ORIGINAL PAPER

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

Dirk Bruckmann1,2& Patrik Dober3 & Albert Mancera1 & Irmhild Saabel4 &

Ulrich Weidmann1

Received: 24 January 2016 /Accepted: 2 November 2016 /Published online: 19 November 2016# The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at SpringerLink.com

AbstractPurpose Swiss Split is a rail service in Switzerland which dis-tributes containers via conventional shunting yards directlyfrom intermodal terminals to the final recipients’ sidings by rail.Today’s Swiss Split service is quite successful, but it still hasseveral weaknesses that reduce its competitiveness comparedto container distribution by truck. Thus, the two main researchquestions were: Which feasible improvements for containerdistribution by rail can be determined? In how far do theseimprovements increase the competitiveness of container distri-bution by rail compared to container distribution by truck?Methods The research bases on previous analyses regardingthe weaknesses of container distribution by rail in Switzerland.For each of the identified weaknesses, suitable improvementswere developed. The effects of these improvements were sup-posed to have an impact on the efficiency and the quality ofthe services. The improvements were then assessed by apply-ing a cost model for rail freight and truck transportation. Forthis purpose, today’s Swiss Split was modelled in a base caseand the input data for the cost model (e.g., round trips per dayfor wagons, routing for the transports, train length and trainutilisation) were changed according to the estimated effects of

the improvements. To finally estimate the impact of the im-provements on the SWL production schemes, an agent basedsimulation for SWL was developed and applied.Results The analysis of today’s Swiss Split distribution by railshowed weaknesses in the fields of rolling stock, transhipmentterminal structures and the production schemes for SWL.Thus, a new container wagon has been developed to servethe sidings. The terminal structure has been improved by anew gateway terminal. The production schemes for SWL havebeen improved by applying a train-coupling-and-sharing net-work structure and an improved schedule structure for SWLtrains. An agent based simulation software for rail freight hasbeen developed to assess the improvements in the productionscheme. At last, the new business model for Swiss Split hasled to an integration of transhipment processes and rail distri-bution. In sum all of these measures have resulted in signifi-cant cost reductions for the container distribution by rail.Conclusions The breakeven distance for Swiss Split com-pared to truck container distribution has been decreased from140 to 70 km. Hence, using SWL for final distribution hasproofed to be competitive to trucking even for rather shortdistances. This shows that rail freight can be competitive com-pared to road transportation if a holistic approach whichtackles all weaknesses of the existing services is applied.

Keywords Rail freight . Container . Hinterland transport .

Single wagonload

1 Introduction

Shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and inlandwaterways is a major goal of European transport policy.Current research often focuses on the distribution of maritimecontainers by using combined transport or more specifically,

This article is part of Topical Collection on The Future of rail freighttransport and logistics

* Dirk Bruckmanndirk.bruckmann@hsrw.eu

1 ETH Zurich, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems,Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland

2 Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences,Friedrich-Heinrich-Allee 25, 47475 Kamp-Lintfort, Germany

3 SBB Cargo AG, Bahnhofstrasse 12, 4600 Olten, Switzerland4 Wascosa AG, Werftestrasse 4, 6005 Luzern, Switzerland

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28DOI 10.1007/s12544-016-0214-8

on the usage of rail or inland waterways to serve hinterlandterminals and the subsequent distribution of containers to re-cipients by truck. Very little research has considered using railfor the distribution of containers right up to the final recipients.In Switzerland, however, SBB Cargo still distributes a largenumber of containers directly to their final recipients by usingthe Swiss Split service. The research presented here aims atdeveloping ideas that might help to improve the competitive-ness of container distribution by rail. It presents a holisticapproach that covers the entire transport chain. Many of theseideas will be implemented in an improved service called NewSwiss Split as soon as the new Basel-Nord intermodal terminalwill have been opened in 2019.

This paper presents optimisation approaches and discussestheir feasibility as well as their impacts on the distribution ofcontainers by rail. Chapter 2 describes the current Swiss Splitrail-based container distribution service including its currentweaknesses. Chapter 3 presents a brief literature review onimproving container distribution by rail. Chapter 4 describesthe structure of the project and the work assigned to differentproject partners as well as the methodology that has beenapplied. Chapters 5 to 8 then describe the specific improve-ments that were developed for New Swiss Split followed by adescription of the cost model and an analysis of the overallfeasibility of New Swiss Split which refers to two case studyexamples in which this specific cost model has been applied.Chapter 10 finally presents conclusions and recommendationsfor further research.

