- Email: [email protected]
Effects of rail network enhancement on port hinterland container activity: a United Kingdom case study
Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo
Effects of rail network enhancement on port hinterland container activity: a United Kingdom case study Allan Woodburn ⇑ Planning & Transport Department, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Intermodal transport Rail freight Port hinterland connections Rail network enhancement Transport efficiency
a b s t r a c t Transport infrastructure investment is an important element in the creation of an efficient and sustainable transport sector. Intermodal flows are seen as critical to rail freight’s future success and feature strongly in contemporary transport policy. This paper investigates a practical rail network enhancement scheme from the United Kingdom (UK) designed to achieve a shift of containers from road to rail. The paper’s aim is to determine the effects on rail freight efficiency of a loading gauge increase in April 2011 which allowed 90 600 high containers to be transported on standard wagons on the corridor from the port of Southampton to the West Midlands. The study is based on a ‘‘before and after’’ survey of container train capacity provision and load factors, with the ‘‘before’’ survey taking place in 2007 and the ‘‘after’’ survey in 2012. A consistent approach to data collection in both surveys allows detailed analysis of original survey data to be carried out. It is clear that there have been considerable improvements in both on-train capacity and train loads between 2007 and 2012, and that these improvements have been greatest on routes that have benefited from the gauge enhancement. Rail’s mode share of container throughput at Southampton has increased. There have also been wider benefits to off-corridor locations served from Southampton and elsewhere across the network. Overall, the impacts on rail freight efficiency of the gauge enhancement have been substantial, with efficiency improvements evident even at a time of economic stagnation. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Transport infrastructure investment plays an important role in determining both the efficiency and sustainability of freight transport activity. Within the European Union, contemporary transport policies promote the co-modality concept, based on ‘‘optimally combining various modes of transport within the same transport chain’’ (European Commission, 2006, 3). The 2011 Transport White Paper (European Commission, 2011) sets out a target for 30% of freight moving over 300 km by road to transfer to other modes (e.g. rail or waterborne transport) by 2030, and for more than 50% transfer by 2050. The British government has emphasised the importance of rail freight in meeting the country’s economic and environmental objectives, and in particular has targeted investment in the Strategic Freight Network (DfT, 2009). The rail industry plans to improve freight capability and performance over the next 25 years, which is expected to help to increase rail’s share of the surface freight market from 11.5% to 20% (Network Rail et al., 2010).
⇑ Tel.: +44 (0)20 350 66558. E-mail address: [email protected] 0966-6923/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.10.010
The European Commission (2011, 9) makes clear that, to meet its freight transport targets, investment in infrastructure will be needed to create ‘‘efficient and green freight corridors’’. This paper investigates a practical example from the United Kingdom (UK) of a rail network enhancement measure designed to achieve a shift from road to rail of medium- to long-distance freight (in European terms). Based largely on the analysis of original surveys of container train services, the overall aim of the paper is to determine the effects on rail freight efficiency of an increase in April 2011 to W10 loading gauge on the corridor from the port of Southampton to the West Midlands. This gauge increase is more fully explained in Section 4, but essentially allows 90 600 high (i.e. high cube) containers to be carried on standard rail wagons. Intermodal flows are seen as critical to rail freight’s future success and feature strongly in contemporary transport policy (Network Rail, 2007; DfT, 2011), and the industry’s forecasts suggest that such flows between ports and their hinterland areas (and vice versa) will increase more than fourfold, when measured in tonne kilometres, between 2006 and 2030 to clearly become the leading commodity grouping for rail freight (Network Rail et al., 2010). Given this market potential, it is vital to better understand the impacts of network improvements such as loading gauge enhancement. While the study is of particular relevance to the UK, given the typically greater loading gauge constraints than in many other countries, similar
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
