Efficient intermodal wagons

Transcription

Good Practice N°12
Efficient intermodal
wagons
KombiConsult GmbH, 04/2013
Good Practice N°12:
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page 2
Good practice form
Introduction (summary)
Starting position (gaps and challenges)
Concept and components
Application cases
Conclusions and benefits
Further exploitation
Contact
Disclaimer
Good Practice Manual, 04/2013
Good practice form
Page 3
Good practice name
for continental and maritime traffic
Type
(3) CT wagons
Involved actors
(1) Intermodal operator
(2) Railway operator
Commercial / Functional
application area
Intermodal transport rail/road
Geographical application area
Europe
Status / Time period
In operation
COSMOS contact
Klaus-Uwe Sondermann (KombiConsult)
email
usondermann@kombiconsult.com
phone
+49 69 244 32 93 172
Introduction (summary)
The intermodal wagon is an essential
asset for the efficient transport of loading
units between intermodal terminals. The
access to wagons is assured by purchase
(from the manufacturers), lease (from
leasing organisation) and hire (from
railways) for a shorter period of time.
The present “good practice” investigates the
driving principles and provides practical
example cases. The basic analysis was
financed by the UIC in the scope of the
DIOMIS project (www.uic.org/diomis).
Even if new roles (e.g. wagon keeper) have
appeared by change of legal framework, the
fundamental question has to be answered:
Which is the most efficient wagon for a
certain rail transport?
Page 4
Starting position – challenges of the intermodal wagon market
• Market develops from integrated railways to specialised
undertakings or business units
• Knowledge about growth potential and shortfall of resources is
fragmented between various companies
• Time period from identification a capacity or technical need to
market is too long (e.g. lack of wagon experienced 2007)
• Investments are large and long lasting (~ 25 years), while
transport contracts are short (~ 1 year) and thus creating a
financial barrier for small and medium companies
• Regulative changes at EU and multi-national level generate
new roles, responsibilities and issue (wagon noise)
Source: KombiConsult analysis
Page 5
Starting position – development of asset ownership/stakeholders
Year
~1965
~ 1990
~2005
Intermodal Operators
Manager
Lessors
Wagon
Railways
„Wagon
keeper“*
Railway
Undertakings
Fundamental knowledge for the availability and efficiency of
different types of intermodal wagon shall be provided in the
following charts.
* Owner or long-term user according to GCU (General Contract for the use of freight wagon)
Page 6
Starting position – dimensions of intermodal loading units (LU)
Page 7
Concept and components – intermodal wagons / loading units
Characterisation (overview)
Page 8
Concept and components – wagon types
Standard intermodal wagon
• 2-axle-wagons
length: 40’
• 4-axle-wagons
length: 40’, 52’, 60’ (most common wagon type), 73’, 80’ (new)
• 6- & 8-axle-wagons
length: 80’, 90’, 104’
Page 9
Special intermodal wagon
• Low-loader-wagons “Multifret”, or “Megafret”
2-axle or 4-axle, often 2 wagons with permanent coupling
• Pocket wagons for semi-trailers
4-axle wagons for one trailer or 6-axle wagons for 2 semi-trailers
• Dual-use wagons, i.e. flat wagons with stanchions that are
suitable for the transport of, containers and swap bodies, wood,
steel, other goods to be carried on flat wagons
• Other, e.g. RoLa, ACTS, Modalohr, trailer trains
Focus on standard and pocket wagon
Page 10
Basic characteristics of intermodal wagons
Page 11
Key performance indicators* of intermodal wagons
* The highest combined performance is located in the top right corner of the diagram.
Page 12
