the original goals and assumptions,
may now move by itself into new areas where it is useless or actually misleading.”
(FORRESTER, 1961, p. 123)
96 Unit loads are generally not locked to rail wagons, but with increased speed, this is becoming necessary.
The next generation of European intermodal systems will need locking devices on rail wagons since containers
have fallen off wagons in France, Germany as well as in Sweden (WEDE, interview 26 March 1997).
97 Evaluating horizontal intermodal transshipment technologies: JÖNSSON and KROON (1990).
Evaluating alternatives to a single intermodal technology: GOLDBECK-LÖWE and SYRÉN (1993).
Evaluating causes for transport damages in an intermodal transport system: LINDAU et al. (1993).
155

The trap of false authenticity may very well be dealt with by being careful with how to present
and use the achieved results. In that respect, my assistant supervisor Dag
BJÖRNLAND influenced me considerably as a novel researcher when he commented a
section in a draft by saying:
“Johan, you write that it is. Very few things are. Write that it can be…”
(Professor Dag BJÖRNLAND, during supervision in 1992)
These wise words are well worth considering although they should be obvious to researchers
who can only conclude firmly on scientifically proven facts. Yet, it is also a source of
problems when communicating with industry officials that want specific answers on their
questions and no lawyer-style “it depends” answers. It is also a reason for scientists not being
too popular as interviewees to contemporary journalists confessing to the “CNNjournalism”
now blunting the public intellect by prioritising flashy headlines before deeper
and relevant analyses.
In this case, the accurateness of the evaluation, i.e. the ki*fulfilment product for each technology
should not be misinterpreted for being a final and exact result of a truly objective
ranking. Yet it is an attempt to attack a complex evaluation situation methodologically.
Thus, the result can be used as a rough indication on which technologies are promising for
small-scale operations but as no real implementation case is identical to any other, the ranking
procedure must be performed in every single case. The result should definitely not be
used as base for unconditional statements or for disqualifying technologies without further
analysis.
Hence, I assert that the use of the weight criterion method enhances the quality of the present
evaluation involving several soft criteria. An attempt to be even more normative, e.g.
by trying to measure the criteria on a common scale, would, however, most probably be
abortive.
The outline below follows the analytic steps of the method as described in Appendix B.
7.2.1 Define the conditions of the evaluation situation
The first step is to define the conditions of the evaluation situation. This should be carried
out thoroughly every time, since it is a common mistake to use old references that do not fit
the actual problem. In this evaluation, the evaluation situation has been thoroughly investigated
throughout the last chapters, briefly defined in the introduction to this chapter and
further elaborated in section 9.2. It is thus only briefly summarised here. In summary it is
anticipated that the current development will take the European intermodal transportation
system towards:
156

• meeting the new demand for higher transport quality as freight is transferred from air
and all-road services
• flexible use of resources 24 hours a day
• for large flows: further focus on direct train services
• for small and dispersed flows: new and specialised network operating principles in different
modules linked through gateway terminals
• decreased importance of national borders, however in a gentle pace
• larger trains, mainly feeder trains carrying ISO-containers
• increased concern for local environment around terminals
It is functionality in this environment – with focus on the small and dispersed flows – that
the small-scale systems are evaluated against.
7.2.2 Make lists of demands and criteria
The next step in the weight criterion method is to make a list of requirements. Some of the
requirements are classified as formal demands that must be fulfilled in order to qualify for
the evaluation, while others are classified as criteria (wishes) that ought to be fulfilled in
order to receive positive scoring. Cost is used as a criterion first in the final decision step
but some of the criteria give a hint of the investment and operational costs involved.
Earlier in this chapter, general requirements for new transshipment technologies for smallscale
or short-distance intermodal transport were outlined. In summary, the system looked
for should be one which:
• is open for rail, road and preferably also sea transportation, within the whole of Western
Europe
• is compatible with conventional large-scale intermodal transport
• at least accommodates 20-foot and 40-foot ISO-containers as well as swap bodies up to
7.82 m long
• avoids the loading of entire vehicles of different transportation modes upon each other
• is compatible with the currently dominating types of vehicles and vessels
• facilitates low cost terminals – both in terms of investments and operations – for sufficiently
dense terminal networks in small-flow areas
• utilises a simple transshipment technology that facilitates quick, flexible, reliable and
safe ITU transshipment under the overhead contact line
157

• avoids the need for co-ordination of vehicles at terminals
• is possible to implement gradually – both technically and commercially
These requirements are classified as demands or criteria following the lists below:
Demands:
The transshipment technology must:
D1 be open for rail and road transport within the whole of Europe
D2 be open for 20- or 40-foot ISO-containers or swap bodies
D3 be compatible with conventional large-scale intermodal transport
D4 avoid the use of entire vehicles of different transportation modes upon each other
D5 facilitate low cost terminals
Criteria:
The transshipment technology ought to:
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
be open for sea transportation
be compatible with the currently dominating types of ITUs, vehicles and vessels
facilitate simple, quick, flexible, reliable and safe transshipment
facilitate transshipment under the overhead contact line
avoid the need for co-ordination of vehicles at terminals
facilitate possibility for gradual implementation
These criteria are the requirements that the evaluation is based upon.
7.2.3 List the alternative solutions
The next step is to generate a list of alternative solutions that satisfy the demands by excluding
those which violate certain demands. The table below lists the technologies described
in the detached appendix and which of them that violate the demands. The ones not
receiving any x:s are those that will remain for further evaluation.
158

Table 7-1
Violation of demands thus excluding technologies from further evaluation.
The technologies are presented in the same order as in appendix. The coding
of demands and markings is explained on the next page.
Technologies
DEMANDS
Small-scale road-rail technologies D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Vertical transshipment
JR Freight: Multi-functional freight track system
x
NS Cargo: Rail Distributie Nederland ? x
SJ: Light-combi ?
Horizontal transshipment
Proveho: CarConTrain
Steadman Industries: Railtainer/Steadman System ?
Southern Car & Manufacturing Company: Railiner ?
BR Research: Self-Loading Vehicle
BR Res.: Rail wagon with elevating twistlocks
The Ringer System
LogMan: Container FTS
The Hochstein System
Blatchford: Stag ?
Stenhagen: Stenhagen System ?
Albatec: Kombiflex
N.C.H. Hydraulic Systems: Mondiso Rail Terminal ?
Lorry-to-ground and turntable systems
Chain-lifts: ISO 2000/4000; Translift; Roll-Off Hoist
x
Hook-lifts: Ampliroll, Multilift; HIAB and LIVAB Load Exch.
x
Translift: Abroll Container Transport System (ACTS) ? ? ?
Roland Tankbau: Roland-System Schiene-Strasse (RSS) ? ?
SNCF Fret: Multi-berces ? ?
Partek Multilift Factory: TTT-System ?
Self-loading trailers and rail wagons
Steel Bros.: Sidelifter ?
Hammar Maskin: Hammarlift
Arbau-Klaus Transportsysteme Vertriebs: Kranmobil
Steelmec: SIMAN-lift
Blatchford Transp. Equip.: Blatchford-SIMAN sideloader sys.
Mitra: Mitralift and the Rural Road-Rail Cont Handling Sys. ?
Biglo Oy: Biglo Bigloader ?
Voest-Alpine MCE: S4036 ?
Karl Maier: Container Loading and Transport System ?
CHR. Olsson: Triolift ?
KMA System: Sideloader ?
Umschlagfahrzeug Lässig Schwanhäusser – ULS ?
The Blatchford T-lift system ?
Rail wagons for lifting swap bodies or cassettes
Mercedes-Benz: Kombi-Lifter ?
ABB Henschel: WAS Wagon ?
ABB AGEVE: Supertrans ?
The Wieskötter System ?
The Wheelless System ?
Chalmers University of Technology: Titan Cassettes ?
159

Small and special container systems
DB: Logistikbox x x
Flexbox x x
TCS: Trilok
x
Linjegods: LLB – Linjegods Lastbaerer x x
Kalmar Lagab: C-sam x x x
DSB: +box x x
Mini-link and Maxi-link ? x
Costamasnaga: TR.A.I. 2000 ? ?
Jenbacher: Rolling Shelf x x x
Bimodal systems (group of technologies) x x
Rail wagons for RoRo-transshipment of semi-trailers and x x x
lorries (group of technologies)
Large scale road-rail technologies
Krupp: Fast Handling System
x
Technicatome and SNCF: Commutor x x
Pentaplan: High capacity terminal – HoT
x
Noell: Mega Hub Concept
x
Noell: Fast Transshipment System
x
Tuchschmid: The Compact Terminal
x
Thyssen: Container Transport System (CTS)
x
Mannesmann Transmodal: Transmann
x
DEMAG: The DEMAG System
x
Aachen University of Technology: System Aachen
x
Road-inland navigation
Rollerbarge x ? x
Botervloot x ? x
Combination of silo and container handling x ? x
CALCON-ship x ? x
Mondiso: Barge with on-board crane x ? x
The River Snake x ? x
Road-rail-short sea shipping
Coaster Express x ? x
Rolux: RoRo-cassettes x ? x
Road-deep sea shipping
High rise storage inside a ship’s hull x ? x
Reggiane: Octopus x ? x x
Robotic Container Machine x ? x x
Road-air technologies
Stenhagen: Stenhagen System (road-air version) ? ? ? x
Integration road-rail-air x x x x
Demands:
The transshipment technology should:
D1 be open for rail and road transport within the whole of Europe
D2 be open for 20- or 40-foot ISO-containers and swap bodies (x if neither of the types is accommodated,
? if not all types are accommodated)
D3 be compatible with conventional large-scale intermodal transport
D4 avoid the of use of entire vehicles of different transportation modes upon each other
D5 facilitate low cost terminals
Markings:
x Clearly not fulfilling the demand thus excluding the technology from further evaluation
? Questionable fulfilment of the demand, but not excluding the technology from further evaluation
160

7.2.4 Weight the criteria against each other
As is indicated by the name of the evaluation method, weighting the criteria against each
other is the crucial steps in the method. The criteria are weighted in order to decide how
important the different criteria are. The criteria are coded and then compared in pairs. A
matrix is designed and filled in according to the method description in Appendix B.
Table 7-2
Weight criterion matrix for small-scale intermodal transshipment technologies.
Criteria
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Corr P i k i (p i /Σp i )
C1 -0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.02778
C2 -0 1 2 2 1 3 9 0.25000
C3 -1 2 2 2 5 10 0.27778
C4 -4 2 1 7 6 0.16667
C5 -6 2 9 5 0.13889
C6 -6 11 5 0.13889
Σ: 36 1.0000
Criteria:
The transshipment technology ought to:
C1 be open for sea transportation
C2 be compatible with the currently dominating types of ITUs, vehicles and vessels
C3 facilitate simple, quick, flexible, reliable and safe transshipment
C4 facilitate transshipment under the overhead contact line
C5 avoid the need for co-ordination of vehicles at terminals
C6 facilitate possibility for gradual implementation
From the table it is obvious that criteria C3 (facilitate simple, quick, flexible, reliable and
safe transshipment) and C2 (be compatible with the currently dominating types of ITUs, vehicles
and vessels) are found most important and criteria C1, be open for sea transportation
is found least important. The importances for the other three criteria are of the same magnitude.
7.2.5 Evaluate the alternatives according to the defined criteria
The different alternatives can now be scored and evaluated according to the weight criterion
method. A new matrix is defined in which the technologies are given scores according
to how they fulfil the defined criteria respectively. The weight factors of the criteria from
table 7-1 are used for calculating the ki*fulfilment product.
161

Table 7-3
Grading of fulfilment of criteria. Some technologies are grouped for joint
evaluation.
Technologies
Small-scale road-rail technologies
Vertical transshipment
Criteria, k i , fulfilment points and sums
C C C C C C6 Σ k i *fulfil-
1 2 3 4 5
point ment
SJ: Light-combi 2 2 3 3 3 3 16 2.725
Horizontal transshipment
Proveho: CarConTrain PLUS 2 2 3 3 3 2 15 2.586
Steadman Ind.: Railtainer/Steadm. Sys. 1 1 3 2 0 1 8 1.585
Southern Car & Manuf. Comp.: Railiner 1 2 3 3 2 2 13 2.419
BR Research: Self-Loading Vehicle 2 1 3 3 0 2 11 1.919
BR Research: Rail wagon with elevating
1 1 3 3 0 2 10 1.891
twistlocks and lorry with a roller trolley
The Ringer System 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 1.474
LogMan: Container FTS 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 1.474
The Hochstein System 1 1 2 3 2 2 11 1.891
Blatchford: Stag 2 2 3 2 1 2 12 2.141
Stenhagen: Stenhagen System 2 1 2 3 0 2 10 1.641
Albatec: Kombiflex 1 2 3 3 3 2 14 2.558
N.C.H. Hydr. Sys.: Mondiso Rail Terminal 3 1 2 3 3 1 13 1.947
Turntable systems
ACTS; RSS; Multi-berces; TTT-System 1 1 3 3 1 1 10 1.891
Self-loading trailers and rail wagons
Steel Bros.; Hammarlift; Kranmobil;
SIMAN-lift; Blatchford-SIMAN sideloader
system; Mitralift; Biglo; S4036; CLTS; Triolift;
KMA Sideloader
0.028
0.250
0.278
0.167
0.139
0.139
3 2 3 2 1 2 13 2.169
ULS; T-lift system 0 3 1 3 2 2 11 2.085
Rail wagons for lifting swap bodies/cass.
Kombi-Lifter; WAS Wagon; Supertrans; the
1 2 2 3 2 1 11 2.002
Wieskötter System
The Wheelless System; Titan Cassettes 3 1 2 3 3 1 13 1.947
Small and special container systems
Costamasnaga: TR.A.I. 2000 1 1 2 3 3 1 11 1.891
Criteria:
The transshipment technology ought to:
C1 be open for sea transportation
C2 be compatible with the currently dominating types of ITUs, vehicles and vessels
C3 facilitate simple, quick, flexible, reliable and safe transshipment
C4 facilitate transshipment under the overhead contact line
C5 avoid the need for co-ordination of vehicles at terminals
C6 facilitate possibility for gradual implementation
Scores:
0 The alternative can definitely not fulfil the criterion
1 The alternative is not likely to fulfil the criterion
2 The alternative is likely to fulfil the criterion
3 The alternative can fulfil the criterion well
162

Note that it is the ki*fulfilment product – and not the total sum of received points – that is
the result of the evaluation. The result is commented upon in section 7.3 below.
7.2.6 Final evaluation and decision
At this stage of the weight criterion method, it becomes clear how well the alternatives satisfy
the criteria and hereby also the probability of solving the problems at hand. In this last
step, the cost of each alternative should be carefully estimated in a systems context, not
only for the transshipment as such. As argued for above, this is virtually impossible to do at
a general European level, it must simply be done by the intermodal system developers
themselves when the implementation case is firmly defined.
The final decision taken by the developer should, for obvious reasons, not only be based
upon the ratio between k i *fulfilment-rate and the costs of the different solutions, but also
upon a wide range of softer aspects.
7.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
It is against the intention of this dissertation to propose one single intermodal transshipment
technology for the whole of Western Europe. Consequently, the evaluation should be regarded
more as a guideline when looking for technologies to incorporate in a new or redesigned
intermodal system. For an accurate and just evaluation, more comprehensive and detailed
analyses have to be carried out within every single development project. As mentioned
more than once in this report, for a successful implementation, intermodal systems
must conform to the requirements prevailing at the market aimed for and not for some general
European requirements.
Nevertheless, the result from the evaluation must be commented upon. For easier appraisal
of the result, the technologies are sorted according to the ki*fulfilment product as seen in
the table below.
163

Table 7-4
Technologies
Result of the evaluation. The technologies are sorted according to the
k i *fulfilment product.
Criteria, k i , fulfilment points and sums
C C C C C C6 Σ k i *fulfil-
1 2 3 4 5
point ment
SJ: Light-combi 2 2 3 3 3 3 16 2.725
Proveho: CarConTrain PLUS 2 2 3 3 3 2 15 2.586
Albatec: Kombiflex 1 2 3 3 3 2 14 2.558
Southern Car & Manuf. Comp.: Railiner 1 2 3 3 2 2 13 2.419
Self-loading trailers: Steel Bros.; Hammarlift;
Kranmobil; SIMAN-lift; Blatchford-
SIMAN sideloader system; Mitralift; Biglo
Bigloader; S4036; Container Loading and
3 2 3 2 1 2 13 2.169
Transport System; Triolift; KMA Sideloader
Blatchford: Stag 2 2 3 2 1 2 12 2.141
ULS; T-lift system 0 3 1 3 2 2 11 2.085
Rail wagons for lifting swap bodies:
Kombi-Lifter; WAS Wagon; Supertrans; the
Wieskötter System
0.028
0.250
0.278
0.167
0.139
0.139
1 2 2 3 2 1 11 2.002
N.C.H.: Mondiso Rail Term. 3 1 2 3 3 1 13 1.947
Rail wagons for lifting cassettes: The
Wheelless System; Titan Cassettes
3 1 2 3 3 1 13 1.947
BR Research: Self-Loading Vehicle 2 1 3 3 0 2 11 1.919
BR Research: Rail wagon with elevating
twistlocks and lorry with a roller trolley
1 1 3 3 0 2 10 1.891
Small and special container systems:
Costamasnaga: TR.A.I. 2000
1 1 2 3 3 1 11 1.891
The Hochstein System 1 1 2 3 2 2 11 1.891
Turntable systems: ACTS; RSS; Multiberces;
TTT-System
1 1 3 3 1 1 10 1.891
Stenhagen: Stenhagen System 2 1 2 3 0 2 10 1.641
Steadman Ind.: Railtainer/Steadm. Sys. 1 1 3 2 0 1 8 1.585
LogMan: Container FTS 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 1.474
The Ringer System 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 1.474
Criteria:
The transshipment technology ought to:
C1 be open for sea transportation
C2 be compatible with the currently dominating types of ITUs, vehicles and vessels
C3 facilitate simple, quick, flexible, reliable and safe transshipment
C4 facilitate transshipment under the overhead contact line
C5 avoid the need for co-ordination of vehicles at terminals
C6 facilitate possibility for gradual implementation
Scores:
0 The alternative can definitely not fulfil the criterion
1 The alternative is not likely to fulfil the criterion
2 The alternative is likely to fulfil the criterion
3 The alternative can fulfil the criterion well
164