2 The existing Swiss Split service

Swiss Split is a product of SBBCargo used for the distributionof maritime containers to their final destinations by rail.Figure 1 illustrates the transport chain from the Swiss borderup to the final recipient. Shuttle trains or barges transport

containers from seaports to the existing transhipment termi-nals in Switzerland. There, the containers are transhippedfrom long-haul trains or barges to standard flat-wagons orcontainer wagons of the national single wagonload (SWL)network. From there the wagons are transported within theexisting SWL production network of SBB Cargo to the finalrecipient’s siding where they are placed at the existing loadingramps. Finally the containers are unloaded by forklifts or in-dustrial trucks. Figure 1 shows the siding of Ikea in Lausen(next to Basel) as a sample siding.

Today’s Swiss Split only covers the Swiss part of the railtransport to the final recipient, as shown in Fig. 2. Yet, theSwiss Split service is unique since no other country distributesmaritime containers in single wagonload.

The analysis of SBB Cargo’s shipment data for 2013 re-sulted in 53,600 containers that had been transported with41,783 wagons using Swiss Split. Today SBB Cargo trans-ports within the SWL network approximately 3,000 wagonsper day, which means that Swiss Split represents about 6 % ofall transported wagons. Thus, Swiss Split partly assures thebase utilization of the Swiss SWL network.

To evaluate and improve logistic chains in general, accord-ing to Mancera [1], logistic chains must be split up into theirgeneric elements: loading and unloading, transport and tran-shipment. Figure 3 shows the generic transport chain of SwissSplit from the seaport (load) to the recipients’ sidings (unload)including the transhipment at an intermodal hinterlandterminal.

Improvements in form of an optimised business model canrelate to each of the generic elements of the transport chainand/or to the coordination between these elements. Thus, ananalysis of the weaknesses of each element of the transportchain is necessary. Based on this analysis, optimisation ap-proaches can be defined.

While Swiss Split is a relatively successful product, thereare several weaknesses that reduce its competitiveness com-pared to container distribution by truck. Bruckmann [2] hasalready identified the main Swiss Split weaknesses as follows:

& Very old rolling stock& Widely dispersed terminal structure& Business plan focuses only on the SWL transport link (i.e.,

does not include terminal operations or return of emptycontainers to depots)

& General SWL production scheme (affecting all SBBCargo SWL products including Swiss Split).

Based on these weaknesses, analysis improvement ap-proaches for Swiss Split were developed considering the ge-neric elements of the transport chain, starting from the tran-shipment to the unloading at the final destination. The loadingof the containers at the seaport and the rail transport from theseaport to the hinterland terminal will still not be carried out

Fig. 1 Standard flat wagon with a Swiss Split container at the recipients’ramp (ETH Zurich)

28 Page 2 of 14 Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28

by Swiss Split. Thus, the operational conditions and the costsfor these parts remain unaffected.

3 Literature review regarding general improvementapproaches

There is little literature on general approaches to improve anSWL based distribution of maritime containers since this is aunique Swiss product. Therefore the literature review focuseson each of the four improvement fields separately.

3.1 Rolling stock

Again, there is not much literature analysing rolling stockimprovements to facilitate the final distribution of containersto sidings due to the limited market for this type of service.One exception is the description of Swiss Split by the authorsof this paper [3]. However, others have described generalrolling stock improvements designed to improve the compet-itiveness of freight transport by rail. Their results are relevantfor this research. Especially important are the results of Königand Hecht [4] who describe a strategy for the further develop-ment of rolling stock in general as well as those of Eschweilerand Hecht [5] who analyse the influence of rolling stock onthe market share of rail freight.

3.2 Terminal structure

Notteboom [6] states that bundling of container flows in con-solidation terminals is one of the key driving forces of con-tainer network dynamics. Thus, a terminal network consistingof a few consolidation terminals is much more efficient than astructure of dispersed terminals (as it currently exists inSwitzerland).

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

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the Swiss Split service (SBB Cargo)

Load TranshipmentTransport

UnloadTransport

Generic Transport Chain, according to Mancera [1]

Hinterland Transport Chain including today´s SwissSplit

Seaport HinterlandTerminal

Shuttle-TrainUnload

SWL

SwissSplit

Hinterland Transport Chain including future NewSwissSplit

Seaport HinterlandTerminal

Shuttle-TrainUnload

SWL

NewSwissSplit

Fig. 3 Generic elements of an intermodal transport chain, according toMancera [1] and transfer to the Swiss Split and New Swiss Split

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28 Page 3 of 14 28

3.3 Business plan

There is no explicit mentioning of a transport chainvertical integration of the distribution of maritime con-tainers by rail, but there are several papers on the ver-tical integration and collaboration within the overallsupply chain (e.g., [9, 10]). These papers find that inte-grating the entire transport chain leads to benefits. Bock[11] estimates the benefits of a real-time control of for-warder transportation networks as they are planned forNew Swiss Split.