Utilisation of maximum train length by loading unit type
Calculation based on 600m wagon train length
Page 13
Efficiency of wagon (payload/loading-m)
Sdggmrss 104'
3,2
Sdggmrss 104'
3,2
Sdggmrss 104'
3,2
104‘ wagon
Sdggmrss 104'
3,5
Sffggmrrss 104'
2,8
Sggmrss 104'
3,2
Sggmrss 90'
3,8
80 / 90‘ wagon
Sggrss 80'
4,3
3,0
Sggns 73'
60‘ wagon
Sgns 60'
3,8
3,1
Sgjs 60'
Sdgmns 45'
5,0
Sgmns 45'
4,4
45‘ wagon
Sgkkmss 45'
2,9
Lgns 40'
2,6
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
t/m
Page 14
4,0
5,0
Utilisation of train length for 20’/40’/45’ containers (ct)
• Given Train length: 600 m
−
−
−
−
43 wagons of 40’ ⇒ 86 TEU per train
• Conclusions
− By choosing “right” wagon one can gain 10 TEU
− 60’ wagons provide best utilisation of train length for the transport of standard
20’, or mix of 20’ and 40’ Ct
− 90’ wagon are becoming interesting for 45’ Ct (and SB)
− A mix of 60’ and 90’ wagon is of best practical use
Page 15
Utilisation of train length for swap bodies (sb)
• Given Train length: 600 m
−
−
−
−
36 wagons of 52’
30 wagons of 60’
20 wagons of 90’
17 wagons of 104’
36 A- / 72 C-type SB per train
40 A- / 40 (80) C-(7.15) type SB
• Conclusions
− By choosing “right” wagon one can gain 10 LU A-Type
or 12 LU C-Type
− 90’ wagons provide best utilisation of train length only for the transport of A-type
SB / and 45’ Ct
− 52’ and 104’ wagons provide best utilisation of train length for the transport of
C-type (i.e. 7.82 m) swap bodies, and ST
Page 16
Conclusions on the wagon/train length (1/2)
• Wagon type for best utilisation of train length depends on the
mix of type of swap bodies / containers to be carried
• Maritime transport and „company trains“ with high homogeneity
of loading units in both directions are much easier to handle
than „open“ continental trains, with a variety of customers and
thus loading unit types
• An optimum wagon composition selected appropriate for the
mix of loading units on a given transport relation is able to carry
+12% more Containers or +20% more Swap Bodies compared to
an inappropriate wagon. In practical operation the gain will be
lower, because the gain will be calculated in comparison to the
average wagon mix (and not the worst)
Page 17
Conclusions on the wagon/train length (2/2)
• The variety of loading units and operational aspects hamper
the optimum utilisation of the train length because wagon sets
are often exchanged between different relations for operational
reasons. It is thus more difficult to maximise the utilisation of the
train length
• It is thus, that wagon and their composition in trains is always
only a “best compromise”
• Wagon with variable length did not proof suitable in practice,
because they required the availability of shunting engines
during loading process
Page 18
Utilisation of train weight
• Utilisation of train weight can be maximised, if
The efficiency of the wagon - the ratio between the payload and
the tare weight - is maximised, or the tare weight per wagon-m is
minimized
• Problem:
The maximum train weight is also determined by other factors,
that may supersede the choice of the optimum weight performing
wagon, e.g.
− Minimum weight of empty wagon
− Locomotive traction power in conjunction with gradient
− Braking conditions in train
Page 19
Efficiency of wagon (tare weight/wagon-m)
999
Sdggmrss 104'
1.029
Sdggmrss 104'
969
Sdggmrss 104'
Sdggmrss 104'
1.016
1.070
Sffggmrrss 104'
943
Sggmrss 104'
997
Sggmrss 90'
985
Sggrss 80'
921
Sggns 73'
1.018
Sgns 60'
1.114
Sgjs 60'
1.145
Sdgmns 45'
1.043
Sgmns 45'
941
Sgkkmss 45'
887
Lgns 40'
0
200
400
600
Kg/m
Page 20
800
1.000
900 Kg/m
(target)
1.200
1.400
Utilisation of wagon weight (1/2)
N°of
axles
Type/
Example
Maximum
Weight
[t]
Tare-Weight
[t]
Loading
capacity
[t]
2
Lgns
45
12.3
32.7
4
Sgmns
90
18.3