From the sorted table, it is clear that SJ’s Light-combi concept is the technology regarded
best suited for making intermodal transport successful on the medium-distance part of the
transport market in tomorrow’s Europe. The difference to the second and third ranked technologies
is, however, small and since the evaluation method has a certain degree of subjectivity,
the result should be used merely as an indication.
Still Light-combi has some advantages compared to the other technologies. What distinguishes
it from the second ranked technology, Proveho’s CarConTrain (CCT) PLUS, is the
well-planned gradual implementation scheme. Compared to the third ranked technology,
Albatec’s Kombiflex, Light-combi is also better suited for terminals in port areas. However,
the use of a forklift truck that follows the train limits the Light-combi system to ITUs
with forklift tunnels, which is a clear shortcoming. Still, as SJ has revealed plans for employing
other small-scale technologies in the long run 98 , the openness is expected to be extended
to include all ISO-containers and swap bodies. Moreover, the transshipment technology
is developed applying an impressive systems approach rather than one limited to the
pure transshipment function. Hence, the Light-combi concept is considered to be a good
choice as the object of the next chapter.
The openness to a wide range of ITU-types can be stated as better for CarConTrain PLUS
than for the Light-combi concept. The difference is, however, not big enough to motivate a
difference in grades for the important criteria C2 – “be compatible with a wide range of
ITUs, vehicles and vessels” – since CCT PLUS is a more restricted when rail and road vehicles
are concerned. In all, the CCT PLUS is regarded as well suited for taking on the
challenge of equipping small-scale corridor terminals. Also Albatec’s Kombiflex technology
with transshipment equipment movable along the train, has clear advantages at corridor
terminals. Unfortunately, a prototype has not been built and the concept is neither further
developed nor promoted anymore.
Beside SJ’s Light-combi concept, Proveho’s CarConTrain PLUS and Albatec’s Kombiflex;
Southern Car & Manufacturing Company’s Railiner, the side-lifting trailers, and Blatchford’s
Stag technology received high scores. A clear majority of the technologies are then
clustered within the interval 1.900 ± 0.1. Slightly worse scores are received by an older Canadian
system (the Railtainer) and a Swedish concept (Stenhagen System), the latter primarily
aiming for the road-air transport market.
Two older German systems are found at the far bottom of the evaluation table. The basic
reason for the low grading is that they were developed as parts of larger intermodal systems
according to the research guidelines issued by the German Ministry of Transportation
(Bundesminister für Verkehr, 1981). Hence, they are intended to be operated in conjunction
98 See chapter 8 and the section about Mondiso Rail Terminal in the detached appendix.
165

with conventional gantry cranes and they are no real small-scale systems. They certainly
do, however, possess clear potentials for improvements.
The result here is quite different from that presented by JÖNSSON and KROON (1990, p.
93 ff.). They rated ACTS highest followed by side-lifting trailers, C-sam and the Tiphook
system. The main difference between the evaluations is that they considered an immediate
implementation rather than suitability for a future intermodal system. Hence, the criteria
“well-tried technology” and “technical maturity” where highly weighted. In addition, they
considered “maintenance need” as very important, while this factor is only indirectly rated
here. Another difference is that their evaluation did not exclude pure semi-trailer technologies.
CarConTrain was lowly rated by JÖNSSON and KROON, but it should be noted that
the evaluated technology was of an earlier design that would have scored rather badly also
in this evaluation.
The result presented here is also slightly different from that presented in WOXENIUS
(1998). The CarConTrain PLUS concept received the highest scores in that study. The reason
for the differences is that SJ now has unveiled more information about its Light-combi
concept, which has granted higher scores.
An analysis of the result would reveal that there is a correspondence between the nationality
of the best-ranked technologies and that of the evaluator. This should not be regarded as
a simple attempt to promote Swedish technologies, but rather as that the general requirements
prevailing in Sweden are congruent with those prevailing for future short-distance
intermodal transport on a European level. If an intermodal transportation system can be a
viable complement to single mode road transport in Sweden with its small and dispersed
transport flows and huge lorries, it should have potential to succeed almost anywhere else
in Europe.
166

8 A PARTICULAR SMALL-SCALE CONCEPT
Systems (2)
Transportation systems (3)
Intermodal transportation systems (4)
Actors Activities Resources (5)
Transshipment
technologies (6)
Small-scale
transshipment
technologies (7)
A particular smallscale
concept
In the previous chapters, it has been repeatedly
argued that specific and deterministic statements
are only valid for strictly delimited cases. It then
goes without saying that it is suitable to dedicate a
chapter to one such case. It is also appropriate to
dedicate the case study to the technology found best
suited for small-scale operations in the evaluation in
the preceding chapter. Hence, this chapter treats
SJ’s development project Light-combi that has attracted
significant attention from the industry, from authorities, from researchers as well as
from media.
The role should not be overestimated, but I have been – and I still am – involved in the development
project as a discussion partner, a researcher and a consultant. This implies that
the case study cannot be used for classic verification of the ideas presented in earlier chapters.
Instead, it may be regarded as further illustration of the thoughts, and a possibility to
be comparatively deterministic and to avoid lawyer-style “it depends” statements. The
chapter is thus not limited to the lowest system level, but rather used for referring up to
higher system levels and for preparing for the synthesised conclusions in the next chapter.
In my opinion, the Light-combi project is also a good example of how a complex engineering
problem can be successfully addressed by applying a comprehensive systems approach.
Consequently, the plans for how the concept is to be implemented are especially focused
here.
The description and analysis of the Light-combi concept presented in the detached appendix
is based upon external information sources while this rendering is mainly based upon
information supplied directly by SJ. Hence, no references are given here. The information
has been gathered through access to internal project material and through frequent interviews
and discussions, chiefly with the project manager Jan-Ola WEDE.
8.1 THE LIGHT-COMBI CONCEPT
As argued for in section 6.2.4 and in the previous chapter, Sweden with its small and dispersed
goods flows is a natural breeding place for small-scale intermodal concepts. Swed-
167

ish State Railways (SJ) 99 has taken various initiatives for developing a viable intermodal
system in competition with the large lorries allowed in Sweden. Only the most recent one –
the Light-combi project – is described and analysed here but two of its predecessors are
briefly presented in the detached appendix. A common feature of the three projects is that a
comprehensive systems approach was used for re-engineering the whole transportation system
rather than just the transshipment function.
The peripheral location and the low population density mean that the Swedish industry’s
competitiveness depends on quick, reliable and cost-efficient transport services. Compared
to in Continental Europe, the feasibility of intermodal transport in Sweden is limited by the
facts that:
• Sweden is sparsely populated with an industry distributed over large areas implying
smaller and less concentrated flows.
• Sweden is a peripheral country with a peninsular lie still implying dependence on ferries
for reaching the major trade partners. Since most international transport routes are divided
into two shorter halves, intermodal transport becomes less competitive and road transport
is often used on either or both sides of the Baltic Sea.
• The competition with road transport is fierce since very large road vehicles – 24 meters
and 60 tons – are allowed and even longer ones – 25.25 meters – will be allowed in a few
years.
Today, the short- and medium-distance transport market is totally dominated by road transport.
Domestic intermodal transport, operated by Rail Combi AB, is competitive from approximately
500 kilometres, but still has a modest market share. On international destinations,
intermodal transport is competitive over really long distances, but the use of ferries
hampers the intermodal operations severely. Moreover, as is true in Continental Europe, the
competition from lorries from non-EU member states is increasingly fierce.
In order to face these problems, Swedish State Railways (SJ) runs a development project
with the aim of introducing a fine-meshed network of some 40 simple, flexible and unmanned
intermodal terminals at side-tracks along existing rail infrastructure. The network
will be operated as a complement to the 16 larger conventional intermodal terminals oper-
99 Swedish State Railways (Statens Järnvägar – SJ) is a state-owned railway operation company. The number
of employees in the end of 1995 was 24 800/14 200/3 800 (group/parent entity/freight division) and the turnover
in 1995 was ECU 2.1/1.4/0.6 billion.
168

ated by the SJ subsidiary Rail Combi AB 100 . The Swedish network will also be internationally
connected through gateways.
The concept is based upon fixed-formation train sets that make short stops (15-30 minutes)
at side-track terminals approximately every 100 kilometres. The maximum local road haulage
distance is considered to be 50 kilometres but when flows fluctuate, lorries can be used
for longer haulage in order to avoid stops where only one or a few ITUs are shifted.
At the terminals, swap bodies and ISO-containers are transshipped under the overhead contact
line, to begin with by use of a forklift truck carried by the train and operated by the engine
driver as shown in the figure below.
Figure 8-1
An artist’s impression of a Light-combi terminal operated with a forklift truck
carried on the train. (Source: SJ/Marknadsplan).
So far, Staff Corporate Planning and Strategic Development have managed the project.
Along with the commercialisation, the responsibility is to be gradually transferred to the
freight division of SJ – SJ Gods 101 . The concept is developed in close co-operation with
SJ’s road haulier subsidiary AB Svelast 102 that will use their lorries for carrying out local
100 The business unit for intermodal transport of SJ, SJ Kombi, became a limited company on July 1, 1992.
The new company Rail Combi AB is fully owned by SJ. With 169 employees, Rail Combi dispatched 4 million
tons of freight loaded on 209 000 rail wagons in 1995. At the terminals, 344 000 lift-operations were accomplished.
The revenues in 1995 were ECU 63 million of which ECU 115 000 was a profit.
101 “Gods” is the Swedish word for freight and it should not be mistaken for a belief in more than one Supreme
Being.
102 AB Svelast became a member of the SJ group in 1945 and has supported SJ’s rail freight operations ever
since. Svelast is a fully owned subsidiary to the SJ Group with the aim of supporting rail transport in Sweden. In
169

oad haulage and for safety backup in case of technical problems. Connections to other intermodal
transport networks are developed together with SJ’s subsidiary for conventional
intermodal transport, Rail Combi AB. Svelast and Rail Combi also co-operate directly in
the production of conventional intermodal transport services.
The development project started in October 1995 and the goal is to complete a customer
pilot in 1998 and run a fully developed service in 2003. The fully developed intermodal
transport service is anticipated to be competitive with single-mode road transport on distances
exceeding 200 kilometres. As will be elaborated below, a cornerstone in the project
is to keep the business risk on a low level by using standard equipment flexibly and by developing
the concept gradually. In short, the innovative aspects are:
• flexible use of fixed-formation train sets – no marshalling
• short stops (15-30 minutes) at small, simple and unmanned terminals at side-tracks
• loading and unloading under the overhead contact line
• co-ordination between regional, domestic and international trains
• close co-operation with other terminal operators and road hauliers
• carefully prepared implementation scheme
The concept makes it possible to start up a small-scale network in areas with small flows
over short and medium distances without big investment. Since the terminals are of a very
simple design it is possible to establish terminals fast and at low costs. Resources can also
be moved easily within the network, especially in the basic concept where a forklift truck
follows the train on a special wagon. In the detached appendix, the Light-combi concept is
described from a technical perspective and analysed concerning advantages and disadvantages.
The development project is also dealt with in sections 6.1.4, 6.2.4 and 7.3 in this dissertation.
8.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As was elaborated in section 6.2, preconditions for designing viable intermodal transportation
systems vary considerably between the European countries. The small flows present in
Sweden and other peripheral countries imply that regional, domestic and international
flows have to be co-ordinated to make up the scale in which intermodal transport can reach
business economic profitability. For a substantial modal shift, the problems concerning inaddition,
the company takes on all-road, door-to-door, transport assignments for part loads and full truckloads.
In 1995 an average of 500 employees used 300 lorries and 21 terminals to produce transport and third party
logistics services worth ECU 37 million. Of the total costs, 6 % referred to purchasing from other SJ companies
and 19 % of the revenues was business with other companies within the SJ Group.
170

termodal transport over short and medium distances must be addressed with priority. Once
these markets have been penetrated, competitiveness over long distances will most probably
come as a bonus.
As is true for large parts of Europe, intermodal transport is losing competitiveness in Sweden.
To SJ as a group, intermodal transport is not profitable – the operational costs are covered
but not the capital costs (LUNDBERG, 1996, p. 30). Several Swedish intermodal
transport terminals have been closed in recent years thus restricting the geographic coverage
and market potential. One of the objectives of the Light-combi project is therefore to
recapture lost markets for intermodal transport. Accordingly, SJ puts a lot of effort into decreasing
the minimum distance where intermodal transport is competitive with single-mode
road transport.
In the domestic transport market, the Light-combi concept seems to be a viable attempt to
compete with road transport at the very important medium distances. Besides the traffic
within the closed loops, co-ordination of services will also contribute to the competitiveness
of conventional domestic intermodal transport due to enhanced area coverage. The
present intermodal flows are by no means intended to be forced into the Light-combi services.
According to SJ, the Swedish domestic transport market has an annual volume of 427 million
tons. However, only a small share of this market is suitable for Light-combi. First, the
intention of the Light-combi services is neither to take market shares from sea nor from rail
transport. Second, the major part of road transport is over distances less than 200 kilometres
over which Light-combi is no realistic alternative. Third, a part of the market is outside
the geographic coverage of the basic Light-combi network. Fourth, the Light-combi services
do not aim for non-containerised general cargo. After subtracting these parts from the
total market, there is a potential market of 22 million tons annually as shown in the figure
below. International and domestic flows that are planned to be linked to the Light-combi
network will add to the 22 million tons.
171

427 Mton -13 -Sea Total domestic transport
-57
-Rail market in Sweden
-314
-Road, less than 200 kms
-10
-11
=22 Mton
-Outside the basic Light-combi network
-Non-containerised general cargo
-Potential market for Light-combi
Figure 8-2
The potential market of Light-combi.
Regionally, a fully developed service is regarded to have the possibility to capture one third
of the potential market of 22 million tons annually. If realised, more than 7 million tons can
thus be shifted from road to rail. For international flows not only “tons” will be shifted
from road to rail through increased competitiveness – the rail part of the distance will also
be extended compared to today’s intermodal transport offer.
In the international transport market, the Light-combi has the potential for contributing not
only to the fact that an extended part of the total distance is performed by rail, but also to
enhanced competitiveness for international intermodal transport as such. Hence, so-called
broken traffic with road transport on either side of the Baltic Sea can be avoided.
8.3 AN IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO
A leading star when developing the Light-combi concept is to keep the business risks on a
low level. Much effort is thus spent on planning the implementation carefully. Based upon
information supplied by SJ, the different implementation phases are described here. Since
the implementation is still in an infant stage, much of the description can be referred to as a
scenario. This scenario is mine, but it has been checked by SJ in order not to unveil sensitive
information given to me in confidence.
A selection of the implementation phases are modelled using the synthesised model from
section 4.4. The first step, a customer pilot, is modelled in detail but as the other implementation
phases lie further into the future and are of larger scope, the modelling is successively
less specific. In the end of this chapter, the implementation plan is further discussed
in light of the theory on how to overcome effects of barriers against implementing new resources,
as presented in section 5.2.
172

8.3.1 Customer pilot: “Dalkullan”
First, the Light-combi concept will be tried technically and commercially in a customer pilot
commencing in April 1998. The task is to transport groceries from the warehouse of the
wholesaler DAGAB to 32 grocery stores in DAGAB’s Hemköp chain. Two closed loops
will connect the stores that receive deliveries from the central warehouse three times a
week. It is basically a one-way flow, but some packing material will be returned for recycling
or reuse. The pilot is denoted “Dalkullan” 103 since the flow originates at the warehouse
in Borlänge in Dalecarlia. Today the groceries are transported using DAGAB’s own
lorries for local distribution while the forwarder ASG supplies long-distance haulage.
The commercial risk will be maintained on a low level by exclusive use of standardised
equipment with alternative fields of application if the trials turn out unsuccessfully. In this
respect, SJ has thus learnt from the warning example of C-sam (see the detached appendix)
that employed specific ITUs, lorries as well as rail wagons.
The moving resources that SJ Gods have allocated for the pilot include 60 insulated swap
bodies, two train sets, each consisting of a rail engine, eight standard flat wagons and a
slightly rebuilt low-bed transformer wagon for carrying a forklift truck. The swap bodies
are equipped with forklift tunnels and each flat wagon is capable of carrying two such swap
bodies. The forklift truck to be used for the customer pilot and for training the engine drivers
is supplied by Silverdalen Mekaniska Verkstad (SMV). The truck is of a standard model
with a price tag in the range of SEK 1,5 million (ECU 170 000). The truck weighs 34.5 tons
and is capable of lifting 25 tons. In addition, Svelast will operate a number of lorries.
Only small installations are needed at the terminals, mainly a ramp, a flat asphalt surface
and storage racks for swap bodies. Such simple and unmanned terminals have been erected
at existing side-tracks in Linköping, Mölndal, Nässjö and Hässleholm. In addition, the conventional
intermodal terminals in Borlänge, Örebro, Halmstad and Malmö will be used.
Since lift equipment is available at the terminals in Borlänge and Örebro, the two train sets
do not have to carry the truck in the northern part of the loops. Hence, a single forklift truck
can be used by both train sets. For instance, when the train set trafficking the loop clockwise
has reached Mölndal it leaves the truck there to be picked up by the other train set.
Similarly, that train set leaves the truck in Linköping.
During stops at the unmanned terminals, the rail engine driver walks to the forklift truck,
drives it off its wagon over the ramp and then transships the appropriate unit loads between
103 Dalecarlian girl in English – a folklore archetype represented by a blond and curvy girl with curves, in Sweden
often associated with Anders Zorn’s paintings and the girl delivering a garland to the winner of the Vasa ski
race.
173

the train and the intermediate storage racks. The use of racks implies that neither the forklift
operator nor the lorry driver will have to fold the support-legs manually. After driving
the forklift truck back onto the train – a manoeuvre that is shown in the figure below – the
engine driver is ready to take the train to the next terminal.
Figure 8-3
Loading the forklift truck onto the Light-combi train over the ramp.
(Source: SJ Gods, www-site, 1998).
SJ Gods sells the transport service subcontracting Svelast and Rail Combi for local road
haulage and transshipments at conventional intermodal terminals. Rail Combi operates the
terminals in Örebro and Malmö while Svelast operates those in Halmstad and Borlänge, of
which the latter one is operated on commission for Rail Combi as a part of the conventional
intermodal network. Dalkullan is a truly floor-to-floor service since Svelast’s drivers empty
the swap bodies at the Hemköp stores.
DAGAB books transport assignments by use of fax, but the companies in the SJ group operate
an Intranet-based information system. Other authorities do not financially support the
customer pilot, but wagons in intermodal services are relieved from the fixed part of the
fees for using the railway tracks. The customer pilot is modelled below, using the framework
model synthesised in section 4.4. Shared resources are not numbered.
174