Some papers (e.g., [12, 13]) address optimisations due to acollaboration of competing freight forwarders. These ap-proaches are not applicable to Swiss Split since there are no

competitors for the SWL service in Switzerland to cooperatewith. Therefore, for Swiss Split, the vertical integration ofseveral actors in the transport chain appears more promisingthan a horizontal integration. Furthermore, Moll [14] has al-ready addressed an optimisation by an integrated planning offreight transports including a collaboration of shippers andrailway freight operators He stated that collaboration gener-ates a large potential to increase the efficieny of rail transport.But nowadays due to a lack of communication and missinginformation this potential cannot be leveraged. Thus, an inte-grated approach as planned in New Swiss Split is a feasibleapproach to improve the competitiveness of rail transport.

Wittenbrink et al. [15] suggested a vertical disintegration ofSWL to improve the competition in the market. This approach

Fig. 4 Methodology used to model costs of BNew Swiss Split^ (ETH Zurich)

Fig. 5 Distribution of wagontypes at Swiss Split in 2013 (SBBCargo / ETH Zurich)

28 Page 4 of 14 Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28

is unlikely to improve the container distribution for SwissSplit because there is insufficient demand to operate a secondsimilar distribution network.

3.4 SWL production schemes

The quality of rail transport is significantly improved when theproduct design considers the requirements of the entire door todoor service [16]. This approach generally leads to the devel-opment of multimodal transport chains and a final distributionby truck. However, the single wagonload rail service is a formof door-to-door transport, too. General approaches towards anoptimisation of SWL production schemes are mentioned byMarin and Salmeron [17, 18]. Following these publicationsseveral authors have described SWL optimization approachesusing operations research methods. For example, Ceselli et al.[19] optimized the Cargo Express Service as a part of the SwissSWL network. Bruckmann [20] evaluated the containerizationof the conventional SWL and the replacement of conventionalshunting yards by container terminals.

The weakness of all existing optimization algorithms is thatthey do not take railway network capacity restrictions intoaccount. This is especially problematic in densely used railnetworks where limited train-paths are available [21].Therefore, infrastructure capacity restrictions must be consid-ered in the development of an optimized SWL productionscheme.

4 Methodology

This study evaluated the current Swiss Split service, devel-oped ideas to improve the service and then tested these ideasusing a cost model. The cost model was used to evaluate both,the feasibility of specific improvements and the optimizationof the entire New Swiss Split production concept. Figure 4shows the methodological approach and the assignment oftasks to project partners.

The authors were responsible for the analysis of the railwayproduction changes that could be achieved by specific im-provements in the four improvement areas:

& Rolling stock& Terminal structure& Swiss Split business model& SBB Cargo SWL production scheme

These railway production data were then entered into a costmodel developed by an external consultant to evaluate thefinancial benefits of the improvements. The next four sectionsdescribe the proposed improvements in each of these fourareas. Section 9 describes how these improvements were in-tegrated into the model and presents the results of the two casestudies.

Fig. 6 Loading schemes for containers on a Swiss Split wagon (ETHZurich)

Fig. 7 Swiss Split wagon with two 20-ft containers and platform (SBB Cargo/PVF Schienenfahrzeuge)

Fig. 8 Swiss Split wagon with inlay elements (Wascosa)

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28 Page 5 of 14 28

5 Improved Swiss Split rolling stock

5.1 Existing Swiss Split rolling stock

Today two general types of rolling stock are used for SwissSplit: standard flat wagons with wooden floors and conven-tional container wagons. Both types include two and four axleversions. The big difference between these vehicle types isthat container wagons have no floor. This means loading andunloading equipment (e.g., forklifts) is unable to operate onthese container wagons. Thus, additional equipment such asmoveable ramps is required to load/unload the containers.Therefore a moveable ramp replaces the missing floor of thecontainer wagons.

More specifically, the following types of wagons are cur-rently being used for Swiss Split:

& Two-axle standard flat wagons with a wooden floor, typeKs;

& Four-axle standard flat wagons with a wooden floor, typesRes and Rs;

& Two-axle container wagons, type Lgns and Lgnss;& Four-axle container wagons, types Sgns and Sgnss.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of wagon types at SwissSplit for the year 2013. As shown, approximately 59 % of theSwiss Split wagons are standard container ones, but about41 % are still old wooden floor flat wagons.