rail freight efficiency issues may exist elsewhere. For example, the research approach and findings may be relevant to loading gauge enhancement to carry semi-trailers, full road vehicles (e.g. rolling motorway) or double-stacked containers in other countries, or in the future to carry larger intermodal units should they become more commonplace. Section 2 provides a review of the key literature relating to the research topic. This is followed in Sections 3 and 4 respectively by an explanation of the research methods developed to satisfy the paper’s aim and specific research questions, and the detailed context for the study. Section 5 presents the results and discusses the findings with reference to the research questions, and the paper finishes by highlighting the conclusions of the study. 2. Literature review Transport infrastructure has been recognised as an important influence on economic growth and on societal and environmental impacts. The UK government’s National Infrastructure Plan states that ‘‘transport infrastructure can play a vital role in driving economic growth by improving the links that help to move goods and people around and by supporting the balanced, dynamic and low-carbon economy that is essential for future prosperity’’ (HM Treasury, 2011, 31). The particular importance of ports as gateways for international trade is identified, with a need to improve the rail network to cater for future growth in containerised traffic. Specific consideration of the impacts of rail freight network enhancements is generally lacking, but there is discussion in the literature of the broader economic, social and environmental impacts of rail infrastructure projects. Resulting from an historical analysis, Lakshmanan (2011) argues for an improved understanding of the transporteconomy linkages resulting from infrastructure investment. For rail, attention has been focused on the impacts of new high speed rail infrastructure, though there are difficulties in accurately measuring the indirect impacts. In the UK, for example, Preston (2012) identifies passenger travel time savings as critical to the proposed HS2 (High Speed 2) line’s BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio), with less clarity on the extent of the wider impacts. In their assessment of nontransport benefits from rail investment, Banister and ThurstainGoodwin (2011) discuss the importance of issues such as regional network effects and land and property market effects, but highlight that traditional evaluation methods have generally not successfully accounted for such impacts. While their findings were based on passenger rail investment, evidence of measuring the broader impacts of freight-related rail investments is missing from the literature base. Increasing attention has been devoted to the challenges of moving intermodal units between ports and their hinterlands. Woxenius and Bergqvist (2011) highlight the major role that rail often plays in the movement of containers and identify a large range of studies from around the world that have examined this market. From a public policy perspective, a number of studies have examined the competitiveness of intermodal rail against road-only transport, generally focusing on cost-competiveness and environmental and organisational issues (e.g. Ricci and Black, 2005; Janic, 2007; Tsamboulas et al., 2007; Frémont and Franc, 2010). Transport infrastructure characteristics and capabilities have been identified as important factors in determining port hinterland transport efficiency (UNECE, 2010), and there is a growing research field based on the ‘dry port’ concept (e.g. Rodrigue, 2008; Roso et al., 2009; Wilmsmeier et al., 2011; Rodrigue and Notteboon, 2012). These studies tend to focus on organisational issues relating to the operation of container train shuttles between container ports and inland terminals, with detailed assessment of rail infrastructure issues generally limited to the terminals themselves. Witte et al. (2012) emphasise that bottlenecks in inter-
163
modal transport can relate to physical infrastructure constraints, but that a wide range of other factors (e.g. organisational, political, financial or institutional) can create bottlenecks and hinder the development of intermodal services. In previous research (Woodburn, 2011), it was noted that few studies have explicitly considered on-train capacity and load factors for intermodal freight trains. Academic literature has tended to focus on the modelling of intermodal terminal and train service operations, usually making assumptions about on-train capacities and load factors (e.g. Macharis and Bontekoning, 2004; Corry and Kozan, 2006; Wiegmans et al., 2007). Marinov and Viegas (2011) make a distinction between improvised rail freight operations, where trains operate as and when they are sufficiently well loaded, and structured (scheduled) operations, where trains run to a set timetable. In heavily utilised rail networks, such as in the UK, the latter dominates, particularly for intermodal services, so this places greater importance on on-train capacity utilisation. The optimisation of container train load planning was addressed in Bruns and Knust (2012), but from the specific perspective of allocating loads to wagons to minimise terminal handling cost. Kim and van Wee (2011) assess the sensitivities of various factors to the break-even distance for intermodal freight, but on-train capacity and load factors are not directly considered. Janic (2008) explicitly discussed these variables when modelling the impacts of long intermodal freight trains (LIFTs), comparing different train capacities but assuming a constant load factor. Trip and Bontekoning (2002) looked at the theoretical potential to bundle small volume flows to make up viable intermodal train operation, directly considering on-train capacity and, to a lesser extent, train loadings. Practical corridor-specific studies (such as those in IRIS, 2001; HPUK et al., 2004) have dealt with container train capacities and load factors, but no examples have been found in the published literature of a detailed examination of the actual impacts of a rail network infrastructure enhancement on on-train capacity, load factors and train loads. Studies that have analysed data on rail freight efficiency have tended to use macro-indicators based, for example, on average unit revenue or average energy efficiency (Laird, 1998), perhaps due to the challenges of detailed data collection.