71.5
6
80‘
104‘
Pocket
136
135
135
26
32
35
109
102
100
Page 21
Utilisation of wagon weight (2/2)
• Maximum weight of loading units
− 20’ container:
− 40’ container:
− A-type swap bodies:
− C-type swap bodies:
− Semi-trailer:
maximum 24 t
maximum 30.5 t
maximum 34 t
maximum 16 t
maximum 38 t
• Conclusions
− 2-axle 40’ wagon cannot carry 2 x 20’ Ct of maximum weight
− 4-axle 60’ wagon cannot carry 3 x 20’ Ct of maximum weight
− 6-axle 80’ wagon provide best utilisation of wagon weight
(4 x 24 t)
Page 22
Concept and components – wagon/train weight
Conclusions (1/2)
• 6-axle 80’ wagon is designed for carrying heavy maritime Ct (109 t
payload)
• 4-axle 60’ wagon is designed for carrying lighter goods (70 t)
• 4-axle 45’ wagon is designed for heavy Ct and SB (71.5 t)
• Articulated wagon have a weight limitation when loading their inner
places due to the maximum axle load of 22.5 t
• 22 wagons of 135 t would result in a total train weight of 2,970 t
which is exceeding the maximal train weight in most cases
⇒ too much for one locomotive
• In practice the weight ratio of a single wagon is more important
than the weight of the total train, because the maximum train weight
is reached very fast. The operative challenge is to balance light and
heavy LUs
Page 23
Concept and components – wagon/train weight
Conclusions (2/2)
• The latest 60’ wagon (Josef Meyer design) have an empty
weight of 17.8 tons and are able to carry three 20’ CT of
maximum weight
• A further significant reduction of the empty weight of CT
wagon is not expected, in particular since the mayor
components are fixed (bogies, bumpers, brakes)
• An increase of the maximum axle load from 22.5 to 25 tons
would be much more effective than a reduction in tare weight
Page 24
4-axle wagon:
4 x 22.5
4 x 25
∆
= 90 t
= 100 t
+ 10 t
60’ wagon:
usual tara
reduced tara
∆
20 t
17.8 t
+ 2.2 t
Application cases – example of maritime transport
• Maritime – or container hinterland traffic – is characterized by
a comparably large homogeneity of loading units (basically all are
fitting into the 20’/40’ grid). The challenge is the mix of short and
long and even more empty or light and heavy containers.
• After several year of experiences with 60’ and articulated 80’ and
90’ wagon the intermodal operator METRANS has obviously
learned that the average weight of containers is decreasing and
consequently (re-)launched the design of a 80’ wagon with only 4
instead of 6 axles. The wagon is generally suited for 4 x 20‘ or 2 x
40‘ thus 4 TEU. In the variant of the VEL wagon* also a variety of
7.45 m swap bodies, 30‘ or 45‘ units can be transported.
• Even that the loading capacity is reduced from 107.5 to 68.5 tons
(or 26.8 t/TEU) to 17 t/TEU) the remaining advantages are:
Less wheel-sets, brakes, noise and thus maintenance costs
Source: KombiConsult analysis based on Metrans, Tatravagonka
Page 25
*www.vel-project.eu
Application cases – 80’/4-axle “single” wagon (Sggnss)
Source: Petr Kaderavek
Page 26
Application cases – 80’/4-axle “single” wagon (Sggnss)
Source: Tatravagonka
Page 27
Application cases – 80’/6-axle “double” wagon (Sggr/ss)
Source: Tatravagonka
Page 28
Application cases – technical data 80’ wagon
Sggrs/ss
N°of axles
Sggnss
6
4
Axle load at 100 km/h (t)
22.5
22.5
Tara (t)
27.5
21.5
Payload (t)
107.5
68.5
Total length (m)
26.39
25.94
Loading length (m)
25.15
24.70
Loading deck height (m)
1.155
1.155
Source: KombiConsult analysis based on Tatravagonka
Page 29
Application cases – example of a mega-trailer pocket wagon
• Recent years have shown an increasing trend of using semitrailers in European road and thus also intermodal transport. The
type of mega-semi-trailers providing an internal height of 3m has
become the „standard“ equipment