The type of wagon which is used depends on the technicalequipment that is available for the unloading of containers atthe destination sidings. Larger sidings are generally equippedwith specific loading equipment to load and unload the con-tainers. These sidings can be served with container wagons. Onthe other hand, smaller sidings often only have forklifts orindustrial trucks available to unload containers. These vehiclesneed a continuous floor to operate on the wagon. Therefore,these sidings can only be served by conventional flat wagons.

Today, the flat wagons with wooden floors have becomeuneconomical and this is why SBB Cargo would like to de-velop more efficient wagons for Swiss Split. Since containersare fixed by nailed wooden blocks, it is complicated to securethem. So the main idea was to replace the flat wagons by

Fig. 9 Height of the ramps [mmover track height] (Wascosa)

Fig. 10 Vertical distancesbetween track axis and ramp edge[mm] (Wascosa)

28 Page 6 of 14 Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28

modified container wagons. The next section describes thedevelopment of these new wagons.

5.2 Specifications for an improved Swiss Split rolling stock

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

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

& All possible loading schemes with 20- and 40-ft containershad to be covered (Fig. 6).

& The tare of wagons should not increase significantly.& No additional equipment should be required in sidings for

loading/unloading wagons.

As most of the current Swiss Split shipments aretransported on four-axle wagons (89 %) or on conventionalcontainer wagons (4 %) there is only very low demand (7 %)for a new designed two axle wagon. Thus, theNew Swiss Splitwagon was designed only as a four-axle wagon.

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

& Platform Alternative: The platform alternative placed amodular platform on the container wagon to fully coverit. The platform consisted of 20-ft modules, which wereconnectable, so that the modules covered the entire wagonlength. The platform was equipped with corner fittings tofix the containers. The platform could only be removed ina workshop. The height and width of the wagon includingthe platform was approximately the same as of a conven-tional flat wagon. The platform itself rested on top of thecontainer wagon and was slightly wider than the containerwagon itself (Fig. 7).

& Inlay Alternative: The inlay alternative installed inlay el-ements to fill the spaces between the containers on thefloor of the wagon (Figs. 8 and 9). The height and widthof the container wagon remained the same.

One of the main problems when replacing conventional flatwagons with standard container wagons is that containerwagons (width: 2438 mm; height: 1155 mm) are narrowerand lower than flat wagons (width: 2650 mm; height: 1230to 1260 mm). Since the new wagons had to be designed tomeet customers’ needs, the authors visited 18 Swiss Split cus-tomer sidings in Switzerland to measure the ramp height andvertical distance on site. They also studied operations anddiscussed the wagon requirements with company logisticmanagers.

The standards for the design of transhipment facilities rec-ommend a ramp height of 1200 mm over track and a verticaldistance between the track axis and the ramp edge of 1700mm

Fig. 11 Terminal structure and transport flows for combined transport in Switzerland in 2010 (Ickert et al., 2012)

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28 Page 7 of 14 28

[22]. As shown in Fig. 9, most ramps in Switzerland have aheight of approximately 1200 mm. Only very few ramps inSwitzerland are slightly lower or higher.

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

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

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

The on-board intelligence of the wagons will include a GPSlocation module and a data logger, so that the wagons can belocated easily. Due to the exact information about the positionof the wagons, they can be dispatched more easily. Thus,

together with the new integrated business model, the round triptimes of the wagons from nowadays approximately 3 days shallbe reduced to 2 days. Furthermore the mileage counting willfacilitate a mileage-based maintenance of the wagons.

In the next steps additional modules like a surveillance ofthe load status of the wagon, sensors to detect condition of thepayload, weight sensors to measure the axle loads or equip-ment for automatic brake tests will be integrated. This willsupport the goal to reduce the staff required at sidings andregional stations. The loading platform will be equipped witha GPS module, too. Thus, the risk of a loss or theft of theplatforms is reduced by far.

6 The new terminal structure in Switzerland

Intermodal rail freight terminals are widely dispersed inSwitzerland today. The existing terminals are small-to-medium size with a capacity between 30,000 to 50,000 TEUper year, equating 150 to 250 TEU per day [23]. As shown inFig. 11, transport flows are also relatively dispersed.

This terminal structure makes it relatively inefficient totransfer containers from intermodal terminals to theshunting yard. Each terminal uses Swiss split only for afew containers per day so that the trains to the shunting

Fig. 12 Location of the new Gateway Terminal Basel-Nord (ETH Zurich)

28 Page 8 of 14 Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28

yard are quite short. In addition, the distances from thedifferent terminals to the next shunting yard are quitelong—sometimes up to 40 km. That makes the transferof containers within the SWL network quite expensiveand in result the terminals are served only once a day.Due to this inefficient use of container wagons, transporttimes and costs for Swiss Split are increased.