3. Research methods To satisfy the research aim set out earlier, this study is based on a ‘‘before and after’’ survey of container train capacity provision and utilisation. The ‘‘before’’ survey took place in 2007 and, given the lack of detailed published information, included all four key rail-served container ports (i.e. Felixstowe, Southampton, Tilbury and Thamesport); full details of the 2007 survey methodology and results can be found in Woodburn (2011). The ‘‘after’’ survey was conducted in 2012 and focused mainly on Southampton so as to allow investigation of the impacts of the gauge enhancement. Thamesport was included as a comparator port where no gauge enhancement had taken place. The ‘‘after’’ survey took place more than one year after implementation of the increased loading gauge to Southampton, thus allowing time for the rail freight providers to adjust their service provision to reflect the new opportunities provided. The sampling method was the same for both survey periods, with the sampling framework designed so that the equivalent of 1 week’s service provision was recorded on video. For each train service observation, details of the number and type of wagons and the number and type of containers were collected. Container train timetables are very consistent on a week-to-week basis, and the sampling method ensured exact representation by port-inland terminal combination, direction of flow and rail freight operating company, and close to precise representation by day of week. The survey period in 2007 was slightly longer than in 2012. In
164
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
Table 1 Southampton weekly container train service provision (combined two-way totals). Source: author’s survey. Southampton to/from
2007
2012
Birch Coppice Cardiff Coatbridge Crewe Daventry Ditton Garston Hams Hall Lawley Street Leeds Trafford Park Wakefield
20 10 10 9 10 20 10 20 20 32 50 20
20 18 0 11 10 5 10 10 20 28 45 10
Total % W10 gauge
231 0
187 70
W10 gauge in 2012 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
2012, all surveys took place in the period from May to July, while in 2007 87% of observations were sampled within those same months. Table 1 shows the composition of the sample in each of the survey periods. The total number of services per week declined from 231 to 187 but the range of terminals served remained almost static. Coatbridge received no direct services in 2012 but, due to less-than-trainload volumes, it was still served by a portion attached/detached from another service at Crewe. Two rail freight operators (Freightliner and EWS/DB Schenker) operated the container trains in both 2007 and 2012. Given that the service provision in both periods was broadly similar, all services in both surveys have been included in the analysis. In combination with this consistent approach to data collection in both surveys, indepth analysis of changes between the two time periods can be carried out. Table 1 also shows the services able to benefit from the gauge enhancement, with only those to/from Cardiff, Leeds and Wakefield not operating over W10 gauge routes in 2012. The following research questions (RQs) form the focus of this study, answers to which will address the study aim outlined earlier. The questions reflect the impact of the rail gauge enhancement on the corridor from the port of Southampton to the West Midlands: RQ1: Did the average capacity per container train (measured in TEU1) to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ2: Did the average number of TEU carried per container train to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ3: If increases are found in the analysis of RQ1 and/or RQ2, are the rates of increase greater on services operating on W10 gauge routes in 2012? These research questions are based on the prospect that, for the services affected, the gauge enhancement has led to an increase in carrying capacity (i.e. RQ1) as a consequence of the ability to use standard wagons and an increase in average train load (i.e. RQ2) since it is now easier to carry the increasingly common 90 600 high containers. These operational benefits are limited to the gauge cleared services, thus the expectation that there has been a greater rate of improvement for them than for the remaining non-W10 gauge services (i.e. RQ3). For consistency, and because it provides the most appropriate measure of capacity provision and utilisation, the discussion and analysis in this paper is based on the TEU unit of measurement. Prior to considering the survey results and analysis, the next section provides the detailed context for the study.
1 A TEU is a 20-foot equivalent unit, meaning a standard 40 foot container is two TEU.
4. Detailed study context This section deals first with port trends that have an influence on the study. Next, the relevant rail freight trends are set out and finally the importance of W10 loading gauge for the port of Southampton is established. According to official statistics (DfT, 2012 and earlier years), while container volumes through UK ports had increased dramatically in recent decades, the economic downturn in 2008 resulted in a 17% drop in container traffic (measured in TEU) between 2007 and 2009. Since 2009, there has been some recovery, but the total throughput in 2011 remained 8% below that in 2007. The decline at Southampton was almost double the national rate, with 15% fewer TEU passing through the port in 2011 than in 2007 (DfT, 2012 and earlier years). Despite the general reduction in port container throughput since 2007, the ‘domestic intermodal’ rail freight category has seen volumes increase in every year from 2002–2003 to 2011–2012 and has increased its share of rail freight moved from 18% to 30% over the same period (ORR, 2012). While these statistics also include pure domestic intermodal flows, they comprise a very small component of the total volume in this category and it is clear that there has been a large increase in port container traffic by rail in recent years (Woodburn, 2012). As a consequence, rail’s share of the inland movement of containers to/from ports has been increasing. This is clearly an important market for rail freight, and one which is worthy of more detailed investigation to gain a better understanding of the reasons for the increasing volumes and market share. From the published literature relating specifically to the port of Southampton, it is evident that there have been considerable changes to container train operations in the period from 2007 to 2012. The key changes have been as follows (Freightliner, 2012; Network Rail, 2011a): Loading gauge enhancement between Southampton and the West Midlands. 