Customer pilot “Dalkullan”
Actors
Activities
Resources
Two rail routes
City roads
Administrative SJ Gods
system
DAGAB Hemköp
Systems
management
Information system
- Computers
-Fax transmissions
Laws and
regulations
Lower fees
for using
the tracks
Production
system
© J.W. 98 03 04
DAGAB
Svelast
SJ Gods
Rail Combi
Svelast
Filling at DAGAB
Pick-up road haulage
Transshipment
Rail haulage
Transshipment
Delivery road haulage
Emptying at
32 Hemköp stores
60 insulated swap bodies
Lorries
Conventional terminal
2 train sets with rail
engine and 8 wagons
4 Light-combi terminals
1 forklift truck on trains
3 conventional terminals
Lorries
Delivieries
from DAGAB
warehouse
to Hemköp
stores three
times a week
Local
distributi
on by
DAGAB’s
own
lorries
and longdistance
haulage
by ASG
Figure 8-4
The customer pilot “Dalkullan”.
The operations obviously depend on the performance of the combined rail engine and forklift
drivers who thus are thoroughly trained before the trials commence.
8.3.2 Starting with closed loops
In the second implementation phase, dedicated trains consisting of 20 standard flat wagons
and a wagon carrying the forklift truck will run in closed loops covering different Swedish
regions. Terminal operations are equal to those in the customer pilot. In this phase, swap
bodies up to 7.82 meters and ISO-containers up to 20 feet are accommodated provided that
they are equipped with forklift tunnels.
In order to build up the freight volumes at a low business risk, part of the line haulage will
initially be carried out using Svelast’s lorries. Lorries will also be used for backup in case
of breakdowns. In this phase, the Light-combi services are offered directly by SJ Gods to a
restricted number of shippers. Svelast and Rail Combi act as subcontractors to SJ Gods.
For tracking and tracing purposes, an advanced information system based upon identification
tags on the unit loads and signalling beacons along the side-tracks will be imple-
175

mented. Using SJ Gods’ experience in the field 104 , EDI connections and an Intranet application
will be used for exchanging information with customers.
8.3.3 Establishing a basic network
In the third implementation phase, the captured transport volumes will allow for the operation
of a basic network of Light-combi terminals. The biggest terminals will have fixed
transshipment equipment and once the number of trains on a route exceeds the number of
terminals, the forklift trucks will be positioned at the terminals, however still operated by
the rail engine drivers.
Other small-scale transshipment technologies will be selected and employed in order to accommodate
40-foot containers and swap bodies up to 13.6 meters as well as shorter units
lacking forklift tunnels. There is no aim to develop own technology, but rather to search the
market and signal to prospective developers that SJ is a potential buyer. By adopting an
open attitude towards developers, SJ can get into a position from which it can influence the
development in a desired direction. One technology studied by SJ is the Mondiso Rail Terminal
as described in the detached appendix.
Some Light-combi trains will still run in the closed loops while others will operate at a
fixed timetable offering services also to occasional customers. Shippers will be offered
door-to-door or floor-to-floor services while the demand from forwarders and road hauliers
is naturally restricted to terminal-to-terminal services. For the local road haulage part of the
door-to-door services, SJ Gods might contract other hauliers than Svelast. Some trains
might be dedicated to single shippers, using normal Light-combi trains or German CargoSprinter
trains operated in a lorry-like fashion. A CargoSprinter train is shown below.
104 SJ Gods has experience from several years of trials with ID-tags on iron ore wagons in the harshest conceivable
environment conditions at Malmbanan in the far north of Sweden, as well as from EDI connections to
main customers.
176

Figure 8-5
An impression of how a CargoSprinter train can appear in a Light-combi
service. (Source: SJ/Animage).
The flexible use of trains requires floating train plans. For floor-to-floor services, the information
system will facilitate tracking of single pallets while terminal-to-terminal services
will be restricted to information at the ITU level. The booking system will be developed
for facilitating transparency for customers using the Internet or a dedicated Intranet
between the larger actors. Status information will be transferred with the same media. The
operations in this phase are modelled below.
Operations of a basic Light-combi network
Actors
Activities
Resources
Railway tracks
City roads
SJ Gods
Administrative
system
Shippers
Hauliers Forwarders
Systems
management
Information system
- ID tags
- Computers
-EDI or Intranet
communication
Laws and
regulations
Lower fees
for using
the tracks
Production
system
© J.W. 98 03 04
Shippers
Svelast or
other hauliers
Rail
Combi
SJ Gods
Rail Combi
or SJ Gods
as above
Svelast or other
hauliers as above
Consignees
Filling
Pick-up road
haulage
Transshipment
Rail haulage
Transshipment
Delivery road haulage
Emptying
Swap bodies, 20 and
40 foot containers
Lorries
Conventional terminals
Light-combi terminals
Forklift truck on train or
at terminal, new type of
horizontal technology
Trains with rail engine
and 20 20 wagons or
CargoSprinter units
Terminal types as above
Lorries
Demand for
transport
services:
- Shippers
(black arrow)
- Forwarders
or hauliers
(white arrow)
Competing
single-mode
transportation
Figure 8-6
Operations of the basic Light-combi network.
177

Note that SJ Gods basically offers two different services. The black arrow illustrates the
floor-to-floor services marketed to shippers, and the terminal-to-terminal services marketed
to forwarders and hauliers by the white arrow. Forwarders and hauliers are only involved in
systems management in the latter case, which is marked with double-framed boxes in the
administrative system. The modelling takes a clear SJ perspective, which implies that the
ITUs and lorries supplied by forwarders and hauliers are positioned outside the Lightcombi
system.
8.3.4 Extending the basic network
In the fourth development phase, the basic network will be extended with closed loops connecting
new geographical areas including the Oslo and Trondheim regions in Norway. Also
customer-specific trains might be operated in this phase. The loops are connected through
conventional Heavy-combi terminals operated as gateways. Schematic pictures of the extension
of the Light-combi network are shown below.
Loops
Basic
network
Extended
basic network
Figure 8-7
Three steps in the development of the Light-combi network. (Source:
SJ/Marknadsplan).
As mentioned above, conventional flat wagons for containers will be used to begin with.
By time, however, these will be substituted for a new type of short-coupled wagon better
suited for use in the Light-combi system. Another company in the SJ Group – TGOJ, is currently
developing one such wagon type. The proposed wagon is – as is evident from the
figure below – much lighter than conventional ones. Moreover, the swap bodies/containers
can be more densely loaded implying that the loading capacity is approximately 35 %
higher and the energy consumption is up to 60 % lower compared to the use of conventional
flat wagons.
178

Figure 8-8
Short-coupled, lightweight railway wagon facilitating dense loading of swap
bodies. (Source: SJ/Marknadsplan).
In addition, the wagons allow for train speeds of up to 160 kilometres/hour. Such high
speeds might not be defendable from a strict economic or logistic perspective, but high
speed is vital for mixing Light-combi trains with fast passenger trains on main lines during
daytime.
8.3.5 Connecting Light-combi to conventional intermodal
transport
In the fifth development phase, the Light-combi flows will be linked to the Heavy-combi
network comprising 16 domestic terminals. Since the Light-combi trains are operated in a
flexible fashion, domestic consignments will be linked through different Rail Combi terminals
from time to time. The networks for Heavy-combi and Light-combi are shown below.
179

Heavy-combi terminal
Light-combi terminal
Figure 8-9
Network modules for Heavy-combi and Light-combi as part of a vision for
2007. (Source: SJ, brochure, 1998, p. 21).
Through the use of gateways, also unitised flows from Continental Europe, from other
Nordic countries as well as from the Baltic States will be incorporated. Light-combi will
also be used for hinterland transport of ISO-containers to and from distant continents
through the Port of Göteborg.
By linking different network modules, the small flows related to the Nordic countries will
be co-ordinated in order to benefit from the economies of scale so prevalent in rail transportation.
The main purpose is to extend the part of the total distance travelled by rail at the
expense of road transport. The figure below shows a vision on how Light-combi can work
together with other intermodal services in ten years.
180

Heavy-combi terminal
Light-combi terminal
Port with rail access
Gateway port
Freight airport
Figure 8-10
Connections between Heavy-combi, Light-combi and other network modules
as part of a vision for 2007. (Source: SJ, brochure, 1998, p. 40).
As is clear from the figure, also air freight flows will be connected to the rail network, but
it is not yet clear whether this will be done within the Light-combi network based upon
swap bodies and containers. An option is to design a dedicated service based upon a freight
version of the fast train X2 and smaller and lighter airfreight containers.
Nevertheless, the international land transport flows are of particular significance. Together
with Svelast and Rail Combi, SJ has received funds from the European Commission’s
PACT programme (see section 6.2.12) for a feasibility study on how to develop the international
links.
The Finnish flows will be linked to the Light-combi network through a gateway terminal in
Haparanda/Tornio and through the Port of Stockholm. Unitised flows from the Baltic States
will enter the Light-combi network through the ports of Stockholm and
Karlskrona/Karlshamn. Continental transport flows will be linked through a gateway terminal
in Malmö and through the ports of Trelleborg and Ystad.
181

Shuttle trains will take ITUs between the Malmö gateway – positioned close to the abutment
of the Öresund Bridge that is under construction – and Hamburg. In Hamburg, another
gateway will connect the Nordic flows to the container ports in Hamburg as well as to
the large-scale shuttles providing direct connections to a wide range of European destinations.
All-road transport can also be challenged for flows between Scandinavia and the
economically important Hamburg region as such.
It seems most rational to choose the giant conventional intermodal terminal Hamburg Billwerder
as gateway terminal in Hamburg. The terminal started operations in 1993 and five
gantry cranes give a total technical capacity of some 335 000 lifts per year. If a significant
amount of containers are bound for transocean destinations, however, the shuttle train
might also call one of the three container terminals in the Port of Hamburg.
By using diesel-powered trains, it is possible to drive the trains directly under the cranes in
the gateways and eliminate the problems with different electric currents in Sweden, Denmark
and Germany. One studied option is to use train sets made up from coupled CargoSprinters.
It is also possible to link flows to and from Denmark in this concept, following
current plans by the DSB. These international operations will obviously be co-ordinated
with railway administrations or other operators in the involved countries 105 .
If the plans for European Freight Freeways 106 are realised in large scale, SJ Gods might operate
the shuttle trains themselves. The operations of such a shuttle service connecting the
Light-combi network and Rail Combi’s conventional intermodal transport network in
Scandinavia to continental shuttles, transocean shipping and the Hamburg region are modelled
below. The black bold arrow denotes the shuttle service between Malmö and Hamburg
while the dashed arrows denote the connected transport services. Note that the administrative
system is only modelled for the core shuttle service.
105 The national railway companies in the three Scandinavian countries have signed a letter of intent concerning
the formation of a joint venture, Nordic Rail International, for rail traffic between the countries and to Continental
Europe (Svensk Logistik, 1998, p. 4).
106 Traditionally, international European rail transport must involve all national railways along the route in a
relay race fashion. European Freight Freeways is an initiative opening up international railway lines for operations
by a single actor. The first freeway will be opened during 1998 (SJ, www-site, 1998).
182

Connecting Scandinavian and Continental intermodal flows
Administrative
system
Actors
SJ Gods
Continental
shuttle
operators
Rail Combi
DB Cargo
Terminal
Division
Activities
Systems
management
Resources
Information system
- ID tags
- computers
-EDI, Internet and intranet
communication
Railway
tracks
City
roads
Production
system
Laws
and
regulations
Lower
fees
for
using
the
tracks
Shippers
Hauliers
SJ Gods
Rail Combi
SJ Gods
Filling
Pick-up road haulage
Transshipment
Rail haulage
Transshipment
Rail haulage
Swap bodies, 20 and
40 foot containers
Lorries
Light-combi terminal
Conventional intermodal terminal
Light-combi train
Conventional intermodal train
Malmö (conventional)
intermodal terminal
Demand for
transport
services
from
Scandinavia
to
Continental
Europe and
transocean
destinations
Support
from EU
PACT
funds for
developing
international
connections
© J.W. 98 03 07
DB Cargo
Terminal Division
Continental
shuttle operators
Shipping lines
Terminal operator
Port operator
Rail haulage
Transshipment
Sea
voyage
Transshipment
Delivery road haulage
CargoSprinter units
Hamburg Billwerder
conventional terminal
Full-train shuttles
Container vessels
Conventional intermodal terminal
Port
Lorries
Competing
singlemode
transportation
Hauliers
Consignees
Emptying
Figure 8-11
Connecting Scandinavian and Continental intermodal flows.
As is obvious from the model, connecting network modules significantly add to complexity.
This is, however, not necessarily a problem, the key is that the network modules can be
operated with low complexity and local adaptation.
8.3.6 Exporting the concept
The sixth development phase is about “exporting” the Light-combi concept as such to new,
non-Swedish, network modules. The deregulation initiatives taken during the last 10 years
implies that SJ Gods actually has an option of doing this aggressively, that is starting own
door-to-door or floor-to-floor cabotage 107 operations. Due to the state ownership, however,
107 Cabotage was a central conception in the regulated European transport market, referring to the offer of
domestic transport services in other countries than the home country.
183

SJ might be restricted in its international ambitions. Unlike comparable government-owned
enterprises and public utilities – and despite proposals from SJ’s top management – SJ is
not yet transformed into a limited company. So far, the government has taken no steps towards
the privatisation of SJ although a prospective wish for qualifying for the European
Monetary Union might change the case.
Nevertheless, SJ is not formally held back from foreign adventures, but it is closer at hand
that SJ exports the concept and the know-how from own operations rather than trying to
capture foreign door-to-door markets. It could be in form of joint ventures with other rail
operators or through SJ’s in-house consultant company SwedRail AB. The latter company
was formed in order to sell SJ’s experience, e.g. from the early split between infrastructure
department (Banverket) and rail traffic operator (SJ). Even more plausible is that a foreign
railway company with a wish for changes on the agenda, takes the initiative in contacting
SJ if the initial trials turn out successfully. The operations of the Light-combi services can,
however, hardly be patented. The risk from SJ’s perspective is then that a foreign railway
company quite simply copies the concept.
Well, this implementation stage lies quite far into the future and analysing it further would
have the character of speculation rather than analysis.
8.4 WHAT TO LEARN FROM THE LIGHT-COMBI PROJECT?
The rest of this chapter is aimed at discussing the case study in light of the findings presented
earlier in the dissertation. Since the most interesting aspect of the Light-combi project
is the way in which it is intended to be implemented, the issue of how to overcome the
effects of barriers is emphasised.
8.4.1 Light-combi – a technical system, a network or a chain?
Whether Light-combi is best viewed upon as a technical system, a network or a chain obviously
depends on the purpose of the study as well as on which implementation phase that is
studied. The synthesised model presented in section 4.4 that combines the systems perspectives
– technical/hierarchical, network and channel/chain – is found quite useful for the
modelling of the Light-combi implementation steps. However, with such a wide approach,
the modelling swiftly becomes severely complex. The case where the Light-combi concept
is linked to other intermodal networks – as presented in Figure 8-11 – is regarded as being
close to the limit of inconceivability. Modelling even more complex transport arrangements
is likely to be illustrative first after simplifications or limitations of the scope of the modelling.
184

The first implementation phases regard a closed and firmly managed system, in which the
interfaces between the system resources are quite clearly defined and standard equipment is
employed. Hence, a pure technical approach could be useful, especially for communication
between engineers and for information to a wider public. In later implementation stages,
however, the commercial as well as the technological openness are widened, which adds to
complexity. A network approach paying attention to the activities, actors and resources involved
is then probably a better choice. Finally, when studying the Light-combi connected
to a wider range of intermodal network modules, a chain approach seems plausible indicating
that modelling should start out from the path of single ITUs. In all, the case study fortifies
the findings from chapter 4 saying that intermodal transportation systems are best studied
using complementing approaches.
8.4.2 How does Light-combi comply with the requirements for
small-scale intermodal transport?
As is obvious from the top ranking in the evaluation in chapter 7, Light-combi is well in
line with the stated requirements for small-scale intermodal transshipment technologies.
What is thrilling with the concept, however, is that it is consciously developed taking a systems
approach rather than starting out from a re-invented piece of transshipment technology.
In fact, the role of the transshipment technology is played down emphasising how a
simple and well-proven technology can be used in an innovative way.
In fact, the list of requirements outlined in section 7.1 is very close to the one actually lying
behind the Light-combi project. It could thus be suggested that the list is produced for fitting
Light-combi implying that the evaluation is biased. The essence of the list in section
7.1, however, was originally published (WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1994) long before
the Light-combi project started. It would be presumptuous to state that the published list
has influenced the project, but the correspondence between the requirement lists, at least
confirms that this research is not totally wrong. The reason for the congruence could be referred
to the fact that the requirements prevalent in Sweden are similar to those prevalent
for the advocated small-scale network modules.
Is the Light-combi concept then suitable only in Scandinavia? My answer is no, since the
flexible way in which the Light-combi network can be implemented and operated implies
that it could be serviceable in several of the countries, whose preconditions for intermodal
transport were analysed in section 6.2. It is also suitable for several of the network operation
principles outlined in section 4.2.1. As is clear from the description of the implementation
phases, the Light-combi services can be produced using the corridor, the fixed routes
as well as the flexible routes designs. Hence, the flexibility implies that operators facing
quite different preconditions can benefit from the ideas behind Light-combi.
185