Several studies were carried out that aimed at an opti-misation of terminal structures. Ickert et al. [23] analysedterminals in terms of the present and future demand forcontainer distribution in Switzerland. There are very fewpotential sites for large terminals in Switzerland due to itsstrong land use planning regulations. Therefore an opera-tions research approach to optimise the terminal structurewould have been insufficient. Instead, it is necessary toconduct a qualitative comparison of the few potential ter-minal sites available. Such an analysis was carried out andresults were discussed with the logistics sector in order todefine a common strategy [24].

SBB Cargo’s goal is to improve the terminal struc-ture in Switzerland by introducing one main gateway

terminal, where all containers for Swiss Split can becollected. Therefore a new trimodal (rail – road – inlandwaterway) terminal in Basel with a capacity of up to1,000 TEU per day is planned. This terminal is sup-posed to be served directly from seaports and most ofthe Swiss Split transhipments shall be concentratedthere. But even this new terminal will be operated withconventional transhipment technologies. Up to now anautomation of cranes or terminal vehicles has not beenconsidered. If automation will ever be realized is unpre-dictable. Hence, the assessment of New Swiss Split onlyconsiders improved terminal operations with convention-al transhipment technologies.

Nevertheless, the new terminal will increase the efficiencyof transhipments from long haul shuttle-trains to the SWLwagons by far. If demand increases, more and longertransfer-trains will be operated to serve the shunting-yard.Another advantage is that the distance between terminal andshunting-yard will only be approximately 4 km compared tonowadays up to 40 km. Figure 12 shows the location of thenew Basel gateway terminal and shunting yard.

Empty Container Manager

Manages transport of empty container under contract to maritime shipping company

End Customer

Unloads goods from the container and notifies operator that container is empty

SWL Operator

Moves wagon to end customer under contract to Operator

Terminal Operator (Import/Export Terminal in Switzerland)

Transfers container from international shuttle train to Swiss SWL train and stores container

Traction provider

Moves the shuttle train between terminals

(Railway) Operator

Transports container from international port to import/export terminal in Switzerland on a shuttle train

Terminal Operator (International Port)

Transfers container from ship to rail and stores container (if necessary)

Shipping Company

Transports container between continents, positions the container

Freight Forwarder

Purchases transport from transport operator and organizes transport for end customers

New

Sw

issSp

lit

Fig. 13 Intermodal chain for combined transport in Switzerland (ETH Zurich)

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28 Page 9 of 14 28

7 Improved Swiss Split business model

Intermodal transport chains are complex by nature since theyinclude many actors and many different activities. Figure 13illustrates a typical intermodal transport chain for containersthat arrive at a European seaport and are transported to or fromSwitzerland. New Swiss Split will cover the entire containerdistribution processes in SWL within Switzerland. As can beseen, the movement and storage of empty containers is alsopart of the system. The figure highlights the Swiss Split part ofthe chain.

Due to the terminal operator, the SWL operator and theoperators of the empty container depots are currently differententities, each of them optimizing their own process chainwithout considering the other partners’ process chains.

SBB Cargo has developed a new business model forthe Swiss Split service that integrates all parts of the pro-cess chain into a single product. This means that the entiredistribution process from the hinterland terminal to theend customer including the return of the empty containerto a depot is optimized. In the new model terminal

operations, container movements and container wagonsare dispatched from a single source. This will improveefficiency by, for example, increasing the number ofround trips per week for container wagons used in SwissSplit from one to two or three a week in future.

In summary, optimising the entire Swiss Split process elim-inates inefficiencies in the transport chain and helps to in-crease competitiveness compared to a road distribution ofcontainers.

8 Optimization of SWL production schemes

SBB Cargo plans to improve the feasibility and flexibilityof the entire SWL network in Switzerland. As part ofthese improvements, today’s production scheme of oneovernight service between all sidings needs to be in-creased to a continuous production scheme operating24 h a day. In the future, SBB Cargo will serve sidingsup to three times a day. The assets including mainlinelocomotives and shunting yards will be in continuoususe. This will significantly increase the asset productivityand reduce the use of infrastructure on mainlines in peakperiods for passenger trains since most of the shunting onthe shunting yards will take place then. Figure 14 illus-trates the new production scheme structure.

The authors have tested several additional improvements tothe future production scheme using an agent based simulation[25]. Under the current standard production scheme, for ex-ample, trains only serve one regional shunting station (RCP-Team). In the future, the application of new traction technol-ogies with smaller bi-power locomotives and improved freightwagons with on-board intelligence will allow an efficient in-troduction of a train-coupling-and-sharing production scheme[26]. In this case trains may consist of two parts for two dif-ferent RCP-stations. At an intermediate stop the train parts canbe split easily and each train can continue to its final RCPdestination independently. This is illustrated schematically inFig. 15.