30-wagon container train trials, giving a train length of approximately 640 m. New cranes at Freightliner’s Southampton Maritime terminal, providing greater handling capacity and faster transfer. It should be noted that the new cranes had not yet been installed at the time of the 2012 survey. According to DP World Southampton (2011), the loading gauge enhancement had a quick impact on volumes, with rail’s share of port throughput increasing ‘‘from 30% to 36% in less than 4 months’’. No detailed information on this change has been published, hence this paper’s focus on developing a better understanding of the impacts of the gauge enhancement. As stated by Network Rail (2011b), when considering the movement of containers it is necessary to take account of the combination of rail wagon and container dimensions. W10 gauge is of particular significance, since it ‘‘defines an 18.3 metre long ISO 9’ 6’’ high x 2,500 mm wide load on wagons with. . .deck heights of up to 945 mm’’ (RSSB, 2008, p. 14). In essence, this allows the carriage of 90 600 high containers on standard rail wagons, which has become a critical issue for the British rail freight industry as a consequence of the rapid growth in the use of these containers in global maritime trade. At Southampton, the proportion of 90 600 high containers rose from 30% of total container throughput in 2006 to 39% in 2009, with further growth anticipated (DP World Southampton, 2010). Furthermore, while 29% of standard (i.e. 80 600 ) height 400 long containers moved by rail in 2010, only 19% of 90 600 high 400 long containers were transported by rail (DP World Southampton, 2010). The gauge enhancement scheme was a response to the increasing challenge for rail to even maintain its mode share at the port of Southampton, given the inefficiencies
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
Low floor wagon carrying 9’ 6” high container
Pocket wagon carrying 9’ 6” high container
165
Standard height wagon carrying 8’ 6” high containers
Fig. 1. Before (upper photograph) and after (lower photograph) gauge enhancement. Source: author’s collection.
associated with having to use specialist pocket or low floor wagons to move the 90 600 high containers. In Fig. 1, the top photograph illustrates the rolling stock solution that allows 90 600 high containers to be carried on non-W10 gauge cleared routes, with a combination of low floor and pocket wagons which allow the container to sit lower than on a standard wagon. The lower photograph shows a mix of 80 600 and 90 600 high containers being carried on standard wagons on a service operating on a W10 gauge route. Fig. 2 shows the newly gauge enhanced route from Southampton to the West Midlands, with separate connections to Birmingham and the already gauge enhanced West Coast Main Line (WCML) at the northern end. The locations referred to in Table 1 are shown on the map, which makes clear that the majority of locations served to/from Southampton are now linked by a W10 route.
5. Results and discussion This section starts with the results which allow the first two research questions to be answered. Next, the differences in the 2012 survey between the W10 gauge and non-W10 gauge services are considered, providing the necessary evidence to address the third research question. The section concludes with a discussion of the results in the context of the research question analysis and the broader implications of the findings. Table 2 shows the findings relating to the key measures of capacity provision and utilisation in the two survey periods, with averages for train capacity, load factor and train load. This reveals a 28% increase in the average number of TEU carried between 2007 and 2012, resulting from a combination of an increase in the average capacity per train (up 19%) and a higher load factor (up 9%).
Grossing up the survey results to annual TEU by rail totals, assuming 50 weeks’ service provision per annum, reveals an increase from an estimated 446,000 TEU in 2007 to 461,000 TEU in 2012. This represents an increase in rail’s mode share from 24% in 2007 to 29% in 2012, using 2011 port throughput statistics as the base for the 2012 calculation as these are the most up-to-date available at the time of writing. It is assumed that the rail shares quoted by DP World Southampton (referred to in Section 3) are in number of containers rather than TEU, hence the differences. The survey evidence supports the quoted increase in rail’s mode share, and a slightly greater number of TEU is now being carried in 19% fewer trains, implying a considerable improvement in efficiency despite the lower container throughput through the port. By contrast, an equivalent before and after survey of service provision at Thamesport, where there has been no gauge enhancement, shows a reduction in rail’s mode share from an estimated 18% to 15% between 2007 and 2012. Trends in the key measures for those routes that are and are not now cleared to W10 gauge are now compared. It is evident that the improvements in both average on-train capacity and average train load have been considerably greater for the routes that are now gauge enhanced (see Table 3). As Table 2 showed, a typical Southampton container train in 2007 had a capacity of just under 58 TEU and a load of almost 39 TEU, giving a two-thirds load factor. By 2012, the non-W10 gauge services still had an average on-train capacity of less than 60 TEU, with the capacity on this subset of routes having increased by just 6% since 2007. By contrast, the on-train capacity of the services on W10 routes had increased by 25% to more than 73 TEU per train. From a position in 2007 where there was little difference between the two subsets of routes, a typical W10 gauge service now has almost 25% more capacity than
166
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
Southampton to West Midlands route enhanced to W10 gauge in April 2011
Fig. 2. British W10 ‘‘high gauge’’ rail network as of April 2011. Source: provided by Network Rail.
one on a non-W10 route. In 2007, load factors on the routes that remain non-W10 gauge cleared were slightly above the average, and have increased at a faster than average rate so that, in 2012, the non-W10 gauge services had an average load factor 12 percent-
age points higher than for services on the W10 routes. This may be a direct consequence of the lower average on-train capacity, since a higher load factor will be required to ensure that the fixed operating costs are covered – a low capacity train with a poor load factor
167
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169 Table 2 On-train capacity provision and load factors for Southampton container trains, 2007 and 2012. Source: author’s survey (n = 231 in 2007; n = 187 in 2012).