8.4.3 How are barrier effects treated?
There is no doubt that a wide range of barriers hamper the development of the Light-combi
concept. Neither are there doubts about that SJ has the intention of attacking the barrier effects
consciously. In this section, the measures undertaken, planned or anticipated, are analysed
in light of the theoretical approaches of how to overcome the barrier effects presented
in section 5.3.
It can be stated that the barrier hampering the development of Swedish intermodal transport
the most is the lack of formal system leadership. No actor except Rail Combi is truly committed
to prioritising intermodal transport before single-mode transportation. Much of Rail
Combi’s effort is also in vain since the owner SJ has refused the company the right to market
intermodal services directly to shippers. The reason is that SJ Gods and other companies
in the SJ group should market to shippers and that such marketing by Rail Combi
would upset the forwarders and hauliers buying services from Rail Combi. Hence, the
company depends on the will of forwarders, shipping agents, hauliers and SJ Gods to use
its terminal-to-terminal services.
The forwarder ASG seemed committed to use intermodal transport as long as the company
was a member of the SJ family but its use of Rail Combi’s services has been significantly
reduced since SJ sold out. SJ keeps saying that intermodal is the future for rail transport,
but it is not an exaggeration to state that SJ Gods more energetically promote wagonload
rail transport than intermodal transport. Since the responsibility is now gradually transferred
from Staff Corporate Planning and Strategic Development to SJ Gods, it will be interesting
to study whether the new service can attract the needed attention.
The initial creation of a closed system and the intention to control the transport chain under
one management, also in coming implementation phases, implies that SJ addresses this
lack of system leadership with high priority. Concerning technology, the implementation
plan clearly indicates that SJ plans to change technology in course of time during the system’s
investment cycle. SJ’s priority is not to develop own technology but to conform firmly
to regulations, standards and prevailing technologies. In addition, technologies developed
by others are investigated for prospective future use in the system. SJ then takes on a role
of technology purchaser rather than technology developer. SJ has adopted this philosophy
also in other development projects, e.g. when buying the X2 concept from ABB Traction 108
and developing it into the commercial fast-train passenger service X2000. A new feature of
the X2 project was actually that SJ bought the trains based upon system and functional
specifications rather than upon ready blue prints produced by SJ. In all, it can be stated that
108 Now part of the company Adtranz.
186

through the successive extension of commercial as well as technological openness, many
barriers can be treated simultaneously.
Moreover, the employment of the low-bed transformer wagon is an example of the strategy
to optimise sets of resources together and, finally, SJ applies the strategy to obtain an exemption.
In this case an exemption is obtained for handling ITUs with a forklift truck underneath
the overhead contact line, which has previously been strictly forbidden. The reason
for the exemption is that the lift height is mechanically blocked.
In summary, most of the strategies for overcoming the effects of barriers are encompassed
in SJ’s development scheme.
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
What are then the prospects of Light-combi? Is it yet another futile attempt to challenge allroad
transport? Or is it a new and vital approach to the Catch 22 of combining intermodal
operations in a small scale with the utilisation of the economies of scale so prevalent in rail
transportation? I sincerely believe in the latter and the far-reaching plans described in section
8.3 indicate that SJ is earnestly committed. The fact that the plans are positively received
by a wide range of prospective customers and other stakeholders also point in the
direction of success. Anyhow, other great intermodal initiatives have failed, but it will certainly
be interesting to follow the outcome of this one!
187

9 A CONCLUDING SCENARIO
The character of the present research makes it difficult to conclude in a few sentences,
summing up the results of a detailed analysis. Instead, I have chosen to conclude the analytic
elements in the end of the chapter they appeared in. In addition, many of the loose
ends were picked up in the last chapter that was formulated in a concluding fashion within
the framework of a single intermodal concept.
This provides for dedicating this last chapter to a scenario synthesised from the findings
from the systems analyses and the analytic elements. In this way I believe that the chapter
is more informative and that the rendering adds more than just a summary of the different
results. The scenario treats the future of intermodal transport on a European scale, and it is
deeper than the brief ones presented in the introductions of chapters 6 and 7. The dissertation
is then brought to an end by discussing the prospects and validity of this scenario.
The research object intermodal transport is clearly in focus in this chapter. Conclusions
concerning the research process applied in my doctoral work are presented in the form of a
detached postscript that is available upon request.
9.1 A SCENARIO FOR FUTURE EUROPEAN
INTERMODALISM
Based upon my general knowledge of the system, the systems analyses and the analytic
elements presented in earlier chapters, I assert that the European intermodal transportation
system will follow four main development lines in order to compete successfully with single-mode
road transport also over medium distances of 200 – 500 kilometres. All development
lines do not aim for the medium distances, but it is still vital for the competitiveness
of intermodal transport that services with different characteristics can be co-ordinated.
Economies of scale are clearly present in railway transportation and the integration of different
services can facilitate that the economies can be utilised.
The first development line relates to the large flows over relatively long distances. For obvious
reasons, these services are most economically produced with direct trains between
end terminals and they will employ well proven large-scale transshipment technology.
The second and third development lines are far more interesting; how should the substantial
market for transport over medium distances – 200 to 500 kilometres – be approached? The
second development line aims for the part of this market that involves densely populated
areas generating large flows concentrated along arteries. This market will be approached by
introducing services where trains make frequent but short stops at road-rail transshipment
terminals along corridors. The large flows and the high frequencies imply that the services
188

can compete for short-distance transport, but as a bonus also for transporting ITUs over
longer distances on connections with too small flows for direct trains.
The third development line regards small and dispersed flows over medium distances. The
key to improved competitiveness in this part of the market is to firstly renew all of the train
operations system. However, also the employed transshipment technology must be renewed
since that is a prerequisite for implementing advanced train operation principles.
The fourth development line is rolling highway services where complete lorry combinations
are driven onto low-built rail wagons. The purpose of using this expensive solution with an
unsatisfactory net to tare weight ratio, is to overcome hurdles related to the geography or
the infrastructure, or use the drivers’ sleeping hours productively. The concept does not
quite fulfil the definition of an intermodal service used in this dissertation, but it is still included
here as it is generally discussed together with the downright intermodal concepts.
For obvious reasons, what lies in the future cannot be scientifically proved. Nevertheless,
the scenario is firmly based upon the studies presented in chapters 4 to 8 as well as upon
my achieved general knowledge of European intermodal transport. Parts of the scenario are
previously published (WOXENIUS, 1997/b, 1997/c and 1998) and thus exposed to potential
criticism.
As the last years of my research have been directed towards operational and technical matters
rather than towards organisational ones, the scenario is focused on the network operation
principles and the transshipment technologies. It is not aimed at lining out an ideal future
situation, but rather at forming a realistic opinion of how the system must be changed
in order to survive and capture market shares from single-mode road transport, also over
distances as short as 200 kilometres. It is very hard to judge the time needed for the transition
but the scenario roughly covers the coming ten years.
9.1.1 Long and heavy direct trains for large flows
Economic efficiency calls for direct shuttle trains wherever significant flows can be
achieved. There is obviously no point to ply on terminals when the train is already full with
unit loads bound for another terminal, but the question that arises, however, is; how large
flows are needed for direct train services?
Some railways, e.g. Swedish State Railways (SJ) (Transportjournalen, 1996, p. 6 and
1997/b, p. 27), want to operate significantly longer and heavier trains, mirroring the experiences
in America. Primarily, this concerns the system trains with ore, steel, wooden products
etc. On a European scale – due to the new generation of huge post-panamax container
vessels – this issue is also important to rail feeder services with maritime containers as
more efficient land transport services are needed.
189

Nevertheless, implementing larger trains requires a very difficult transitional period. Passing
tracks, signalling systems etc. must be changed before really long trains can be implemented,
which calls for gradual implementation and restrictions to certain lines or network
modules. Weight is another foreseen problem, as unit loads will be more densely packed on
the trains.
Together with increased train capacity, the frequency will gain significance. As passenger
transport is transferred to dedicated high speed lines and freight transport gets higher priority,
the night-leaps must give way for a much more flexible train operating system. Expensive
wagons and terminals must be utilised more efficiently and new information technology
will facilitate flexible timetables for freight trains. Furthermore, demand will change
towards more advanced transport services. Modal split, due to environmental concern and
saturation on the roads and in the air, will force intermodal road-rail transport to offer a
higher transport quality to meet the demand for these new goods categories. Consequently,
daily departures will probably not be sufficient for direct train services in the future.
The direct train operations are relatively simple to arrange and the complexity is not too
severe.
9.1.2 Corridor trains crossing Europe
In addition to the direct trains, fixed intermodal train sets will run along high-density corridors
and make frequent but short stops at road-rail terminals and ports. These trains aim for
a dual transport market; less dense flows over long distances and dense flows over short
distances. By approaching the combination of these flows, the services can attract the
amount of freight needed for high frequencies and for utilising economies of scale.
The stops at terminals need to be short in order not to prolong the total transit times
severely. This requires the employment of fast transshipment technologies with high capacity,
yet at a low cost per move. Time-consuming shunting of single wagons must be
avoided. Instead, unit loads will be transshipped between trains at the main intersections
between corridors. To begin with, this will be a way of utilising today’s conventional terminals
better during daytime.
Along the corridors, fixed train sets will operate at a high frequency according to a tight
and precise schedule. The schedule must be strictly held – trains cannot wait for arriving
lorries – but through the high frequency, road transport companies will use the services in
the way passengers use the underground railway; if one fail to catch a train there will soon
be another one to catch. Other trains will be made up of self-propelled modules like the
German CargoSprinter that will join some other modules along the corridor for a distance
and then depart for other corridors or side-tracks. The speed of trains will facilitate mix
with passenger trains on railway lines during the day.
190

Trains call at terminals approximately every 100 kilometres. Few hauliers will use the alternative
for just one stop, but the high frequency and the possibility of using intermodal
transport for two or more stops make this kind of service more competitive over shorter distances
than today’s over-night services. A corridor connecting A and Z as well as the terminals
in between is shown in the figure below.
A
V
X Y Z
B C D
Figure 9-1
Example of a corridor with intermediate terminals and some alternative
transport arrangements.
In the example, hauliers’ demand for service overlap, which can facilitate a satisfactory resource
utilisation on the main part of the corridor. Shippers, hauliers or forwarders can
book capacity in the train with short notice through up-to-date and transparent information
systems. With such an efficient booking system and a dynamic train plan, terminal Y has
not to be called.
Corridors are not restricted to north-south or east-west directions but will rather be introduced
wherever there is a demand for it. When the demand increases, certain relations
along the line will obviously be served also by direct trains as described above. Hence, the
corridor trains serve a purpose of building up volumes for more economical direct train
services, and they back up direct train services, that cannot be maintained due to decrease
in flows.
The trains will accommodate a wide range of unit load types but technology is kept strictly
standardised for efficiency reasons. The focus will be on swap bodies and containers complying
with the future “modular-concept” of 25.25 m, and semi-trailers will gradually be
phased out of the system.
This class of service involves more complexity than the direct trains as it involves several
terminals and that perfect timing is vitally important. This implies a need for stricter management,
especially for the train operations.
191

9.1.3 Regional solutions for the short, small and dispersed flows
The biggest challenge of European intermodal transport is to compete on the medium transport
distances, typically between 200 and 500 kilometres, with relatively dispersed flows –
a market that today is totally dominated by single-mode road transport.
Beside the direct train shuttle services and the corridor trains, I assert that there will emerge
intermodal transport services tailor-made for the actual preconditions on the served market.
The purpose is to take care of the secondary flows of unit loads and build up flows for new
corridor and direct train services. Regarding the high barriers for implementing new operation
principles and technologies, it is not realistic to expect one homogeneous and general
European intermodal system in the coming years. Without strict adaptation to the prevailing
conditions on local and regional markets, intermodal transport can never compete with road
transport unless the rules of the game concerning the market, the taxes and the legislation
change significantly.
Demand for environmentally friendly transportation will affect the demand positively, but
intermodal transport can not solely rely on the environmental friendliness. Once lorry engines
can be made more energy efficient and discharge less emissions, their currently superior
operational efficiency might actually make them superior also from an environmental
perspective. Moreover, on a local level, neighbours to intermodal terminals protest against
the increased traffic and the local disturbances. This implies that some present terminals
have to operate during restricted hours and others have to be relocalised. New terminals
will be built outside city centres or be designed for less noise emissions 109 .
The large flows in Germany facilitate that most of the intermodal transportation will be arranged
as direct connections, but the industrial concentration along the river Rhine and
other inland waterways will imply complementing services along corridors. The focus is to
integrate transportation on roads, on railway tracks and on inland waterways. Furthermore,
Germany is heavily populated with industry, particularly concentrated to areas such as the
Ruhr area. This means that space for intermodal terminals is limited and, due to road congestion,
the size of pick-up areas will rather be determined by road haulage time than distance.
The French rail network is – as is much of the society as a whole – largely centred on Paris,
which assumes the function of a national hub. A hub-and-spoke network is then almost
axiomatic, and the CNC’s custom of using such a network will spread to other operators.
The intermodal transportation system of France is today merely a domestic phenomenon
and almost all international traffic can be referred to as transit between Germany and the
109 Certain technologies, e.g.; Noell’s Mega Hub, Krupp’s Fast Handling System and Tuchschmid’s Compact
Terminal, have been shown in versions with huge noise protecting hoods.
192

Iberian Peninsula (ibid., p. 1). Further emphasis on technical and infrastructural harmonisation
will facilitate that a larger share of the French trade will pass the borders on steel
wheels rather than on rubber wheels.
In the UK, true road-rail intermodal transport has existed on a small scale although the
Channel Tunnel is increasingly used for container and swap body trains. The reason for the
modest market share of intermodal transport is that the road transportation system is dominated
by semi-trailers, but the railway loading gauge does not allow these semi-trailers to
be loaded on standard pocket wagons for semi-trailers. New initiatives will work for development
of dedicated semi-trailer wagons and a relatively small extension of the current
loading profile. The first wagon has been shown on full scale and, consequently, UK intermodal
has opportunities for increasing its market share in the coming years.
Also other European countries and regions will develop national/regional systems rather
than wait until all national systems have matured for true integration. Instead, gateway terminals
will be used in order to link different network modules 110 . As mentioned above, direct
trains will obviously go directly between terminals regardless of in which countries
these are localised, but the secondary flows will be linked through gateway terminals at the
rim of the network modules. This is current practice for transport over different rail gauges,
like the borders between France and Spain as well as between Sweden and Finland, but that
practice will spread. Current intermodal terminals will serve as gateways with the added
benefit of serving as a connecting node, also to direct full trains and corridor trains. Hence,
any regional network modules can be linked with direct trains rather than through the regional
modules in-between.
The figure below shows an image of how national and regional intermodal transportation
systems can work together through gateways all over Europe. The network modules are designed
for taking on the challenge of medium distance transport with relatively dispersed
flows that today are totally dominated by single-mode road transport. The large flows over
longer distances will for obvious reasons still go directly between origin and destination
terminals or along large-flow corridors, thus short-circuiting the general network. Most
gateway terminals will be able to handle network, corridor and direct trains.
110 The thinking about the gateway function of terminals is shared, e.g., with the European Commission
(1997/e, p. 8): “Terminals and nodes will function as interfaces between high volume transport corridors and
low volume regional and local networks”.
193

Germany: Corridors along the industrial
zones are trafficked by fixed train sets at
high frequences.
Benelux: Further focus on hinterland
transport of ISO-containers. The Betuwe
line connects Rotterdam with the Ruhr
area.
The UK: At a comparatively low cost, a
corridor is extended for semi-trailer
traffic with special wagons.
France: Most cities are connected via a
large-scale hub in Paris.
Spain and Portugal: The wide
gauge necessitates transshipments
at the French border.
The European Commission
contributes to the establishment
of an intermodal network.
Sweden and Norway:
A basic network is
complemented with
loop trains using smallscale
technologies.
Finland: A corridor along the
coast is connected to mainland
Europe using ferries to Sweden
and Germany. Finland takes a
role as gateway to Russia.
The Baltic States: A corridor
along the coast is connected to
Central Europe via Poland.
Eastern Europe: A corridor
from Gdynia to Verona offers an
alternative north-south link.
= Gateway between
network modules
= Rail line
Italy: Two corridors are used for
the major part of Italy’s flows
and for the link to Greece.
= Ferry crossing
Figure 9-2
Examples of gateways between national/regional network modules in a
future European intermodal transportation system.
In the long run, the services will be aimed at swap bodies, ISO-containers, pallet-wide containers
and smaller freight containers. However, in countries where road transport is currently
dominated by semi-trailers, e.g. the UK, Spain, Belgium and France (see Table 5-3),
intermodal services will encompass these for a rapid capture of market shares. The ability
of the small-scale transshipment technologies – which are listed in the detached appendix –
to meet the demands of these new train operation principles is analysed in section 6.1.
The individual network modules are designed for low complexity, but when co-ordinated
with other network modules and other types of intermodal services, complexity rises dramatically.
This is, however, only when seen as a whole transportation system. From the
perspective of a single network module, co-ordination implies merely some extra
administration and that the ITUs are delivered to a gateway terminal for further transport by
rail rather than to a regular intermodal terminal for further transport by road.
9.1.4 Ro-Ro services for overcoming geographical and
infrastructural hurdles
As a complement to the above services, technically based upon swap bodies and containers,
low-built rail wagons will take full lorry combinations and semi-trailers that are driven onboard
over ramps. The technology is far from new – it was for long the standard intermodal
technology in the USA – but the restricted loading profiles in Europe is one of the reasons
for the limited use in the Old World. Bad utilisation of drivers and rolling stock as well as a
low net to gross weight ratio are other reasons. Moreover, from a railway perspective this
194

could be regarded as surrender to single-mode road transport since the rail mode is restricted
to an infrastructural role. Nevertheless, several improvements of such rolling highway
technologies have recently been presented.
The main field of application is, and will be, where geography calls for it, e.g. to get
through mountains and across seas. Additionally, such rolling highway services will be
used for overcoming highway sections hampered by congestion and for utilising the sleeping
hours of drivers. All the above purposes imply a need for very high frequencies. Taking
the obvious disadvantages into account, however, it will be restricted to the above purposes
and by time be replaced with true intermodal concepts, not carrying rubber wheels and idle
drivers around.
The complexity is kept on a low level by designing for maximum technological and commercial
openness. Almost anything on wheels can be accommodated and the administration
can be limited to selling tickets like any passenger service.
9.1.5 Summary of the scenario
In summary, I assert that the European intermodal transportation system will develop towards:
• meeting the new demand for higher transport quality as freight is transferred from air
and all-road services
• flexible use of resources 24 hours a day
• for large and long flows; further focus on direct train shuttle services
• for large but shorter flows and for long but dispersed flows; corridor trains crossing
Europe at high frequencies according to strict schedules with short and frequent stops at
terminals with horizontal transshipment underneath the overhead contact line
• for short, small and dispersed flows; new and locally adapted network operation principles
and transshipment technologies in different modules linked through gateway terminals
• for overcoming geographical and infrastructural hurdles; rolling highway services with
high frequencies
195