The first simulation results have shown that this productionscheme could significantly reduce train kilometres and wagonkilometres for the overall production of the SWL. Thus, thisoptimization will further improve the overall SWL system.

Fig. 14 New structure of the SBB Cargo production schemes in 2017(SBB Cargo)

RB

A

B

Train 1

Train 2

Current situa�on

Region

Fig. 15 Current and suggested situation for the production schemes (ETH Zurich)

28 Page 10 of 14 Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28

9 New Swiss Split feasibility analysis

9.1 Cost model

The overall feasibility of the improved Swiss Split service wastested using a cost model. The authors developed railway

production data to model the proposed improvements inrolling stock, terminal structure, the Swiss Split business mod-el and SWL production improvements. For example they de-veloped a modal-split model for the container distribution inSwitzerland and assigned container flows to specific termi-nals. The resulting container flows were integrated into the

Table 1 Improvement approaches for Swiss Split and their influence on the generic elements of the transport chain

Weakness of current Swiss Split Improvement approach Influenced element of the transport chain

Unload Transport Transhipment

Very old rolling stock Development of a new Swiss Split-Wagon X X

Widely dispersed terminal structure New gateway terminal X X

Business plan focuses on SWL transport New business model, covering the entire transport chain X X X

SWL production scheme Improved SWL production scheme X

Table 2 Components of the transport cost model

Transport segment Cost component Cost basis Comments

Railway transport

Shunting in the origin anddestination terminal

Locomotive (leasing + maintenance) CHF / operational hour –

Staff (engine driver + shunter) CHF / operational hour Depends on the salary level of staff

Shunting in shunting yards Shunting fee of the infrastructure operator CHF / shunted wagon Only for single wagonload

Main line operation (each segmentsiding -> shunting yard, shuntingyard -> shunting yard, Shuntingyard -> siding)

Locomotive (leasing + maintenance) CHF / day –

Rolling stock (leasing + maintenance CHF / day –

Engine driver CHF / hour

Energy CHF / ton-km Applies only if not included in thetrack access fees

Train access fees CHF / train-km Depends on the train-weight andaccess fee of the infrastructureoperators involved

Road transport

Transportation Truck (leasing) CHF/day –

Truck (maintenance) CHF/km –

Truck Driver CHF/hour Depends on the salary level of staff

Road access fees CHF/km Depends on the country and the road-type

Fuel CHF/litre An optimized fuel strategy was assumed(e.g., buying fuel in countries withlow fuel-taxes)

Tires CHF/km –

Border procedures at the customs(waiting time)

Truck (leasing) CHF/Day The waiting time causes less round tripsper day, applies at the Swiss-Germanand Swiss-French-Border

Driver CHF/hour

Inland waterway transport

Overall costs The overall costs for a container transportwere provided by a container shipper

Transhipment costs in the terminal

Overall costs Calculated by a specific transhipment cost-model,developed by the institute of transport planningand systems. The model includes the investmentsfor the terminal (depreciation and interest), thestaff costs, energy and maintenance.

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28 Page 11 of 14 28

cost model by changing the transport distances between ter-minals and shunting yards and by revising the average trainlength to account for the improved bundling of containerflows. The effects of the business model improvements pro-posed by SBB Cargo were integrated directly into the model(improved efficiency of the wagon usage by shorter round-triptimes, decreasing transhipment costs in hinterland terminals).The improvements from rolling stock, production schemeswere integrated by changing the input data for the railwayproduction processes (e.g., number of wagons per train, trans-port distances, shunting times etc.). The model used a threestep approach to estimate the costs for the transport of onecontainer on its entire trip.

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

Table 1 presents the elements of the transport chan influ-enced by the specific improvements and Table 2 presents thecomponents of the transport cost model used in this research.

The authors defined the basic input data including produc-tion schemes, train formation, the time needed for shuntingetc. The cost rates and calculations were made by hwhConsulting using their transport cost model [27, 28]. The au-thors then used the cost model results to evaluate the costreductions for New Swiss Split compared to today’s Swiss

Split. As a part of this evaluation, the effects of these improve-ments on the break even distance between truck-distributionand rail-distribution were also estimated.

9.2 Analysis results

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

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

& New Swiss Split (new Basel terminal);& Truck via the new Basel terminal;& Existing Swiss Split;& Trucking via existing terminals;

One of them does not include a Shuttle train:

& Direct trucking (from Rotterdam).