• Kombiverkehr has therefore launched a technical development and
demonstration project* in the scope of which a new articulated
pocket wagon for mega-semi-trailers was improved, implemented
and rolled out to the market
• The loading length of 104‘ allows not only two semi-trailers but also
4 swap bodies of up to 7.82 m, at a loading weight of 85 tons
• The large pocket and safety features provide an efficient handling
in the terminals and additionally during rail haulage
• The pocket of the Hupac T5 and Mega II are designed similarly,
but Hupac opt for single wagon, while AAE’s TWIN wagon is made of
similar design
*www.bravo-project.com
Page 30
Application cases – mega-trailer pocket wagon
Source: Kombiverkehr
Page 31
Application cases – (“double”)-articulated pocket wagon T3000e
Source: Kombiverkehr
Page 32
Application cases – technical data pocket wagon
Mega II-D
MTW
TWIN
T3000e
N°of axles
8
8
6
6
16
20
22.5
22.5
Tara (t)
36
40
35
35
Payload (t)
2 x 46
2 x 60
100
100
Total length (m)
36.68
38.28
34.03
34.20
2 x 16.92
2 x 17.25
2 x 15.76
2 x 16.43
1.155
0.950
1.155
1.155
Loading length (m)
Source: KombiConsult analysis based on Hupac, AAE, Kombiverkehr
Page 33
Application cases – WASCOSA flex freight system
• Challenged by the long economic lifetime of the assets and the
volatility of the rail freight markets Wascosa presented a
concept and prototypes of a light 60’ container wagon
(original design by Josef Meyer) and demountable attachments
which can be suited to different commodities such as wood,
cars, or other
• As the trade mark demonstrates the flexibility is remarkable
Source: KombiConsult analysis based on Wascosa
Page 34
Application cases – WASCOSA flex freight system
Source: Wascosa
Page 35
Application cases – technical data of a light 60’ wagon
Criteria
60‘ light
N°of axles
4
22.5
Tara (t)
17.4
Payload (t)
72.6
Total length (m)
20
Loading length (m)
18
1.155
Source: KombiConsult analysis based on Wascosa
Page 36
Conclusions and benefits
• Both the availability and the efficiency of intermodal wagon for
intermodal stakeholders has been improved in recent years
• With 60‘/80‘ wagon for maritime traffic and 45‘/90’ and 104‘ (pocket)
wagon for continental traffic a series of modern types has been
developed and became operational
• Innovative ideas such as the flex freight system and the 80’ single
wagon will find their market application, too
• For a given variety of loading options and train parameters the most
efficient wagon can be selected by the decision criteria presented
above, and coupled to a wagon train, thereby respecting the maximal
train parameters on the rail route concerned
• Stakeholders can request such wagon at competent manufacturers,
leasing companies or railways – depending on their respective business
model, or directly ask the transport of one or multiple loading units from
the intermodal operators/railways
Page 37
Further exploitation
• Contacts to referenced examples (by order of appearance):
Page 38
Contact
Mr. Klaus-Uwe Sondermann
KombiConsult GmbH
Zum Laurenburger Hof 76
60594 Frankfurt am Main
Email: usondermann@kombiconsult.com
Phone: +49 69 244 32 93 172
Page 39
Disclaimer
The present good practice presentation has been compiled by one
or more COSMOS partner and may contain business sensitive
information.
You may use the content totally or selectively without changing the
content of the single slides, if clearly identifying the source:
COSMOS Project, Good Practice Manual, 2013,
KombiConsult GmbH, www.cosmos-project.eu
Page 40

Efficient intermodal wagons

Transcription

Similar documents

co rii - Paper

PDF.

A GREAT DAY

The Lookout Tower

Document Layout

un vagón hermoso - Un Vagon Hermoso

November 2015 - The Health Wagon

THE HUTCH 9036i I-Beam Slider