• decreased importance of national borders, however in a gentle pace
• larger trains, mainly feeder trains carrying ISO-containers
• increased concern for local environment around terminals
Rethinking concerning network operating principles and new technologies adapted to the
new principles is clearly required in order to develop intermodal transport into a serious
alternative to single-mode road transport.
Bimodal technologies such as RoadRailer and Coda-E are not part of the scenario since I
believe that they will not play a significant role in the future European intermodal system.
The bimodal technologies involve benefits of good weight and volume utilisation well on
the tracks and the conversion between road and rail modes is accomplished by the lorry
drivers at very simple terminals. However, these advantages cannot fully make up for the
disadvantages of using dedicated semi-trailers carrying extra weight and costs. Moreover, a
train made up of bimodal semi-trailers is not suitable for calling intermediate terminals
along the route and the bogies cannot easily be repositioned without the semi-trailers.
The bimodal concept is then restricted to balanced flows on direct connections and to shipping
the production of a factory to an urban area for distribution. The concept is suitable for
a single operator controlling the flows, but hardly as a general system where hauliers can
use the intermodal services at will.
9.2 ARE THERE PROSPECTS FOR THE SCENARIO?
One question remains to be addressed; is the scenario valid? In other words; will there be
preconditions for a comeback for intermodal services with wide area coverage, or will the
current trend of aiming for an ever-smaller part of the transport market continue? Will the
outlined development then stop by the first development line with direct trains between
Hamburg and Munich, and between Rotterdam and Milan, or will intermodal transport, finally,
be able to challenge road transport also on more important transport markets?
For two reasons, I focus the discussion on the third layer of intermodal services – the locally
adapted network modules. First, these small-scale modules are the priority of the dissertation,
and, second, the other three layers are already present or well under way. The
first layer involving direct trains, has been present for long and, according to STONE
(1997, p. 3), will be further focused as the intermodal networks are now split up into a set
of direct connections. The reason is that the actors limit their services to the potentially
profitable market for high volumes over long distances. The second layer, regarding corridor
trains for the combined market of high volumes over short distances and small volumes
over long distances, is not yet realised, but German State Railways (DB AG) have revealed
plans for implementing a network of such corridor trains. The Ro-Ro services of the fourth
196

layer have a long history and after some years of decline, rolling highway operators now
report increasing volumes (UIRR, 1997, p. 9).
Consequently, part one; two and four of the scenario can be regarded as valid. I also assert
that chapters 5 to 7 and the detached appendix show that the scenario is technically feasible.
I then choose to bring up two non-technical topics for discussion. The first one is the
market conditions in a wider perspective, concerning transport policies in general and the
competition with road haulage in particular. The second topic is the market conditions in a
narrower perspective, concerning which type of actor that is most likely to lead the development
of the small-scale network modules.
9.2.1 Transport policy and market conditions
Many people hope – and some truly believe – that Elvis Presley will return to the stage. In
fact, the bookmakers’ odds for a live performance by “the King” at the last Eurovision
Song Contest were lower than those for a Norwegian victory. Still, the hopes for Elvis’
comeback are not based upon reality and neither is the belief of a comeback of widespread
intermodal transport with the “business-as-usual” approach currently applied by authorities.
The difference between the comebacks, however, is that Elvis is dead and buried but intermodal
transport is not yet exterminated. But can it survive and prosper?
I obviously believe that intermodal is ready for a comeback in line with the presented scenario.
But how come that I am still positive after first have lined out the dissatisfaction of
the present situation in chapters 1 and 4 and then described the substantial barriers against
changing it to the better, in the first half of chapter 5? Well, the analysis in the second part
of chapter 5 showed that there are approaches for limiting the effects of the barriers against
technological renewal. Chapters 6 and 7 then indicated that there are technical preconditions
for establishing locally adapted network modules. There are both network operation
principles and a palette of transshipment technologies to choose from, the latter of which is
clearly shown in the detached appendix. Properly combined they have the potential of fulfilling
the requirements in most of the European countries. In chapter 8 and in this chapter,
it is suggested how the operations of the network modules can be co-ordinated with each
other and with other types of intermodal services. Consequently, there are reasons for asserting
that it is technically possible to change the intermodal transport system to the better.
But will any actor see commercial reasons for competing with all-road transport over medium
distances? Well, chapter 8 showed that Swedish State Railways earnestly develops a
concept that seems to have the potential of being viable not only from a technical point of
view but possibly also from a commercial one. If small-scale intermodal transport can succeed
in Sweden with its relatively small and dispersed flows, there should be prospects also
for most other European countries.
197

Is it then that easy that the scenario will come true as a normal industrial evolution? Or
does it take a revolution? I certainly think that an evolutionary development is preferable.
From a technical and economical perspective, I have frequently argued that new pieces of
technology ought to be implemented gradually. The issue to discuss in this section, however,
is whether the present transport policies will be appropriate for inducing the advocated
development, or if a quite different approach must be taken.
Actually, I have a simple answer to the question: if there was an equal sign between spoken
and applied transport policy, intermodal transport would have grand prospects for a comeback!
Unfortunately, there is presently not much of correspondence between talk and action
in the field.
Rail transport policy is actually not most important for intermodal transport, but road transport
policy is. Passivity would actually be preferred to the present situation. The bombastic
talk about “fair and efficient pricing” and the perpetual promises of imposing taxes upon
road transport seems to be nothing but seeds that never germinate. While rail transport policy
to me seems clear, sufficiently rational and above all of a long-term nature, road transport
policy is a field where everybody seems to know what has to be done, but nobody dare
to do it. When Swedish road transport policy is concerned, I no longer analyse, I despair.
However, contrary to many others, I do not blame the Ministry of Transport and Communications
since they do not seem to be in charge.
Admittedly, freight transport policy is truly sensitive and it is tightly interwoven with industrial
policies, but for how long will we believe that a semi-trailer tractor can actually be
driven sustainably to the current market price? In fact, I would be happy to drive my personal
car at that price level, yet I don’t have to pay a driver.
Presently, it seems that the political path chosen is to subsidise intermodal transport rather
than levelling the playing field. It is not the best of solutions, but it is a satisfactory one.
But how should the available money be spent? As was elaborated in section 5.1.1, a related
problem in this field is that the intense activity of the European Commission may make national,
regional and local authorities passive in their support of intermodal transport. The
legislation should obviously be harmonised at a European level, but there is a certain problem
concerning the scope of jurisdiction. With the principle of subsidiarity 112 follows that
the Commission concentrates on international transportation, while it is at the local and re-
112 The principle of subsidiarity (closeness) was introduced in the Treaty of Maastricht and it means that decisions
in fields in which the institutions of the European Union do not possess exclusive competence, shall be
taken at the lowest efficient level, i.e., by national, regional or local authorities. Decisions should only be taken
at a union level if it increases the goal attainment. The term is politically disputed due to the facts that the definition
is not precise and that it is unclear who is to decide which decisions it encompasses (Nationalencyklopedin,
1995/a, p. 393).
198

gional levels that effort must be spent in order to facilitate for intermodal transport on medium
distances.
Now, if EU money should be spent, why spend them on supporting shuttles to and from the
Port of Rotterdam? It these shuttles cannot be operated with profits without EU support,
why even bother to discuss intermodal transport as an earnest alternative to road transport?
If the shuttles from Milan to Rotterdam should be regarded as a substitution for road transport
at all, it is more likely that it is the distance from Milan to Genoa and not to Rotterdam
that is substituted. Moreover, the trade behind the shuttles is not even intra-European. Another
risk of supporting very long direct train shuttles is that the very objectives of the intermodal
policy – the modal shift from road to rail – may be violated. Many of the longdistance
shuttles are obviously predatory within the rail sector since they convert conventional
rail transport to intermodal transport.
The standpoints presented above are quite negative. It is then appropriate to submit also
some positive proposals to be considered for future transport policies. The first concerns
the modular system based upon 25.25 m long vehicles, which is to be implemented in Sweden
and Finland in 2003 113 . This is clearly a step in the right direction. It is a good opportunity
for encouraging intermodal transport by passing a regulation compensating hauliers
using intermodal transport for the related weight and volume disadvantages. Hence, it is
here suggested that the new rules should be in force only for vehicles carrying ITUs. This
will most likely increase the number of unit loads in the transport system, which opens up
the intermodal offer also for occasional use and lowers the barriers for developing intermodal
services over medium distances.
The second proposal concerns standardisation that – if the scenario presented above is
plausible –is most immediate for the resources that cross module borders, i.e. unit loads and
to some extent rail wagons. However, in order to facilitate economical production series,
also transshipment technologies should be standardised to a certain degree. Then operators
can choose from a palette of proven technologies at reasonable prices and also benefit from
experiences gained by operators of other modules. The analyses in chapter 6 and the
evaluation in chapter 7 are suggested as inputs to such a standardisation effort.
In short: miracles are not required for realising the scenario, but action in line with what
everybody seems to know is!
113 Such rules have also been advocated for a core road network in Continental Europe (IRU, 1996/b and
Volvo, pamphlet, 1996).
199

9.2.2 Who is likely to take the initiative?
This research primarily focuses principles for network operations and transshipment technologies.
It is shown here that the development of these physical parts of the system can be
addressed by applying an engineering approach. The development of the actor structure,
however, follows vastly different and less predictable rules. In the licentiate thesis, the
European intermodal transport industry was modelled using a systems approach, but the
analysis was restricted to a description of a static state and its historical origin. Modelling a
dynamic industry is difficult and predicting its development is severely difficult.
The limit in scope allowed for including the actor structure in the scenario of a particular
intermodal concept in chapter 8, but it is deliberately omitted in the wider scenario presented
in this chapter. This does not mean that I do not have an opinion, but it means that
the opinion is an educated guesswork rather than an opinion thoroughly founded in research.
Nevertheless, this section is dedicated to discussing which type of actor that is
likely to lead the development of the small-scale network modules.
As is frequently pointed out in this dissertation, a severe problem for developing intermodal
transport systems is the technical and commercial complexity of the current intermodal
transport system. In order to cope with these complexities, the small-scale operations suggested
here must be very tightly managed, which is not likely to be successful if several
actors with disparate goals take part. Moreover, the need for local adaptation requires that
the system operator is perfectly aware of the shippers’ needs, but also that it can charge for
the value added that well adapted intermodal services can provide. Hence, radical improvements
are only reachable when a strong actor can “engineer” a door-to-door or floorto-floor
system and at the same time control the important shipper contacts.
For these reasons, I honestly doubt that the advocated network modules will emerge within
the framework of the current actor structure. Road and rail transport companies have no
impressive record of co-operation, and negotiations on how to distribute costs and benefits
induced by the needed changes will most likely kill their potential will to co-operate.
Consequently, it is appropriate that a single actor – or actor group with common management
and objectives – takes the initiative in developing each of the regional network modules
advocated in this dissertation. But which type of actor will have the ability and be willing
to take on the challenge?
Many, not least the European Commission, entertain hopes for that new entrants will
emerge on the scene and start to offer intermodal services. However, high initial costs,
large economies of scale, lack of worked up market shares and the industry’s currently low
profitability keep new entrants away. Also the lack of long-term transport policies refrain
from private investments. One exception is that American companies try to practice their
200

domestic intermodal experiences in Europe. The general trend, though, is that the already
active European actors find new markets or extend their service offers. The present actors
also form alliances, such as NDX, TARES and European Rail Shuttle 114 , in order to get access
to critical resources or worked up shipper contacts. These initiatives all aim for picking
the cherries of intermodal transport, e.g. the large-scale shuttles for transport between
container ports and their hinterland. Hence, such initiatives do not capture market shares
from road transport but primarily from existing intermodal services.
For small-scale services, I sincerely doubt that new actors, inexperienced in the transport
market, will enter the scene. With the present unclear market conditions, no sensible person
would invest private capital in the establishment of such small-scale services.
How about the forwarders? Well, the typical forwarders do not take a particular interest in
how the goods are moved between their terminals. The haulage is, for historical and practical
reasons, generally outsourced to hauliers, railways, shipping lines and airlines. The forwarders’
prime assets are then the consolidation terminals, the vital shipper contacts, the
information systems and the agreements with sub-contracted transport companies. In intermodal
services, the assets also include ITUs. Furthermore, most of the forwarders are historically
closely related to all-road transport and several are still owned by haulier interests.
Consequently, I doubt that the forwarders will lead the development of network modules
for small-scale intermodal transport. They will, however, follow the development carefully,
try to influence it and, whenever it is convenient, use the services.
The hauliers then? Positive factors include that their core business is to move goods that is
often loaded in ITUs, many have experiences in local haulage in intermodal transport
chains and that the road haulage activity is important in the advocated network modules.
Anyway, the negative factors clearly outweigh the positive ones. Although the “trucker
mentality” looses significance, it is still present and so is the hauliers’ mistrust of the railways.
The main hampering factor is, however, the small size of hauliers. Very few of them,
and mainly those with a history connected with the national railways, serve full regions or
nations. Accordingly, the hauliers are not likely to diversify to extend their operations to
railway tracks.
Would ICF or the UIRR be interested? Well, ICF has a long tradition of being restricted to
international intermodal transport, and its operations are representative of the first development
line involving direct trains over long distances. In addition, the national railways
114 NDX is a joint venture between the National Railways of the Netherlands (NS) German State Railways (DB
AG) and American CSX Intermodal. TARES includes HUPAC, ICF, CEMAT and the American railroad Norfolk
Southern. European Rail Shuttle is a co-operation between the container shipping lines P&O Nedlloyd, Maersk
and Sea-Land and NS Cargo as an operating partner.
201

own the company, and it will face problems if it tries to compete head-to-head on what can
be regarded as part of the core business of one of its owners. Also the UIRR is hampered by
its ownership structure. Its majority owners are road transport companies and it is not likely
that the UIRR receives a mandate for canvassing shippers with door-to-door services. Consequently,
ICF and the UIRR will probably be forced to stick to their lasts as wholesaler of
direct train services.
Left are then only the national railways. I think they represent the only actor group that is in
a position of leading the development of the small-scale network modules. Many of them
suffer severely from trying to comply with EU directive 91/440 on competition and revitalisation
of railways, and they do not seem too confident in the future. Yet, together with
their subsidiaries 115 , they typically possess some assets and qualifications necessary for taking
on the challenge:
• Physical resources that are needed as base for gradual implementation, e.g. rail engines,
rail wagons, lorries, ITUs and transshipment equipment.
• Land in conjunction to side-tracks, mainly from discontinued general cargo terminals.
• Access to track capacity.
• Market organisation and worked-up customer contacts, although currently mainly concerning
wagonload transport.
• Long experience from technical and systems development.
• Experiences from, and some control of, other types of intermodal services.
• Experiences from co-operating with other railway operators in a relay fashion.
Developing competitive intermodal transport might actually be what is needed for vitalising
the freight operations of the national railways. Conventional wagonload transport is severely
unprofitable in many countries. Besides capturing all-road transport volumes, the
small-scale network modules can then be a measure for keeping the wagonload volumes on
the tracks, however loaded in ITUs. When the railways have taken the initiative and built
up a service, forwarders are likely to join as partners or customers. If they do that deliberately
or if they feel extorted does not matter.
The Light-combi project described in chapter 8, is a good example on how a single national
railway can challenge road transport in the market segment of small and dispersed flows
115 The most important subsidiaries in this respect are their container transport companies, such as Transfracht,
CNC and Italcontainer, but also hauliers supporting conventional rail transport, wagon pools, terminal
companies and marketing organisations.
202

over short distances. If the project turns out successfully, it can warrant investments also in
other European countries, many of which face far more favourable preconditions.
In short, I do not believe that the locally adapted network modules can be developed within
the current actor structure. Neither do I believe that new actors, inexperienced in the field,
will enter and offer services. The investments are simply too extensive with the current
market conditions. The national railways are regarded as the only actors controlling the assets
and expertise needed for the aggressive measures that need to be taken.
It should, however, be kept in mind that the whole field of renewing intermodal transportation
systems is a very delicate and complex matter. The systems designers as well as inventors
should be humble before the interrelations within the system and not think that one single
technology or a single service should solve all problems and certainly not within a short
period of time.
Anyway, I truly believe that it is time to kiss the current intermodal era, characterised by
the over-night transport between mammoth terminals, goodbye; and enter an era in which
intermodal transport is an earnest alternative to all-road transport also on medium distances.
It remains to be seen whether this will be a prince’s kiss that wakes the Sleeping
Beauty or if it will be a Judas kiss.
203

REFERENCES
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
ABERLE, G. (1993) The Social Benefits of the Long-Distance Road Transport of Goods, Study for
the International Road Transport Union (IRU), Giessen.
ACKOFF, R. (1972) Vetenskaplig Metodik, Beckmans, Stockholm. In Swedish. (American original;
ACKOFF, R. (1970) Scientific Method: Optimizing applied research decisions, John Wiley & Sons,
New York).
ADJADJIHOUE, C. R. (1995) Corridor Analysis and Forecasting of Intermodal Transportation
Systems between Finland and Eastern European Countries, Dissertation, Acta Polytechnica Scandinavia,
Civil Engineering and Building Construction Series No. 101, Helsinki.
AGUADO, J. (1995) Country report Spain, In: BUKOLD, S. (Ed.) The Crisis of European Combined
Transport, report from an ECIS Workshop, Rotterdam, 6 April.
ALDERSON, W. (1954) Factors Governing the Development of Marketing Channels, In:
CLEWETT, R. (Ed.) Marketing Channels for Manufactured Products, Richard D. Erwin, Homewood,
Ill.
ALFARO, J. L., CHAPUIS, M., FABRE, F. (Eds.) (1994) Cost 315 – Large Containers, Final report,
European Commission, DG XIII, Brussels.
ALGELL, J., SIMERT, J. (1997) Tekniska möjligheter för ett kassettbaserat system för kombinerade
transporter (Technical possibilities for a system for combined transport based upon cassettes),
Masters thesis 97:06, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg. In Swedish.
ARBNOR, I., BJERKE, B. (1977) Företagsekonomisk metodlära (Methods in business economics),
Studentlitteratur, Lund. In Swedish.
ARBNOR, I., BJERKE, B. (1994) Företagsekonomisk metodlära (Methods in business economics),
2 nd Edition, Studentlitteratur, Lund. In Swedish.
BAYLISS, B. (1988) The Measurement of Supply and Demand in Freight Transport, Avebury, Aldershot.
BECHTEL, C., JAYARAM, J. (1997) Supply Chain Management, The International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 15-34.
BJAERNEMO, R. (1983) Konstruktionslärans grunder (Fundamentals of Machine Design), University
of Lund. In Swedish.
BJERKE, B. (1975) Problemformulering och systemanalys (Presentation of a problem and systems
analysis), Studentlitteratur, Lund. In Swedish.
204