The results were used to compare the feasibility of NewSwiss Split to the existing Swiss Split and the distribution bytruck. The analysis examined the entire transport chain fromthe seaport to the recipient in Switzerland.

The round trip transport costs of an average maritime con-tainer (1.5 TEU, 16 t) from Rotterdam to two example desti-nations: Lausen (approximately 30 km from Basel) and Orbe(approximately 200 km from Basel) were considered. The

Fig. 16 Transport costs percontainer from Rotterdam toLausen (ETH Zurich)

Fig. 17 Transport costs percontainer from Rotterdam to Orbe(ETH Zurich)

28 Page 12 of 14 Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28

analysis was completed using a transport cost model devel-oped by hwh Consulting. Figures 16 and 17 present the resultsof the cost analysis.

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

1. The cost level for train operation in general and especiallythe salaries in Switzerland are at least twice as high as inother European countries like Germany or theNetherlands

2. The operation of the shuttle train is quite efficient as itis a full train loaded with 80 TEUs and doesn’t needany shunting processes between Rotterdam and Basel.The SWL transport includes the transfer of the wagonfrom the hinterland terminal to the shunting yard, theshunting process within the shunting yard, the trainfrom the shunting yard to the regional shunting point,the shunting at the regional shunting point and thedistribution and delivery of the wagons to the finalrecipients’ sidings. Here the trains are comparablyshort (10 to 30 wagons) and the sidings are servedindividually wagon by wagon.

The authors also calculated the break even distance be-tween Swiss Split and truck distribution by interpolating theresults for the Lausen and Orbe case studies. The break evendistance was found to decrease from 140 to 70 km (Fig. 18).

As shown in Fig. 18, even for quite short distances like Lausen(30 km), the improved Swiss Split becomes quite competitiveto truck distribution.

10 Conclusions and recommendations for furtherresearch

The evaluated results show that the New Swiss Split conceptwould lead to a significant improvement in the overall feasi-bility of container distribution by SWL in Switzerland. Theresults show that using SWL for the final distribution is com-petitive even if it includes trucking between the transhipmentterminal and the final recipient for relatively short distances ofabout 70 km.

The next step would be to apply the planned improve-ments. The new container wagons are now being tested inoperation to determine if further adaptions are required tomeet customers’ expectations. SBB Cargo will introduce thenew production scheme for SWL in 2017. The new terminalBasel-Nord and the new business model will be introduced inthe following years. In summary, with the implementation ofthese improvements, the (New) Swiss Split will remain com-petitive and will support the basic utilization of the SWLnetwork.

Additional research especially regarding the further devel-opment of SWL production using optimization algorithms,which take capacity restrictions within densely operated rail-way networks like Switzerland into account is needed.

Fig. 18 Break even distance between Swiss Split and truck distribution (ETH Zurich)

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28 Page 13 of 14 28

Acknowledgments The further development of New Swiss Split is partof the Viable Single Wagonload (ViWaS) project and is co-financed bythe European Commission within the 7th framework programme.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons At t r ibut ion 4 .0 In te rna t ional License (h t tp : / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to theCreative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

1. Mancera A, Bruckmann D, Weidmann U (2015) A holistic ap-proach to measure quality of service in freight transport networks.In: Clausen U, Friedrich H, Thaller C, Geider C (eds) Commercialtransport, Proceedings of the 2nd interdisciplinary conference onproduction, logistics and traffic, Springer International Publishing,p 287–302

2. Bruckmann D, Fumasoli T, Galonske N, Weidmann U (2013)ViWaS-viable single wagonload production schemes, 10th worldcongress on railway research, paper-ID 565, Sydney

3. Bruckmann D, Dober P, Fumasoli T, Mancera A, Saabel I,Weidmann U (2014) Mit dem Container bis ins Anschlussgleis –Der neue SwissSplit-Wagen. Eisenbahntechnische Rundschau63(9):169–173

4 . König R, Hech t M (2012) Weissbuch Innova t ive rEisenbahngüterwagen 2030, Die Zukunftsinitiative B5L^ alsGrundlage für Wachstum im Schienengüterverkehr, Availablefrom: https://www.schienenfzg.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg62/Dokumen t e /Down lo ad s /We i s s b u ch_ I nnov a t i v e r _Eisenbahngueterwagen_2030.pdf

5. Eschweiler P, Hecht M (2013) Einfluss des Wagens auf denMarktantei l des Schienengüterverkehrs - WeissbuchEisenbahngüterwagen 2030; Jahrbuch Logistik 2013. Verlag: freeberatung Gesellschaft für Kommunikation im Marketing mbH.Unit Logistik, p 24–27