Average capacity per train (TEU) Average load factor (%) Average train load (TEU)
2007 survey
2012 survey
% Change 2007– 2012
57.93
69.08
19
66.73 38.64
72.74 49.34
9 28
is unlikely to be profitable. The critical measure, when considering overall train and network operating efficiency is the average train load, since this is a reflection of the extent to which a notional train path through the network is being utilised. It can be seen that the average train load on W10 gauge routes has increased much faster than on the non-W10 routes, albeit from a lower point in 2007. At 50 TEU per train in 2012, the W10 gauge services typically carried two more TEU than services on the non-W10 routes. A direct before and after comparison of the three routes that remain non-W10 gauge cleared in 2012 (i.e. to/from Cardiff, Leeds and Wakefield) reveals that the percentage of on-train capacity able to carry 90 600 high containers has increased from an average of 43% of TEU capacity in 2007 to 70% in 2012. This increase has been made possible by the redeployment of low floor and pocket wagons from services that no longer require them, providing secondary benefits to the few remaining non-cleared W10 routes from Southampton. Analysis of the equivalent Thamesport before and after survey shows that the on-train capacity able to cater for 90 600 high containers has increased from 20% to 37%, This suggests that the benefits have extended to other non-W10 gauge cleared routes across the British rail network, with more of the specialist wagons focused on those routes that remain unable to carry 90 600 high containers on standard wagons. Weighing up the evidence from the before and after surveys, Table 4 summarises the outcome of the analysis dealing with the research questions. Overall, it is clear that there have been considerable improvements in both on-train capacity and train loads between 2007 and 2012. It has also been shown that the gauge enhancement has had a direct impact on the services now able to carry 90 600 high containers on standard wagons, with the rate of increase in average on-train capacity being more than four times greater (at 25%) for W10 routes than the other routes, where the capacity increase was just 6%. The average train load on W10 ser-
vices increased at almost 2.5 times the rate for non-W10 services. The improvement rate for both measures has therefore been far greater on W10 services. It is perhaps surprising that there is very little difference in the absolute number of TEU carried per train on the two subsets of routes, as a result of the higher (and more improved) load factors for the non-W10 services. This may be a reflection of the overall decline in container throughput at the port of Southampton, which makes the task of aggregating larger train load volumes more challenging. Should port container throughput regain its longer-term upward trend and/or should rail achieve further gains in mode share, there is substantial potential for W10 services to carry greater volumes without the need to provide additional capacity and with no constraints on the height of containers that can be carried. By contrast, the non-W10 services have less spare capacity and have considerable constraints on the ways in which that capacity can be utilised due to the need for specialist wagons for 90 600 high containers. Indeed, the 2012 survey found that 88% of available low floor and pocket wagon capacity on non-W10 routes was utilised, compared to just 63% of standard wagon capacity being used. Not all of the containers using the specialist wagons were 90 600 high, but it is clear that there is less flexibility in the utilisation of space on the non-W10 services. With the fairly fixed supply of specialist wagons, particularly for Freightliner services, it seems unlikely that the improvements on the non-W10 routes would have been possible without the redeployment of such wagons from the other routes. It should also be noted that there has been a fundamental difference in the responses of the two rail freight operators to the gauge enhancement. While Freightliner has almost entirely eliminated the use of specialist wagons on services operating wholly on W10 gauge routes, DB Schenker still makes considerable use of low floor wagons on such routes, partly due to its far smaller pool of available standard wagons but also because it tends to interwork wagons between services on W10 and non-W10 routes. Due to its Wakefield service, DB Schenker is not yet maximising the benefits of the W10 gauge for services to its destinations on W10 routes (i.e. Birch Coppice, Hams Hall and Trafford Park). With the ongoing development of the Strategic Freight Network, by March 2014 the services to/from Leeds and Wakefield will benefit from a W10 route (Network Rail, 2012), with the Cardiff route expected to be gauge enhanced in the second half of the 2014–2019 period in conjunction with the electrification of the Great Western Main Line (Network Rail, 2011c). As the newly gauge enhanced routes come on stream, there should be further
Table 3 On-train capacity provision and load factors for Southampton container trains, by loading gauge, 2007 and 2012. Source: author’s survey (n = 231 in 2007; n = 187 in 2012) (N.B. routes are classified dependent on their loading gauge at the time of the 2012 survey). W10 gauge routes
Average capacity per train (TEU) Load factor (%) Average train load (TEU)
Non-W10 gauge routes
2007
2012
% Change
2007
2012
% Change
58.49 64.67 37.63
73.28 69.01 50.04
25 7 33
56.21 73.01 41.74
59.49 81.25 47.75
6 11 14
Table 4 Summary of research question findings. Research question (RQ)
Outcome
RQ1: Did the average capacity per container train (measured in TEU) to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ2: Did the average number of TEU carried per container train to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ3: If increases are found in the analysis of RQ1 and/or RQ2, are the rates of increase greater on services operating on W10 gauge routes in 2012?