BJÖRKMAN, J. (1992) Fordonslängder och kortkopplingar (Vehicle dimensions and short couplings),
Master’s thesis 92:10, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg. In Swedish.
BJÖRNLAND, D. (1993) Transport Policy and Transport Development in the European Community
Compared with the Norwegian and Swedish Development, Department of Economics, University
of Göteborg, School of Economics and Commercial Law, Göteborg.
BJURKLO, L-G. (1991) Uppskattning av inom- och mellanregionala godsflöden (The estimation of
intra- and interregional freight flows), TFB-report 1991:15, Stockholm. In Swedish.
BLANCHARD, S. B. (1992) Logistics Engineering and Management, 4 th Edition, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
BLINGE, M. (1993) Energilogistik – livscykelanalys av drivmedel (Energy Logistics – Life-cycle
Assessment on Motor Fuels), Licentiate thesis, Report 18, Department of Transportation and Logistics,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. In Swedish.
BORHART, R. (1993) Resultate Kompatibilität ACTS/Multi-berces (results of a compatibility test
between ACTS and Multi-berces), report from the compatibility working group, Brussels. In German.
BOWERSOX, D. J., CLOSS, D. J., HELFERICH, O. K. (1986) Logistical Management – A Systems
Integrations of Physical Distribution, Manufacturing Support and Materials Procurement, 3 rd
Edition, Macmillan, New York.
BRADLEY, F. (1991) International Marketing Strategy, Prentice Hall International, Hemel Hempsted.
BREYER, R. (1964) Some Observations on Structural Formation and the Growth of Marketing
Channels, In: COX, ALDERSON, SHAPIRO (Eds.) Theory in Marketing, Richard D. Irwin,
Homewood, Ill.
BRUNN, G. E., KUHN, C. (1992) Linienzüge als Ergänzung der Produktionssysteme (Line trains
as complement to the production system), Die Deutsche Bahn, pp. 1378-1384. In German.
BRUNSSON, N. (1982) Företagsekonomi – avbildning eller språkbildning (Business Economics –
Reproduction or Linguistic Development?), In: BRUNSSON, N. (Ed.) (1982) Företagsekonomi –
sanning eller moral? – om det normativa i företagsekonomisk idéutveckling, Studentlitteratur, Lund,
pp. 100-112. In Swedish.
BRYNE, B., LJUNGHILL, D. (1995) Rullande Landsväg för transittrafik Norge -kontinenten, (Rolling
Highway for transit traffic Norway - the Continent), Master’s thesis 1995-12, Institutionen för
infrastruktur och samhällsplanering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. In Swedish.
BÜHRER, R. (1994) Freight handling technology for combined road-rail transport: the present state
and the outlook for the future, In: WOXENIUS, J. (Ed.) Combined Transport – Proceedings of a
TEMPUS-seminar, Göteborg, 26 May, Meddelande 80, Department of Transportation and Logistics,
Chalmers University of Technology.
205

BUKOLD, S. (1993/a) Logistics by Combined Transport: Barriers to Market Entry and Strategies of
Main Suppliers, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 23,
No. 4, pp. 24-34.
BUKOLD, S. (1993/b) Marktzugangsbarrieren in einem semi-deregulierten Markt (market entry
barriers in a semi-regulated market), Internationales Verkehrswesen, 45:494-501. In German.
BUKOLD, S. (1994) New Production models for combined transport, Proceedings of the World
Congress on Railway Research, Paris, 14-16 November, pp. 133-138.
BUKOLD, S. (1995) European Combined Transport: Passe-partout or Placebo?, ECIS report, Rotterdam.
BUKOLD, S. (1996) Kombinierter Verkehr Schiene/Strasse in Europa – Eine vergleichende Studie
zur Transformation von Gütertransportsystemen, Dissertation, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am
Main. In German.
BUKOLD, S. (1997) Intermodality and the need for transport chain information, Concerted action
committee on information systems, Brussels, 16-17 December.
Bundesminister für Verkehr (1981) Gütertransportsystem für den kombinierten Verkehr – Probleme,
Alternative, Chancen (Freight transport system of CT -Problems, Alternatives, Possibilities),
Kirschbaum Verlag, Bonn. In German.
BURNS, T., STALKER, G. M. (1994) The Management of Innovations, 3 rd Edition, Tavistock Publications.
Cargo Systems (1995/a) Conrail’s first stack, No. 10, November, p. 25.
Cargo Systems (1995/b) New box by Harry Vos, No. 12, December, p. 10.
Cargo Systems (1997/a) When is 45 ft not 45 ft?, No. 1, January, pp. 6-7.
Cargo Systems (1997/b) Piggyback porkies, No. 1, January, pp. 16-18.
Cargo Systems (1997/c) 45ft approval, No. 3, March, p. 8.
Cargo Systems (1997/d) What’s NEXTEA?, No. 4, April, p. 27.
Cargo Systems (1997/e) Double-stack trouble, No. 5, May, p. 24.
Cargo Systems (1997/f) Kalmar Millenium, No. 12, December, p. 10.
Cargo Systems (1997/g) Valedictory Bell, No. 12, December, p. 19.
CARRARA, M. (1995) Country report Italy, In: BUKOLD, S. (Ed.) The Crisis of European Combined
Transport, report from an ECIS Workshop, Rotterdam, 6 April.
CASTI, J. L. (1989) Alternative Realities – Mathematical Models of Nature and Man, John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
206

CASTI, J. L. (1994) Complexification – Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of
Surprise, Abacus, London.
CHALMERS, A. F. (1982) What is this thing called Science?, 2 nd Edition, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
CHECKLAND, P. B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
CHECKLAND, P. B. (1988) Information Systems and Systems Thinking: Time to Unite?, International
Journal of Information Management, No. 8, pp. 239-248.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1992) Logistics and Supply Chain Management – Strategies for reducing
Costs and Improving Services, Pitman Publishing, London.
CHURCHMAN, C. W. (1979) The Systems Approach, 2 nd Edition, Dell Publishing Co., New York.
Containerisation International (1995) Advent of the European double-stack, No. 12, December, p.
31.
Containerisation International (1996) Container Market Analysis, No. 1, January.
COOPER, J. (1991) International Combined Transport in the 21 st Century: User Needs and Competitive
Threats, The Role of European Railway Transport in the 21 st Century, 13-14 September.
COOPER, J., M. BROWNE, M. PETERS (1991) European Logistics – Markets, Management and
Strategy, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
COOPER, M. C., LAMBERT, D. M., PAGH, J. D. (1997) Supply Chain Management: More Than
a New Name for Logistics, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.
1-14.
COYLE, J. J., BARDI, E. J., NOVACK, R. A. (1994) Transportation, 4 th Edition, West Publishing,
St. Paul, MN.
COYLE, J. J., BARDI, E. J., LANGLEY, C. J. (1996) The Management of Business Logistics, 6 th
Edition, West Publishing, St. Paul, MN.
D’ESTE, G. (1996) An event-based approach to modelling intermodal freight systems, In:
HENSHER, D. KING, J., HOON OUM, T., Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Transport
Research, Sydney, 16-21 July. Vol. 4, pp. 3-13.
DAGANZO, C. F. (1997) Fundmentals of Transportation and Traffic Operations, Pergamon, Oxford.
DANIELSSON (now HELMROTH), M., SJÖHOLM, J., SJÖSTEDT, L. (1991) Kombitransporter
på mellanområden (Combined Transport in Intermediate Regions), TFB-rapport 1991:8, TFB,
Stockholm. In Swedish.
Danish Ministry of Business (1996) Oplevde Barrierer for Multimodal Transport – Barrierer i
Selve Transporthandlingskaeden, (Perceived Barriers for Multimodal Transport – Barriers in the
Transport Trade Chain), Ehrvervsministeriet, Statens Information, Copenhagen. In Danish.
207

DAVIS, G. B. (1974) Management Information Systems: conceptual foundations, struc-ture and
development, Mc Graw Hill, New York.
DE GUILHEM, Y., MONTELH, B. (1996) L’autoroute ferroviaire: les camions prennent le train,
Rail et Recherche, No. 8, pp. 14-21. In French.
DE LEIJER, H. (1992) A Multimodal Terminal Strategy for Europe, Conference Proceedings, Haag,
27-29 October.
DE LEIJER, H. (1995) Country report Benelux, In: BUKOLD, S. (Ed.) The Crisis of European
Combined Transport, report from an ECIS Workshop, Rotterdam, 6 April.
DEBOER, D. J. (1992) Piggyback and Containers – A History of Rail Intermodal on America’s
Steel Highway, Golden West Books, San Marino, Ca.
Detached appendix: WOXENIUS, J. (1998) Intermodal Transshipment Technologies – An Overview,
Detached appendix to the dissertation Development of Small-scale Intermodal Freight Transportation
in a Systems Context, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University
of Technology, Göteborg. Note that the technical descriptions are roughly the same as those presented
in chapter 4 of WOXENIUS, (1998). Hence, also that report can serve the purpose of being a
technical reference to this dissertation.
DOLFEN, M. (1993) Combined Tranport and European laws on Restricitons to Competition, Euromodal,
No. 1, pp. 12-17.
DUBOIS, A. (1994) Organising Industrial Activitites – An Analytical Framework, Dissertation,
Department of Industrial Marketing, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
ECMT (1993/a) Terminology on Combined Transport, OECD Publications Services, Paris.
ECMT (1993/b) Round table 91: Possibilities and limitations of combined transport, European
Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD Publications Services, Paris.
ECMT (1995) Combined Transport – Hearing of Combined Transport Organisations and Companies,
European Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD Publications Services, Paris.
ENGELS, H. (1993) Case study Germany, In: ECMT, Round table 91: Possibilities and limitations
of combined transport, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD Publications Services,
Paris.
ENGSTRÖM, L., BERGENDAHL, G. (1974) Transportekonomi (Transport economics), Almqvist
& Wiksell, Stockholm. In Swedish.
ERNI, D. (1995) Presenting the Compact Terminal, Intermodal 95, Amsterdam, 24-26 October.
EURET (1994) Intermodal Loading Units and Rolling Stock – Present and Future, SIMET Action
2.2, Doc. EURET/408/94, Brussels.
EURET (1995) Present optimum transfer technologies, SIMET Action 2.2, Doc. EURET/409/95,
Brussels.
European Commission (1995/a) PACT – Pilot Actions of Combined Transport, Brussels.
208

European Commission (1995/b) The Trans-European Transport Network – Transforming a Patchwork
into a Network, Brussels/Luxembourg.
European Commission (1996/a) Task force intermodal transport – diagnosis report: identifying the
main policy, business, technical and social issues underlying the evolution of intermodal transport,
Brussels.
European Commission (1996/b) Task force intermodal transport – inventory report: inventory of
ongoing and planned activities relevant for transport intermodality, Brussels.
European Commission (1997/a) PACT – A user’s guide 1997, Brussels/Luxembourg.
European Commission (1997/b) Towards the 5 th Framework Programme – Scientific and Technological
Objectives, Brussels/Luxembourg.
European Commission (1997/c) Research-Industry Task Forces – An Overview, Brussels/Luxembourg.
European Commission (1997/d) SCIPIO – Study for a Comprehensive International research Program
in Intermodal Operation, Transport Research APAS Intermodal Transport, Brochure No. 24,
Brussels/Luxembourg.
European Commission (1997/e) Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European
Union – a Systems Approach to Freight Transportation. Strategies and Actions to Enhance Efficiency,
Services and Sustainability, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council, Brussels.
European Commission and European Investment Bank (1996) Trans-European networks for transport
and energy – Infrastructure for the 21 st century, Brussels/Luxem-bourg.
FARMER, D., PLOOS VAN AMSTEL, R. (1991) Effective Pipeline Management – How to Manage
Integrated Logistics, Gower, Aldershot.
FAULKS, R. W. (1990) Principles of Transport, 4 th Edition, McGraw-Hill, London.
FLOOD, K. U., CALLSON, O. G., JABLONSKI, S. J. (1984) Transportation Management, 4 th Edition,
Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Io.
FORRESTER, J. W. (1961) Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
GADDE, L-E. (1982) The Role Concept and Industrial Marketing Channels – Some Remarks in
Innovativeness and Channel Performance, proceedings of the Annual meeting of the European
Academy for Advanced Research in marketing, Antwerp.
GADDE, L-E. (1989) Understanding Distribution Channel Development, In: GUSTAFSSON, K.
E., GREEN, G. (Eds.) Marketing at the Gothenburg School of Economics, Proceedings from a
Symposium for Bo Wickström, BAS, Göteborg.
GADDE, L-E., HÅKANSSON, H. (1992) Analyzing Change and Stability in Distribution Channels
– a Network Approach. In: AXELSSON, B., EASTON, G. (Eds.) Industrial Networks – A New
View of Reality, Routledge, London.
209

GELLMAN, A. J. (1994) An Assesment of Intermodal Transport in North America, Swedish Transport
Research Conference, Linköping, 12-13 January.
GOLDBECK-LÖWE, F., SYRÉN, R. (1993) Stenhagensystemet – en utvärdering av ett nytt transportsystem
(The Stenhagen System – an analysis of a new transportation system), Master’s thesis,
Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. In
Swedish.
Göteborgsposten (1998) Ny godsförbindelse till Karlstad (New freight connection to Karlstad), No.
46, 17 February, p. 11. In Swedish.
GRÜBLER, A. (1990) The rise and fall of infrastructures – Dynamics of Evolution and Technological
Change in Transport, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
GRÜBLER, A., NAKICENOVIC, N. (1991) Evolution of Transport Systems: Past and Future,
IIASA, Laxenburg.
GRÜBLER, A., NAKICENOVIC, N., SCHÄFER, A. (1993) Dynamics of Transport and Energy
Systems – History of Development and a Scenario for the Future, “Energy and Life” World Energy
Council, 15 th Congress, Madrid, 20-22 September 1992.
HAASS, E. (1996) Kombiverkehr aus einem Guss, Cargo aktuell, 3/1996, p. 14. In German.
HÅKANSSON, H. (1989) Corporate Technological Behaviour – Co-operation and Net-works,
Routledge, London.
HÅKANSSON, H. (Ed.) (1982) International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods – an
interaction approach, J. Wiley, London.
HÅKANSSON, H., JOHANSON, J. (1992) A model of industrial networks. In: AXELSSON, B.,
EATON, G. (Eds.), Industrial Networks – A New View of Reality, Routledge, London.
HANREICH, G. (1995) Erfordnisse und Bedingungen für den kombinierten Verkehr: technische,
wirtschaftliche und administrative Probleme aus der Sicht der Verkehrministerien, G-24 Meeting,
Brussels, 31 January. In German.
HANSSON, L. (1996) Towards Sustainable Transportation – Going From Mere Words to Practice,
OECD: Towards Sustainable Transportation, Vancouver, 25-27 March. Revised December 1996.
HANSSON, L. (1997) Kostnadsansvarets för trafikens externa effekter – en jämförelse mellan vägtrafik
och tågtrafik (Cost responsibility of the external effects of traffic – a comparison between
road and rail traffic), IIIEE Communications 97:4, University of Lund, Lund. In Swedish.
HEERE, H. (1997) Combi-road, Innovative Control for Intermodal Transport, Amsterdam, 28
January.
HELLEVIK, O (1984) Forskningsmetoder i sociologi och statsvetenskap (Research methods in sociology
and political science), Swedish edition (original Norwegian edition published in 1977),
Natur och Kultur, Lund. In Swedish.
210

HELMROTH, M. (1993) Brytpunktsdistribution för kontinenttrafik (Breakpoint distributions to distant
markets), Licentiate thesis, Report 17, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg. In Swedish.
HERTZ, S. (1993) The Internationalisation Process of Freight Transport Companies – Towards a
Dynamic Network Model of Internationalization, Dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics,
Stockholm.
HINDLEY, M. (1992) Norway´s bimodal trials, Cargo Systems, No. 1, January, pp. 71-73.
HÖLTGEN, D. (1995) Terminals, intermodal logistics centres and European infrastructure policy,
Dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
HOULIHAN, J. B. (1992) International supply-chain management, In: CHRISTOPHER, M. (Ed.)
Logistics – the strategic issues, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 140-159.
HUBKA, V., EDER, W. E. (1988) Theory of Technical Systems – a Total Concept Theory for Engineering
Design, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
HULTÉN, L. A. R. (1997) Container Logistics and its Management, Dissertation, Report 32, Department
of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
HULTKRANTZ, O., IRESTÅHL, B., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1997) Channel Concept in a Consolidation
Network. In: TILANUS, C. B. (Ed.) Information Systems in Logistics and Transportation, Pergamon,
Oxford, pp. 285-297.
Intercontainer – Interfrigo (1995) Annual Report 1994, Basle.
Intermodal Shipper (1997) Breaking the Coda-E, No. 3, March, p. 1.
IRU (1996) Positioning Paper on More Efficiency in Road Transport: the Green Concept of Long
Vehicles, International Technical Commission, Geneva.
JACKSON, M. C. (1985) A Cybernetic Approach to Management, In: KEYS, P. Managing Transport
Systems: a cybernetic perspective, Gower Publishing, Hants.
JENSEN, A. (1990) Combined transport – Systems, economics and strategies, TFB-report 1990:4,
Allmänna förlaget, Stockholm.
JOERGES, B. (1988) Large technical systems: Concepts and issues, In: MAYNTZ, R., HUGHES,
T. (Eds.) The Development of Large Technical Systems, Campus, Frankfurt, pp. 9-36.
JONES, T. C., RILEY, D. W. (1992) Using inventory for competitive advantage through supplychain
management, In: CHRISTOPHER, M. (Ed.) Logistics – the strategic issues, Chapman & Hall,
London, pp. 87-100.
JÖNSSON, H., KROON, B. (1990) Horisontell omlastning vid kombitrafik (Horizontal transshipment
in combined transport), Master thesis 5228/1990, Department of Transportation, University of
Lund, Lund. In Swedish.
KANFLO, T., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1991) Information Flow in the Transportation Chain, Department
of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
211