6. Notteboom T (2008) Bundling of freight flows and hinterland net-work developments. In: Konings R, Priemus H, Nijkamp P (eds)The future of intermodal freight transport, operations, design andpolicy. Edwar Elgar, Cheltenham

7. Rutten B (1998) The design of a terminal network for intermodaltransport. Transp Logist 1(4):279–298

8. Arnold P, Peeters D, Isabelle T (2004) Modelling a rail/road inter-modal transportation system. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev40(3):255–270

9. Holweg M, Disney S, Holmström J, Smaros J (2005) Supply chaincollaboration: making sense of the strategy continuum. Eur ManagJ 23(2):170–181

10. Stank TP, Goldsby TJ (2000) A framework for transportation deci-sion making in an integrated supply chain. Supply ChainManag IntJ 5(2):71–78

11. Bock S (2010) Real-time control of freight forwarder transportationnetworks by integrating multimodal transport chains. Eur J OperRes 200(3):733–746

12. Krajewska MA, Kopfer H (2006) Collaborating freight forwardingenterprises, request allocation and profit sharing. OR Spectrum28(3):301–317

13. Saeed N (2013) Cooperation among freight forwarders: mode choiceand intermodal freight transport. Res Transp Econ 42(1):77–86

14. Moll S (2012) Productivity improvements for freight railwaysthrough collaborative transport planning, Dissertation,Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule ETH Zürich, No. 20610

15. Wittenbrink P, Hagenlocher S, Heizmann B (2013) Neue Formeneiner Organisation des Einzelwagenverkehrs. Zeitschrift fürVerkehrswissenschaft 94(1):24–49

16. IslamDMZ (2014) Barriers to and enablers for European rail freighttransport for integrated door-to-door logistics services, part 2: en-ablers for multimodal rail freight transport. Transport Probl 9(4):5–13

17. Marin A, Salmeron J (1996) Tactical design of rail freight network.Part I: exact and heuristic methods. Eur J Oper Res 90(1):26–44

18. Marin A, Salmeron J (1996) Tactical design of rail freight network.Part II: local search methods with statistical analysis. Eur J OperRes 94(1):43–53

19. Ceselli A, Gatto M, Lübbecke ME, Nunkesser M, Schilling H(2008) Optimizing the cargo express network of Swiss federal rail-ways. Transp Sci 42(4):450–465

20. Bruckmann D (2007) Entwicklung einerMethode zur Abschätzungdes containerisierbaren Aufkommens im Einzelwagenverkehr undOptimierung der Produktionsstruktur, phD-Thesis, Schriftenreihedes Instituts für Verkehrswesen und Verkehrsbau der UniversitätDuisburg-Essen, 5

21. Ickert L, Maibach M, Bertschmann D, Eichler M, Balmer C,Bruckmann D, Frank P (2012) Marktanalyse und MarktprognoseSchienengüterverkehr, Bern, available from website: http://www.voev. ch / de /Se rv i c e /Down loads i ndex . php? s ec t i on=downloads&download=2719

22. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (1992) Transloading installations withindustrial trucks for general cargo, VDI 2360, May 1992, Availablefrom: Beuth Verlag, Berlin

23. Ickert L, Maibach M, Bieler C, Bruckmann D, Fumasoli T (2012)Grossterminalstudie, Beurteilung der Terminalprojekte GatewayLimmattal und Basel-Nord, Schlussbericht, Bern, available fromwebsite: http://www.voev.ch/de/Service/Downloadsindex.php?section=downloads&download=2719

24. Erwin Rutishauser Management Support (2014) MediationWeiterentwicklung Terminallandschaft, Schlussbericht,Bundesamt für Verkehr

25. Bruckmann D, Jackson CE, Ballmer M, Weidmann U (2014)Optimization of SWL production schemes using an agent basedsimulation, EURO – ZEL 2014, 22nd International Symposium,Žilina

26. Bruckmann D, Fumasoli T (2012) Prozessorientierte Ansätze füreine qualitative Nutzenermittlung von Innovationen imSchienengüterverkehr, III. Internationales FachsymposiumModerner Schienengüterverkehr und Intermodaler Verkehr 2012,Berlin

27. Wittenbrink P (2011) Transportkostenmanagement imStrassengüterverkehr, Grundlagen – Optimierungspotenziale –Green Logistics. Gabler-Verlag, Wiesbaden

28. Wittenbrink P, Hagenlocher S, Heizmann B (2012) Kalkulation vonSchienengüterverkehrsleistungen. Prima 2012(3):30–31

28 Page 14 of 14 Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2016) 8: 28