Yes – 19% increase Yes – 28% increase Yes – far greater increase in both measures on W10 routes
168
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
opportunities to redeploy the specialist wagons, for example from Freightliner’s Leeds services to its Cardiff ones, for transfer to other ports (notably Thamesport, for which no gauge enhancement is currently planned) or for the development of new routes at Southampton or other ports. In addition, once all of DB Schenker’s services are on W10 routes, that operator may reconsider the composition of its fleet and opt for more standard wagons that are more space efficient.
6. Conclusions This paper has used a large scale ‘‘before and after survey’’ of on-train capacity, load factors and train loads to examine the impacts of the implementation in 2011 of the W10 gauge enhancement on the Southampton to West Midlands corridor, which allowed more than two-thirds of services to carry 90 600 high containers on standard wagons. Through the collection of original data in a consistent form across the two survey periods, considerable insight has been gained into the impacts, and these have been found to be substantial. There have been improvements in all three key measures, notably a 28% increase in the average number of TEU carried per train. The estimates of annual rail volumes suggest that there has been a slight increase in TEU carried by rail despite a 19% drop in the number of services operated, with rail’s share of port TEU throughput increasing from 24% in 2007 to 29% in 2012. By focusing on the changes for the services that now operate over W10 routes, it is evident that the overall improvement in train loads has been greater on these routes than on those that are still not cleared to W10 gauge. Further research would be worthwhile, to identify any longer-term responses to and trends in the key measures, and to identify whether the benefits become greater as yet more of the routes achieve gauge enhanced status and the need for specialist wagons lessens further. From the analysis in this paper, though it is clear that the improvements on one core corridor have directly benefited the services using that corridor, there have also been wider benefits to off-corridor locations served from Southampton (e.g. with the cascade of specialist wagons to Leeds and Cardiff services) and elsewhere across the network, evidenced by the increased capability for handling 90 600 high wagons on services from Thamesport. The impacts on rail freight efficiency of the gauge enhancement have been substantial, with considerable efficiency improvements evident even at a time of economic stagnation. While rolling stock solutions had allowed rail to cater for some 90 600 high container traffic at Southampton, the enhancement to the physical network has had a major and immediate effect and provides greater flexibility for future rail service provision. This study has specific relevance to the UK, but the approach taken to investigating the effects of rail network enhancements on rail freight efficiency issues may be appropriate elsewhere. Depending on the situation, there may be scope to investigate loading gauge enhancements to carry semi-trailers, full road vehicles (e.g. rolling motorway) or double-stacked containers. In undertaking similar studies elsewhere, it is important to attempt to capture the wider network benefits as well as the direct ones on the route under investigation. References Banister, D., Thurstain-Goodwin, M., 2011. Quantification of the non-transport benefits resulting from rail investment. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011), 212–223. Bruns, F., Knust, S., 2012. Optimized load planning of trains in intermodal transportation. OR Spectrum 34 (2012), 511–533. Corry, P., Kozan, E., 2006. An assignment model for dynamic load planning of intermodal trains. Computers and Operations Research 33, 1–17.