KING, M. (1998) Container train overload, Cargo Systems, No. 1, January, p. 59
KIRIAZIDIS T. (1994) European transport: problems and policies, Avebury, Aldershot.
KNEAFSEY, J. T. (1975) Transportation Economic Analyses, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.
Kommunikationskommittén (1997) Ny kurs i trafikpolitiken – Slutbetänkande av Kommunikationskommittén
(New direction in the transport policy – final report from the Communications Committee),
SOU 1997:35, Fritzes, Stockholm. In Swedish.
KONDRATOWICZ, L. (1993) MULTIMOD – The system for simulation modelling of seaports and
terminals as logistics centres in intermodal freight transport/Simulation in logistics planning, Publications
from the center for maritime studies, University of Turku, Turku.
KÜLPER, W. (1997) Foreword in UIRR-report 1997, Brussels, p. 3.
LARSSON, S. (1996) The Future of Rail and Intermodal in a Free Market, Conference Information
and Documentation, Intermodal 96, London, 4-6 December.
LEYN R. (1995) Rotterdam; the “hub-to-hub port”, Interterm 95, Atlanta, 8 May.
Licentiate thesis: WOXENIUS, J. (1994) Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial
System, Licentate thesis, report 24, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg.
LIEB, R. C. (1985) Transportation, 3 rd Edition, Reston Publishing, Reston.
LINDAU, R., WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1993) Constraints Experienced in a Direct Distribution
System when Safety Mechanisms are Removed, In: Proceedings of the 10 th International
Logistics Congress, Toronto, 20-22 June, pp. 143-170.
LJUNGEMYR, H. (1995) Vilka transportfaktorer har betydelse för kombitrafikens andel av godstransporterna?
(Which factors influence the market share of intermodal transport?), VTImeddelande
Nr 773, Linköping. In Swedish.
LÖFSTEN, H. (1995) Transportation Costing for Decision Making - Transportation Industry Market
Structure in Sweden and its Implications for Pricing and Costing, KFB-report 1995:4, Stockholm.
LUMSDEN, K. R. (1989) Transportteknik (Transport Technology), Studentlitteratur, Lund. In
Swedish.
LUMSDEN, K. R. (1995) Transportekonomi (Transport Economics), Studentlitteratur, Lund. In
Swedish.
LUMSDEN, K. R. (1998) Teknisk Logistik (Technical Logistics), Studentlitteratur, Lund. In Swedish.
LUNDBERG, A. (1996) SJ utvecklar lättkombinät för snabb partigodstrafik över meddellånga avstånd
(SJ develops light combi network for rapid part-load traffic over medium distances), Transport
& Hantering, No. 10, pp. 29-30. In Swedish.
212

MANHEIM, M. L. (1979) Fundamentals of transportation systems analysis, Volume 1: Basic Concepts,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
MARCHETTI, C. (1992) What They Need is Speed – Modeling Historical Evolution of Transport
Demand to Forecast Air Transport, IIASA, Laxenburg.
MARCHETTI, C. (1993) Introducing TGV Trains in Europe – Elements of Systems Analysis,
Working Paper, IIASA, Laxenburg.
MAYNTZ, R., HUGHES, T. (1988) The Development of Large Technical Systems, Campus, Frankfurt.
MCCAMMON, B., LITTLE, R. (1965) Marketing Channels – Analytical Systems and Approaches.
In: SCHWARZ, G. (Ed.) Science in Marketing, Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 321-367.
MERTEL. R., KUNZER, L. & SEIDELMANN, G. (1988) Verkehrspolitische Bedeutung des kombinierten
Verkehrs Strasse/Schiene (Traffic Political Significance of Combined Transport
Rail/Road), SGKV – Studiengesellschaft für den kombinierten Verkehr, Verkehrs-Verlag, Frankfurt
am Main. In German.
Ministry of Transport in the Netherlands (1994) Promotion of Intermodal Transport – Policy paper,
Ministery of Transport, Public Works and Water Management – Task Force Intermodal Transport,
The Hague.
MORLOK, E. K., SAMMON, J. P., SPASOVIC, L. N., NOZICK, L. K. (1992) Improving Productivity
in Intermodal Rail-Truck Drayage Service and its Implications for Product Positioning and
Organizational Structure, In: HARKER, P. T. (Ed.) The Service Productivity and Quality Challenge,
pp. 407-434, Klywer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass.
MORLOK, E. K., SPASOVIC, L. N. (1994) Redesigning Rail-Truck Intermodal Drayage Operations
for Enhanced Service and Cost Performance, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum,
Vol. 34, No. 1, pp 16-31.
MOSSMAN, F. H., MORTON, N. (1957) Principles of Transportation, The Ronald Press Company,
New York.
MULLER, G. (1995) Intermodal Freight Transportation, 3 rd Edition, IANA and ENO, Lansdowne,
VA.
MULLER, G. (1996) Learning from the US experience – developing the right infrastructure, Intermodal
96, London, 4-6 December.
National Commission on Intermodal Transportation (1994) Toward a National Intermodal Transportation
System, Final Report, Washington. Available in full text at the world wide web-site:
www.bts.gov/smart/cat/325TAN.html.
Nationalencyklopedin (1995/a) Volume 17 – SMY to SYREM, Bra Böcker, Höganäs. In Swedish.
Nationalencyklopedin (1995/b) Volume 18 – SYREN to UGA, Bra Böcker, Höganäs. In Swedish.
213

NEA (1992) The transport of goods by road and its environment in the Europe of tomorrow, Complete
Original Version, report commissioned by the International Road Transport Union (IRU), Rijswijk.
NELLDAL (1994) Järnvägstransporter år 2010 (Railway transportation in 2010), Transportjournalen,
No. 2, pp. 28-31. In Swedish.
NIERAT, P. (1987) Organisation of road transport from terminals and combined transport accessibility,
The OECD Research Seminar, Göteborg, 22-24 June.
NIERAT, P. (1995/a) Country report France, In: BUKOLD, S. (Ed.) The Crisis of European Combined
Transport, report from an ECIS Workshop, Rotterdam, 6 April.
NIERAT, P. (1995/b) Market area of rail-road terminals: Pertinence of the spatial theory, The Interterm
Conference, Atlanta, 7-9 May.
O’MAHONY, H. (1996) Terminals in a nutshell, Cargo Systems, No. 4, April, pp. 39-42.
OLIVER, R. K., WEBBER, M. D. (1992) Supply-chain management: Logistics catches up with
strategy, In: CHRISTOPHER, M. (Ed.) Logistics – the strategic issues, Chapman & Hall, London,
pp. 63-75.
PERSSON (1979) Bedömningsdimensioner när det gäller doktorsavhandlingar (Judgement dimensions
when dissertations are concerned), Department of Business Administration, University of
Stockholm, Stockholm. In Swedish.
PFEFFER, J., SALANCIK, G. (1978) The External Control of Organizations - A resource Dependence
Perspective, Harper & Row Publisher, New York.
POLEWA, R., LUMSDEN, K. R., SJÖSTEDT, L. (1997) Information as a Value Adder for the
Transport User. In: TILANUS, C. B. (Ed.) Information Systems in Logistics and Transportation,
Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 157-167.
PORTER, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York.
PORTER, T. M. (1995) Trust in Numbers – the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
PROFFITT, M. (1995) Extending the supply chain into Europe via multi-modal distribution, Logistics
Information Management, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 20-24.
REILLY, N. B. (1993) Successful Systems Engineering – for Engineers and Managers, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
RUTTEN, B. C. M. (1995) On Medium Distance Intermodal Rail Transport, Dissertation, Faculty
of Mechanical Engineering and Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft.
SAMUELSSON, B. (1997) Ett lärande universitet (A learning university), contribution to a debate,
Göteborgsposten, No. 303, 30 October, p. 4.
214

SCHREYER, R. (1996) Beiträge zu einer ökologisch und sozial verträglichen Verkehrsplanung
(Contribution to an ecologically and socially friendly transport planning), Master’s thesis 1/1996,
Institut für Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrstechnik, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna. In
German.
SEIDELMANN, C. (1996) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des kombinierten Verkehr (Possibilities and
limits for combined transport), Studiengesellschaft für den kombinierten Verkehr, Frankfurt am
Main. In German.
SEIDELMANN, C., FRITZSCHE, E. (1993) Stackable Swap Bodies, Studiengesellschaft für den
kombinierten Verkehr, Frankfurt am Main.
SINGER, A. (1995) Intermodal Concepts in France, In: World Freight International 1996, Sterling
Publications, London, pp. 119-123.
SJ Nytt (1998) Utvecklingsplan för järnvägen (Development plan for the railway), No. 1, p. 12.
SJÖGREN, D. (1957) Transportekonomi, Sveriges kontoristförening, Uppsala. In Swedish.
SJÖGREN, S. (1991) Definitioner av kombinerade transporter (Definitions of Combined Transport),
University of Göteborg, School of Economics and Commercial Law, Göteborg. In Swedish.
SJÖGREN, S. (1996) Effektiva kombiterminaler – En tillämpning av DEA (Efficient Combined
Transport Terminals – A DEA Approach), dissertation, University of Göteborg, School of Economics
and Commercial Law, Göteborg. In Swedish.
SJÖGREN, S., WOXENIUS, J. (1994) Kombinerade transporter mellan Sverige och Västeuropa –
modeller för rollfördelning mellan aktörer (Combined Transport Between Sweden and Western Europe
– Models of Rolecasting Among Actors). In: TAIMA, J. (Ed.) Nordic Network in Logistics –
papers presented at the 5th NOFOMA congress at the Turku School of Economics and Business
Administration, Turku, 10-11 June 1993, pp. 283–317. In Swedish, but a slightly updated version is
available in English.
SJÖHOLM, J., SJÖSTEDT, L. (1992) An Empirical Study of the Potential for Co-ordinating Inand
Outbound Transport in a Region, In: SJÖHOLM, J. Long distance freight transport from the
regional aspect, Licentiate thesis, Report 16, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg.
SJÖSTEDT, L. (1996) A Theoretical Framework – from an Applied Engineering Perspective, In:
Euro-CASE, Mobility, Transport and Traffic – in the perspective of Growth, Competitiveness and
Employment, Paris.
SJÖSTEDT, L. (1997) Managing Sustainable Mobility: A Conceptual Framework, In: TILANUS,
C. B. (Ed.) Information Systems in Logistics and Transportation, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 19-31.
SJÖSTEDT, L. (Ed.) (1994) Sustainable Mobility – A Systems Perspective on Policy Issues Addressed
by the 10 th CAETS Convocation, 14-18 September, Zürich. SAE International, Warrendale,
PA. and SATW, Zürich. Also Published as Meddelande 75 (Rev.), Department of Transportation
and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
215

SJÖSTEDT, L., DANIELSSON (now HELMROTH), M., LANDBORN, J. (1992) Strategies of
Large Carriers in Response to ‘1992’ – the Swedish Case, The European Colloquium, Brussels.
SJÖSTEDT, L., BOMAN, C., LUMSDEN, K. R., ROHANI, F. (1997/a) Intermodal Transport and
the Environment: Contributions to Sustainability of Transport Systems, The OECD Conference on
Intermodal Transport Networks and Logistics, Mexico City, 3-5 June. Forthcoming in proceedings.
SJÖSTEDT, L., STEFANSSON, G., EKLUND, E. (1997/b) Transportation and logistics in a joint
systems context: A conceptual model and the case of supplying an airport with karosene, Accepted
for publication in Transport Logistics.
SJÖSTEDT, L., WOXENIUS, J., HULTÉN, L. (1994) Flexibility Versus Specialisation – On the
Controllability of Combined Transport Systems. In: LIU BAO, BLOSSEVILLE, J. M. (1995)
Transportation Systems: Theory and Application of Advanced Technology, Proceedings of the 7 th
IFAC Symposium on Transportation Systems, Tianjin, 24-26 August, Elsevier Science, Oxford.
SONDERMANN, K. (1997) Improvement of Intermodal Transport by Introducing Fast Handling
Systems, Innovative Control for Intermodal Transport, Amsterdam, 28 January.
STEWART-DAVID, D. (1980) The Theory & Practice of Transport, Heinemann, London.
STJERNBERG, T. (1991) Ugly and beautiful networks: Reflections on the use of the network concept
in organization theory, Sunbelt XI, Tampa, Fl, 14-18 February.
STOCK, J. R. (1995) Advancing logistics research and thought through the “borrowing” of theories
from other disciplines: some “old” ideas whose times have come, Proceedings of the twenty
fourth annual transportation and logistics educators conference, San Diego, 8 October.
STONE, B. (1997) Chairman’s summary of discussions and conclusions, Workshop: Intermodal
Transportation in Europe: Profitable Business or Illussion? , Hannover, 9-10 September.
STONE, B. (1998) Intermodal Operations: Trains, Planes, Trucks and Boats, Logistics Europe,
January, pp. 30-34.
SUTCLIFFE, P. (1995) Country report UK, In: BUKOLD, S. (Ed.) The Crisis of European Combined
Transport, report from an ECIS Workshop, Rotterdam, 6 April.
Swedish Hauliers’ Association (1993) Åkerinäringen inför sekelskiftet (The hauling industry at the
turn of the century), Danderyd. In Swedish.
Svensk Logistik (1998) Nordic Rail, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 4. In Swedish.
TARKOWSKI, J., IRESTÅHL, B., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1995) Transportlogistik (Transport Logistics),
Studentlitteratur, Lund. In Swedish.
TAVASSZY, L. A. (1996) The Multimodal Distribution of Goods in Europe, In: BOVY, P. H. L.
(Ed.) Transportation Modelling for Tomorrow, Delft University Press, Delft.
TFK (1986) Gränsöverskridande kombinerade transporter med växelflak – del 1: Sammanfattande
rapport (Border-crossing Combined Transport Using Swap Bodies – Part 1: Conclusions), TFKrapport
1986:4, Stockholm. In Swedish.
216

The Official Journal (1991) Council Directive 91/440/EEC OF 29 July 1991 on the Development of
the Community’s Railways, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, P. 25.
The Piggyback Consortium (1994) The feasiblity of a piggyback network for the British Isles, MDS
Transmodal and Servant Transport Consultants, investigation sponsored by the European Commission
DGVII under the PACT (Pilot Actions for Combined Transport).
The TT Club (1996) The box – an anthology celebrating 25 years of containerisation and the TT
Club, EMAP Business Communications, London.
TØI (1989) Containertransporter mellom Norge och Kontinentet (Container Transports Between
Norway and Continental Europe), report 0037/1989, Transportøkonomisk Institutt, Oslo. In Norwegian.
TOLLEY, R., TURTON, B. (1995) Transport Systems, Policy and Planning – a Geographical Approach,
Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow.
Transportjournalen (1996) Godsnät 21 för nästa århundrande (Freight Network 21 for the next century),
No. 2, pp. 6-9. In Swedish.
Transportjournalen (1997/a) Stålbro till England (Steel bridge to England), No. 2, pp. 14-17. In
Swedish.
Transportjournalen (1997/b) Tyngre tåg och mera last (Heavier trains and more load), No. 2, pp.
27-29. In Swedish.
UIRR (1997) UIRR Report 1997, Yearbook, Brussels.
UN Economic Commission for Europe (1990) Containers – Towards a New Generation of Inland
and Maritime Loading Units, Proceedings of a Seminar on the Impact of Increasing Dimensions of
Loading Units on Combined Transport, Geneva, 13-16 November 1989.
United Nations (1993) Annual Bulletin of Transport Statistics for Europe, Economic comission for
Europe, Geneva.
VOGES, J., KESSSELMEIER, H., BEISTER, J. (1994) Simulation and Performance Analysis of
Combined Transport Terminals, Intermodal 94, Amsterdam, 2-4 November.
VON BARTALANFFY, L. (1962) General Systems Theory – A Critical Review, General Systems,
Vol. 7, pp. 1-20.
WARMUTH, H. (1995) Sustainable Transit Traffic in Austria – A Decade of Change in Transport
Policy from 1985 to 1995, Institute of Geography, University of Vienna, PTRC, The 23 rd European
Transport Forum, Coventry, 11-15 September, pp. 27-35.
WILSON, B. (1990) Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, 2 nd Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
WOXENIUS, J. (1992) Containertransporternas Historia (History of Container Transportation),
Thesis in History of Economics, Department of History of Economics, University of Göteborg,
Göteborg. In Swedish.
217

WOXENIUS, J. (1993) Enhetslaster – teknik, ekonomi och historia (Unit loads – Technology,
Economy and History), Meddelande 58, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University
of Technology, Göteborg. In Swedish.
WOXENIUS, J. (1994/a) The Production System of Swedish Domestic Combined Transport,
KFB/VTI Transport Research Seminars, Linköping, 12-13 January. Appended to the licentate thesis.
WOXENIUS, J. (1994/b) Groupage of Goods and Information in Systems for Combined Transport.
In: LIU BAO, Blosseville, J. M. (1994) Transportation Systems: Theory and Application of Advanced
Technology, Proceedings of the 7 th IFAC Symposium on Transportation Systems, Tianjin,
24-26 August, Elsevier Science, Oxford.
WOXENIUS, J. (1995/a) Combined Transport in Scandinavia – state-of-the-art and outlook, In:
BUKOLD, S. (Ed.) The Crisis of European Combined Transport, report from an ECIS Workshop,
Rotterdam, 6 April.
WOXENIUS, J. (1995/b) Combined Transport in the Perspective of the Hauliers, Proceedings of
Seminar A – Pan-European Transport Issues, The 23 rd PTRC European Transport Forum, Coventry,
11-15 September, pp. 37-50.
WOXENIUS, J. (1996) Development of New Technologies for Integrated Transport Chains in
Europe, Trafikdage på AUC ‘96, 19-20 August, Aalborg. In proceedings on CD-rom: “Trafikdage
på Aalborg Universitet ‘94-97” and available for down-loading at: http://www.i4.auc.dk/TRG/TD.
WOXENIUS, J. (1997/a) Information Flows Along Integrated Transport Chains. In: TILANUS, C.
B. (Ed.) Information Systems in Logistics and Transportation, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 137-155.
WOXENIUS, J. (1997/b) Terminals – a Barrier for Intermodality?, Nordic Transport Research’s
conference on Intermodal Freight Transport, Ebeltoft, 22-23 September.
WOXENIUS, J. (1997/c) Intermodal Freight Transport – Urban Impact of New Network Operation
Principles and Transshipment Technologies, “Towards a Better Living and Working Environment”,
conference arranged by the European Commission, DG XII, Toulouse, 27-30 October.
WOXENIUS, J. (1998) Inventory of Transshipment Technologies in Intermodal Transport, Study
for the International Road Transport Union (IRU), Geneva.
WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1994) System and Functional Requirements for RoRo Cassettes
in Multimodal Transport, RoRo 94, Göteborg, 26-28 April. Printed in preceedings. Shorter
version published in the Scandinavian Shipping Gazette (Vol. 90, No. 40, pp. 82-85). Appended to
the licentiate thesis.
WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1996/a) Trösklar vid införandet av nya transportsystem
(Thresholds when implementing new transport systems), KFB/VTI Transport Research Seminars,
Linköping, 10 January. In Swedish.
218

WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1996/b) Thresholds for Implementing New Technology in Multimodal
Freight Transport Networks, Extended abstract in: MASON, R. M., LEFEBVRE, L.,
KHALIL, T. M., Management of Technology V – Technology Management in a Changing World,
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Management of Technology, Miami, 27 February
- 1 March, pp. 899-900.
WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1996/c) Implementing New Technology in Intermodal Transport
Systems – Threshold Identification and Bridging Strategies, Techno Ocean ‘96, Kobe, 23-25
October. Also available in Japanese.
WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1997) Att överbrygga trösklar vid införandet av nya transportsystem
(Bridging thresholds when implementing new transport systems), KFB/VTI Transport Research
Seminars, Linköping, 8 January. In Swedish.
WOXENIUS, J., SJÖSTEDT, L., HELLGREN, J. (1994) Five Traffic Designs in Combined Transport
Systems – A Theoretical Discussion, Seminar within the EEC Tempus project JEP 3238, Warsaw,
24 February. In Logistyka – Engineering Machines Problems, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 111-127,
Warsaw. Also available in Polish. Appended to the licentiate thesis.
WOXENIUS, J., HELLGREN, J., KARLSSON (now HULTKRANTZ), O., SJÖSTEDT, L.
(1995/a) Combined Transport Transshipment Technology Trends in Europe, TEMPUS-seminar,
Wroclaw, Poland, 13 July, 1995. In: Operation of the Technical University of Wroclaw, No. 77,
Series: Conferences No. 23, 1995, pp. 73-92.
WOXENIUS, J., HENRIKSSON, A., SJÖSTEDT, L. (1995/b) Handbok för lastbärarval (Handbook
for the Choice of Unit Loads), Report for Rail Combi AB, Stockholm. In Swedish.
WOXENIUS, J., HELLGREN, J., KARLSSON (now HULTKRANTZ), O. (1996) A combined approach
to technology, In: European Intermodal Yearbook, Edition 1996, IIR Publications, London,
pp. 18-20.
YIN, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research – Designs and Methods, 2 nd Edition, Applied Social Research
Method Series, Vol. 5, Newbury Park, Ca.
YOUNG, R. (1997) God’s intermodal solution, Cargo Systems, No. 5, May, p. 111.
YU, J. C. (1982) Transportation Engineering – Introduction to Planning, Design, and Operations,
Elsevier North Holland, New York.
219

OTHER REFERENCES
Brochures, newsletters, blue prints, other marketing material and
annual reports 116 :
A.T. Kearney (1989) A Strategic Study into a European Combined Transport Network, Final Report
(+ appendices 1-6), unpublished consultant report commissioned by the Community of European
Railways.
Bang & Olufsen (1997) B&O Catalogue 1997, Swedish Edition, Struer.
Hungarian State Railways (1995) Intermodal Railway Basket Car, product brochure, Budapest.
Kombiverkehr (1991) Brückenslag zwischen Strasse und Schiene (Bridge between road and rail),
marketing brochure. In German.
N.C.H. Hydraulics Systems B.V. (1995) The Mondiso Intermodal Transportation System, marketing
video.
SJ (1997) Tågtrafik i samverkan (Train traffic in co-operation), brochure, Stockholm.
SJ Gods (1994) SJ Godsvagnar (SJ Freight wagons), information package, Stockholm.
Volvo (1996) TCS – Transport Class System, pamphlet, Göteborg. In Swedish.
World Wide Web sites and CD ROMs 117 :
European Commission (13 March 1998): http://www.cordis.lu/fifth/src/cp.htm.
Michichan Department of Transportation (30 March 1997): istea5.txt at
http://www.mdot.state.mi.us.
Microsoft (1996) Microsoft® Encarta® 97 Encyclopedia. De Luxe Version on CD ROM. © 1993-
1996 Microsoft Corporation.
OHLSEN, H-H. T. (31 January 1998): http://www.danbbs.dk/~ais/copenhagen/grt_blt.html.
SJ (30 March 1998): http://www.sj.se/koncern/godstr.html.
SJ Gods (7 March 1998): http://www.sjgods.sj.se/nyheter/tj/tj4_97/artiklar/art_3.html.
SNCF (11 March 1997) http://www.sncf.fr/dr/dpri/autorout.htm.
116 Product brochures are normally not dated. For non-dated brochures, the given year of issue is either the
year the brochure was aquired or an estimation.
117 World Wide Web sites are dated here since they change regularly. Paper copies of the cited sites are kept
by the author.
220

US Department of Transportation (8 January 1998):
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/nextea_s1.htm.
Interviews and oral presentations:
BJÖRNLAND, D., Professor, Copenhagen Business School, conference presentation, Nordic
Transport Research’s conference on Intermodal Freight Transport, Ebeltoft, 22-23 September 1997.
CHRAYE H., Officer for intermodal policy, the European Commission, DG VII, interview in Brussels,
28 March 1995.
DE BOCK, J., Project Officer, European Commission, DG VII Transport (now DG XII), Guest lecture
at Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, 4 November 1996.
GELLMAN, A. J. Professor and director for the Transportation Centre, Northwestern University,
Technical Innovation: Identifying Barriers and Catalysts, Presentation at Intermodal 95, Amsterdam,
26 October 1995.
HENRIKSSON, A., General Manager, IMC – InterModal Components, telephone interview, 20
December 1996.
HILL, M., Market Manager, International Marketing & Sales, Burlington Northern Railroads, interview
in Chicago, 27 June 1993.
HUIJSMAN, H., Consultant, Presenting the “Roller Barge” – a horizontal barge loading system,
Presentation at Intermodal 95, Amsterdam, 26 October 1995.
KOZMA, P., Former chairman of ISO standardisation committee for freight containers, interview in
Toronto, 20 June 1993.
PERSSON, K., Office Manager, Svelast Helsingborg, telephone interview, 10 October 1997.
SANDBERG, J., General Manager, Swedish Hauliers’ Association, conference presentation, Myter
och miljarder (Myths and billions), Stockholm 1996.
TORKELSSON, G., General Manager, Lagab AB, telephone interview, 21 February 1997.
VANROYE, K., European Commission, DG VII Transport, conference presentation, Nordic Transport
Research’s conference on Intermodal Freight Transport, Ebeltoft, 22-23 September 1997.
WEDE, J-O., Project Manager, SJ Staff Strategic Development, telephone interview, 19 January
1997 and personal interview, 26 March 1997.
Letters, faxes, E-mail messages and personal notes:
BUKOLD, S., PhD, Consultant, E-mail message dated 23 September 1997.
BULLINGER, H-J., Professor, University of Stuttgart, letter dated 13 January 1998.
221

DE BOCK, J. Project Officer, European Commission, DG XII, E-mail message dated 5 February
1998.
MAGNI, F., General Manager, Costaferroviaria in the Costamasnaga group, faxes dated 16 October
1996 and 23 May 1997, and letter dated 28 February 1997.
SOARES, J., Portuguese Nautical School, Parede, E-mail message dated 5 July 1996.
222

AUTHOR INDEX
In the main text, references having more than two authors are referred to using the first author’s
name followed by et al. The names of co-authors of such references are thus not
spelled out in the text. In this author index, they are listed together with the page in the reference
list that they appear on. Searching by the first author name of the reference facilitates
tracking also of co-authors. Editors of reports consisting of several articles can be
found in the same manner.
A
ADJADJIHOUE 32, 33
AGUADO 142
ALFARO 108
ARBNOR 25, 36, 42
B
BAYLISS 65
BJERKE 25, 36, 42, 49
BJÖRKMAN 102, 113
BJÖRNLAND 60, 132, 157, 223
BLANCHARD 46
BLINGE 49
BOWERSOX 91, 95
BRUNSSON 22, 25
BRYNE 132
BUKOLD 7, 17, 19, 20, 26, 30, 51, 52, 53, 100,
109, 132, 139, 140, 146, 148, 206, 208, 210,
216, 218, 220, 223
BURNS 47
C
CARRARA 145
CASTI 42, 44, 45
CHALMERS 24
CHECKLAND 43, 48
CHRISTOPHER 60, 75, 209
CHURCHMAN xi, xiii, 6, 24, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50,
51, 61, 79, 83, 84, 85, 95, 99
COOPER 59, 60, 79, 99, 100, 209
D
DANIELSSON 16
DAVIS 49
DEBOER 91, 95
E
EDER 49
EKLUND 218
F
FAULKS 211
FLOOD 65
G
GADDE 55
GELLMAN 100
GRÜBLER 100
H
HANREICH 117, 143
HELLGREN 126
HELMROTH 87, 90
HERTZ 24, 71, 72
HINDLEY 133
HOULIHAN 59
HUBKA 49
HUGHES 51
HULTÉN 27, 155, 213
HULTKRANTZ 76
HÅKANSSON 55
1

HÖLTGEN 145
J
JACKSON 42, 47
JENSEN 32, 76, 79, 80, 82
JONES 59
JÖNSSON 168
K
KANFLO 110
KING 116, 140, 214
KROON 168
L
LIEB 65
LJUNGEMYR 100
LJUNGHILL 132
LUMSDEN 65, 68, 70, 74, 85, 95, 101, 110, 111,
216
LUNDBERG 173
LÖFSTEN 24
M
MANHEIM 26, 68, 69, 70, 77
MARCHETTI 100
MAYNTZ 51
MORLOK 14
MULLER 91, 95
N
NIERAT 14
P
PERSSON 23, 24, 116
PORTER 24, 79
PROFFITT 58
R
REILLY 30, 46, 47
RUTTEN 26, 46
S
SAMUELSSON 26
SEIDELMANN 138
SIMERT 121
SJÖGREN 6, 48
SJÖHOLM 32, 90
SJÖSTEDT 30, 32, 42, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 90,
126, 216
SONDERMANN 110
SPASOVIC 14
STALKER 47
STEFANSSON 218
T
TARKOWSKI 77, 87
TAVASSZY 86, 100
TURTON 87
V,W
WILSON 42, 45
WOXENIUS i, 8, 13, 18, 32, 58, 61, 74, 93, 95,
101, 103, 109, 111, 113, 117, 126, 155, 168
Y
YIN 28, 77
YU 43, 46, 47, 64
2

APPENDIX A: INTERMODAL TRANSSHIPMENT
TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPED IN EUROPE
European development projects referred to in section 6.2. Most of the technologies are described
in detail in the detached appendix.
Development project Countries Wag. Dedicated requirement issue Dev. phase
ACTS A, B, CH, D, D Small-scale/bulk and ISOcontainers
Operational
L, NL
Berglund’s G2000 RoRo S D Small scale transfer of lorries Design
and ITUs through internal
equipment
Bimodal System (different D, DK, N, D Small-scale transfer Operational
brand names)
NL, I, UK
Blatchford Stag UK S Small-scale/ISO-containers Operational
lorry-to-ground or to rail wagon
CarConTrain PLUS S D Small-scale transfer Prototype
Chain-lifts and Hook-lifts (different
B, FIN, L, D Small-scale/ISO-containers Operational
brand names)
NL, S
lorry-to-ground or to rail wagon
Commutor System F, NL D Fast transfer/hub-technology Abolished/
parts soon
operational
C-sam, +box, LLB DK, N, S D Small-scale transfer of small Abolished
containers without transshipment
equipment
DEMAG gantry crane, Aachen D S Gantry crane transshipping Design
University of Technology
under the overhead contact
line
Firema Twist wagon I D Small scale transfer of full lorries
Design/ prototype
FlexiWaggon S D Small scale transfer of full lorries
Design
Hochstein System D D Small-scale horizontal transfer Design
Jenbacher’s Rolling Shelf A D Automated transfer without unit Design
loads
Kombiflex S D Small-scale transfer Design
Kombi-Lifter D D Swap body transfer on a simple
Pilot-runs
terminal
Krupp Fast Handling System D S Fast transfer on small surface Prototype
Kölker-Thiele ALS D D Horizontal semi-trailer transfer Prototype
Light-combi S D/S Small-scale transfer and innovative
network design
Commercial
pilot
Logistikbox D D/S Small boxes door-to-door Halted
(floor-to-floor)
LogMan’s Container FTS D D Small-scale horizontal transfer Design
Mannesmann Transmann D S Conventional handling under
electric catenary
Building
plans
Modalor F S Small scale semi-trailer transfer
Design
Explanations for the Wagon column: S = Standardised; D = Dedicated; n. ap. = not applicable.
The table is continued on the next page.
1

Continued from the last page.
Development project Countries Wag. Dedicated requirement issue Dev. phase
Mondiso Rail Terminal NL D Horizontal ISO-container transfer
Prototype
Multi-berces F D Small-scale/bulk and ISOcontainers
Operational
Noell Fast Transs. System D S Fast transfer on small surface Design
Noell Mega Hub Concept D S Large scale transfer on small
surface
Building
plans
NS Cargo’s Small Cont. Syst. NL S Transfer of small containers Impl. plans
Pentaplan High Capacity Terminal
A S Large scale transfer on small Design
surface
Piglet UK D Small-scale/use of infrastr. Design
Ringer System D D Small-scale horizontal transfer Design
Roland System Schiene-
D D Small-scale/bulk and ISOcontainers
Operational
Strasse (RSS)
Rolling Highway
A, CH, DK, D Small-scale/use of infrastr. Operational
F, I, UK
Shwople UK D Horisontal transfer of semitrailers
Design
Side-Loading Trailer (different A, D, FIN, S, S Small-scale/ISO-containers Operational
brand names)
UK
lorry-to-ground or to rail wagon
Small Scale Terminal Concept S D Small-scale transfer Feasib.
study
Stackable Swap-Bodies D N.ap. Top-lift/small surface Operational
Stenhagen’s System S D Small-scale transfer Prototype
Supertrans S D Fast transfer on simple terminal
Design
T.R.AI 2000/FL.I.H.T.T. I/I, F D Automated transfer with or Prototype
without unit loads
The Wheelless System FIN D Multimodality, simple terminal Design
Thrall EuroSpine UK D Small-scale/use of infrastr. Prototype
Thyssen CTS D S Fast transfer on small surface Abolished
Tiphook System UK (FIN) D Small-scale/use of
infrastructure
Exoperational
TTT-system FIN D Small-scale/Swap bodies and Abolished
ISO-containers
Tuchschmid’s Compact Terminal
CH S Large scale transfer on small Design
surface
ULS D S Small-scale transfer Prototype
Wieskötter System D D Swap body transfer on a simple
Design
terminal
Explanations for the Wagon column: S = Standardised; D = Dedicated; n. ap. = not applicable.
2

APPENDIX B: THE WEIGHT CRITERION METHOD
A weight criterion method is found useful when carrying out an evaluation of alternative
solutions according to several criteria since the method forces the analyst to perform a thorough
comparison in order to assess the alternatives as objectively as possible. It is best
suited for evaluations whith a large number of criteria that cannot be ranked trivially. The
evaluation method was originally developed for evaluating alternative solutions in the machine
design process (BJAERNEMO, 1983) but it is rather general and it has previously
been used for evaluating intermodal transport technologies 118 . The method is described step
by step below.
DEFINE THE CONDITIONS OF THE EVALUATION SITUATION
The first step is to define the conditions of the evaluation situation. This should be carried
out thoroughly every time, since it is a common mistake to use old references that do not fit
the actual problem.
MAKE LISTS OF DEMANDS AND CRITERIA
The next thing to do is to make a list of requirements that are specified as demands or criteria.
Demands have to be fulfilled and do not have to be weighted. Cost is not used as a criterion
in the first steps of the method.
LIST THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
A list of alternative solutions that satisfy the demands is generated. These are evaluated
against the demands. Those solutions that satisfy the demands are listed for further evaluation.
WEIGHT THE CRITERIA AGAINST EACH OTHER
This is one of the crucial steps in the method. The evaluator weighs the criteria against each
other in order to decide how important the different criteria are. The criteria are coded with
letters and are compared in pairs. A matrix is designed (shown on the next page):
118 Evaluating horizontal intermodal transshipment technologies: JÖNSSON and KROON (1990).
Evaluating alternatives to a single intermodal technology: GOLDBECK-LÖWE and SYRÉN (1993).
Evaluating causes for transport damages in an intermodal transport system: LINDAU et al. (1993).
1

Table AB-1 Weight criterion matrix, example. Text and numbers in bold print refer to the
original form; other numbers are part of the example.
Criteria
A B C D E Corr P i k i (p i /Σp i )
A -0 2 (AB) 2 (AC) 0 1 1 6 0.24
B -2 2 1 1 3 5 0.20
C -4 0 0 5 1 0.04
D -1 2 (DE) 7 8 0.32
E -4 9 5 0.20
Σ: 25 1.00
If criterion A is more important than B, the number 2 is put in the cell AB. If they are equal
in importance, the number 1 is put in the cell. If B is more important than A, the number 0
is put in the cell. All cells in the matrix are filled out using the same procedure. A correction
factor, corr, with odd numbers is put in a column.
Every column is summed up and the plus sign of the sum is changed to a minus sign. The
rows, including corr, are then summed up with their proper signs giving the row sums. The
P i -column is added up and the sum shall equal the squared number of criteria. The weight
factor, k i , can now be calculated as k i = P i /Σ P i . The sum of all k i :s, Σ k i , will equal 1.00 if
the matrix is properly filled out.
EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVES ACCORDING TO THE DEFINED
CRITERIA
In order to evaluate the alternative solutions, a new matrix is set up in which the evaluator
scores the alternatives according to the degree of fulfilment against each criterion. The
scoring scale used in this example is:
3 The alternative fulfils the criterion well
2 The alternative is likely to fulfil the criterion
1 The alternative is not likely to fulfil the criterion
0 The alternative cannot fulfil the criterion at all
2

Table AB-2
Evaluation matrix, example.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative … Alternative n
Criteria K i fulfilment
k i *fulf.
ment
Fulfilment
k i *fulf.
ment
fulfilment
k i *fulf.
ment
fulfilment
k i *fulf.
ment
A 0.24 3 0.72 2 0.48 3 0.72 2 0.48
B 0.20 2 0.40 3 0.60 2 0.40 2 0.40
C 0.04 2 0.08 3 0.12 1 0.04 3 0.12
… 0.32 2 0.64 2 0.64 2 0.64 1 0.32
n 0.20 1 0.20 1 0.20 0 0.00 1 0.20
Σ 1.00 10 2.04 11 2.04 9 1.80 9 1.52
The scale can be altered to obtain greater detail in the evaluation. The ki*fulfilment of the
alternatives is calculated and the columns are summed up. Note that alternatives 1 and 2
have the same product rating although number 2 has more points. The evaluation table can
obviously be designed in other ways, e.g. through transposing the rows and columns if the
number of solutions is greater than the number of criteria.
FINAL EVALUATION AND DECISION
At this stage it becomes clear how well the alternatives satisfy the criteria and hereby also
the probability of solving the problem at hand. In this last step, the costs of each alternative
are estimated. The final decision is based upon the k i *fulfilment-rate and the cost of the different
solutions. A ratio can then be calculated but the decision is not necessarily the most
cost-efficient one, other aspects are likely to influence the choice.
3