DfT, 2009. Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision. Department for Transport (DfT), London. DfT, 2011. Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy Guidance. Department for Transport (DfT), London. DfT, 2012. Port Freight Statistics. Department for Transport (DfT), London. DP World Southampton, 2010. Rail Gauge Clearance Project. Letter to all DP World Southampton Customers, 6 October. Southampton: DP World Southampton. (accessed 27.12.12). DP World Southampton, 2011. Rail Traffic and Productivity Soars at DP World Southampton. Press Release, 3 August. Southampton: DP World Southampton. (accessed 27.12.12). European Commission, 2006. Keep Europe Moving: Sustainable Mobility for Our Continent. Mid-term Review of the European Commission’s 2001 Transport White Paper. European Commission, Luxembourg. European Commission, 2011. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. White Paper, COM (2011) 144 Final. European Commission, Brussels. Freightliner, 2012. New Cranes to Boost Lift Capacity in Southampton for Freightliner. Press Release, 20 June. Freightliner Group Ltd., London. (accessed 27.12.12). Frémont, A., Franc, P., 2010. Hinterland transportation in Europe: combined transport versus road transport. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010), 548–556. HPUK, SRA, SCC and SCDC, 2004. Statement of Common Ground on the Topic of Rail Transport. Felixstowe South Reconfiguration Inquiry. Hutchison Ports (UK) ltd (HPUK), Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), Suffolk County Council (SCC) and Suffolk Coastal District Council (SDCC). IRIS, 2001. Innovative Rail Intermodal Services. Final Report, European Commission 4th Framework Project. Janic, M., 2007. Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport network. Transportation Research Part D 12 (2007), 33–44. Janic, M., 2008. An assessment of the performance of the European long intermodal freight trains (LIFTs). Transportation Research Part A 42 (2008), 1326–1339. Kim, N.S., van Wee, N., 2011. The relative importance of factors that influence the break-even distance of intermodal freight transport systems. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011), 859–875. Laird, P., 1998. Rail freight efficiency and competitiveness in Australia. Transport Reviews 18 (3), 241–256. Lakshmanan, T.R., 2011. The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure investments. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011), 1–12. Macharis, C., Bontekoning, Y., 2004. Opportunities for OR in intermodal freight transport research: a review. European Journal of Operational Research 153, 400–416. Marinov, M., Viegas, J., 2011. A mesoscopic simulation modelling methodology for analyzing and evaluating freight train operations in a rail network. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 19 (2011), 516–539. Network Rail, 2007. Freight Route Utilisation Strategy. Network Rail, London. Network Rail, 2011a. London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy. Network Rail, London. Network Rail, 2011b. The Use of Standard Gauges for New Non-passenger Rail Vehicles. Briefing Note. Network Rail, London. Network Rail, 2011c. PR13 Initial Industry Plan Supporting Document: Definition of Proposed CP5 Enhancements, September. Network Rail, London. Network Rail, 2012. Network Rail CP4 Delivery Plan 2012 Enhancements Programme: Statement of Scope, Outputs and Milestones, September 2012 Update. Network Rail, London. Network Rail, ATOC, Rail Freight Operators’ Association, 2010. Planning Ahead 2010: The Long-term Planning Framework. Network Rail, ATOC Ltd. and Rail Freight Operators’ Association, London. ORR, 2012. National Rail Trends. Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), London. Preston, J., 2012. High Speed Rail in Britain: about time or a waste of time? Journal of Transport Geography 22 (2012), 308–311. Ricci, A., Black, I., 2005. The social costs of intermodal freight transport. Research in Transportation Economics 14, 245–285. Rodrigue, J.-P., 2008. The Thruport concept and transmodal rail freight distribution in North America. Journal of Transport Geography 16 (2008), 233–246. Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboon, T., 2012. Dry ports in European and North American intermodal rail systems: two of a kind? Research in Transportation Business and Management 5 (2012), 4–15. Roso, V., Woxenius, J., Lumsden, K., 2009. The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (2009), 338–345. RSSB, 2008. Requirements for the Application of Standard Vehicle Gauges. Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB), London. Treasury, H.M., 2011. National Infrastructure Plan 2011. HM Treasury and Infrastructure, London, UK. Trip, J.J., Bontekoning, Y., 2002. Integration of small freight flows in the intermodal transport system. Journal of Transport Geography 10, 221–229. Tsamboulas, D., Vrenken, H., Lekka, A., 2007. Assessment of a transport policy potential for intermodal mode shift on a European scale. Transportation Research Part A 41 (2007), 715–733.
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169 UNECE, 2010. Hinterland Connections of Seaports. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Geneva. Wiegmans, B., Stekelenburg, D.T., Versteegt, C., Bontekoning, Y.M., 2007. Modeling rail–rail exchange operations: an analysis of conventional and new-generation terminals. Transportation Journal Fall, 5–20. Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J., Lambert, B., 2011. The directional development of intermodal freight corridors in relation to inland terminals. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011), 1379–1886. Witte, P.A., Wiegmans, B.W., van Oort, F.G., Spit, T.J.M., 2012. Chokepoints in corridors: perspectives on bottlenecks in the European transport network. Research in Transportation Business and Management 5 (2012), 57–66.
169
Woodburn, A., 2011. An investigation of container train service provision and load factors in Great Britain. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 11 (2), 147–165. Woodburn, A., 2012. Intermodal rail freight activity in Britain: where has the growth come from? Research in Transportation Business and Management 5 (2012), 16–26. Woxenius, J., Bergqvist, R., 2011. Comparing maritime containers and semi-trailers in the context of hinterland transport by rail. Journal of Transport Geography 21 (2011), 680–688.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo
Effects of rail network enhancement on port hinterland container activity: a United Kingdom case study Allan Woodburn ⇑ Planning & Transport Department, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Intermodal transport Rail freight Port hinterland connections Rail network enhancement Transport efficiency
a b s t r a c t Transport infrastructure investment is an important element in the creation of an efficient and sustainable transport sector. Intermodal flows are seen as critical to rail freight’s future success and feature strongly in contemporary transport policy. This paper investigates a practical rail network enhancement scheme from the United Kingdom (UK) designed to achieve a shift of containers from road to rail. The paper’s aim is to determine the effects on rail freight efficiency of a loading gauge increase in April 2011 which allowed 90 600 high containers to be transported on standard wagons on the corridor from the port of Southampton to the West Midlands. The study is based on a ‘‘before and after’’ survey of container train capacity provision and load factors, with the ‘‘before’’ survey taking place in 2007 and the ‘‘after’’ survey in 2012. A consistent approach to data collection in both surveys allows detailed analysis of original survey data to be carried out. It is clear that there have been considerable improvements in both on-train capacity and train loads between 2007 and 2012, and that these improvements have been greatest on routes that have benefited from the gauge enhancement. Rail’s mode share of container throughput at Southampton has increased. There have also been wider benefits to off-corridor locations served from Southampton and elsewhere across the network. Overall, the impacts on rail freight efficiency of the gauge enhancement have been substantial, with efficiency improvements evident even at a time of economic stagnation. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Transport infrastructure investment plays an important role in determining both the efficiency and sustainability of freight transport activity. Within the European Union, contemporary transport policies promote the co-modality concept, based on ‘‘optimally combining various modes of transport within the same transport chain’’ (European Commission, 2006, 3). The 2011 Transport White Paper (European Commission, 2011) sets out a target for 30% of freight moving over 300 km by road to transfer to other modes (e.g. rail or waterborne transport) by 2030, and for more than 50% transfer by 2050. The British government has emphasised the importance of rail freight in meeting the country’s economic and environmental objectives, and in particular has targeted investment in the Strategic Freight Network (DfT, 2009). The rail industry plans to improve freight capability and performance over the next 25 years, which is expected to help to increase rail’s share of the surface freight market from 11.5% to 20% (Network Rail et al., 2010).
⇑ Tel.: +44 (0)20 350 66558. E-mail address: [email protected] 0966-6923/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.10.010
The European Commission (2011, 9) makes clear that, to meet its freight transport targets, investment in infrastructure will be needed to create ‘‘efficient and green freight corridors’’. This paper investigates a practical example from the United Kingdom (UK) of a rail network enhancement measure designed to achieve a shift from road to rail of medium- to long-distance freight (in European terms). Based largely on the analysis of original surveys of container train services, the overall aim of the paper is to determine the effects on rail freight efficiency of an increase in April 2011 to W10 loading gauge on the corridor from the port of Southampton to the West Midlands. This gauge increase is more fully explained in Section 4, but essentially allows 90 600 high (i.e. high cube) containers to be carried on standard rail wagons. Intermodal flows are seen as critical to rail freight’s future success and feature strongly in contemporary transport policy (Network Rail, 2007; DfT, 2011), and the industry’s forecasts suggest that such flows between ports and their hinterland areas (and vice versa) will increase more than fourfold, when measured in tonne kilometres, between 2006 and 2030 to clearly become the leading commodity grouping for rail freight (Network Rail et al., 2010). Given this market potential, it is vital to better understand the impacts of network improvements such as loading gauge enhancement. While the study is of particular relevance to the UK, given the typically greater loading gauge constraints than in many other countries, similar
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
rail freight efficiency issues may exist elsewhere. For example, the research approach and findings may be relevant to loading gauge enhancement to carry semi-trailers, full road vehicles (e.g. rolling motorway) or double-stacked containers in other countries, or in the future to carry larger intermodal units should they become more commonplace. Section 2 provides a review of the key literature relating to the research topic. This is followed in Sections 3 and 4 respectively by an explanation of the research methods developed to satisfy the paper’s aim and specific research questions, and the detailed context for the study. Section 5 presents the results and discusses the findings with reference to the research questions, and the paper finishes by highlighting the conclusions of the study. 2. Literature review Transport infrastructure has been recognised as an important influence on economic growth and on societal and environmental impacts. The UK government’s National Infrastructure Plan states that ‘‘transport infrastructure can play a vital role in driving economic growth by improving the links that help to move goods and people around and by supporting the balanced, dynamic and low-carbon economy that is essential for future prosperity’’ (HM Treasury, 2011, 31). The particular importance of ports as gateways for international trade is identified, with a need to improve the rail network to cater for future growth in containerised traffic. Specific consideration of the impacts of rail freight network enhancements is generally lacking, but there is discussion in the literature of the broader economic, social and environmental impacts of rail infrastructure projects. Resulting from an historical analysis, Lakshmanan (2011) argues for an improved understanding of the transporteconomy linkages resulting from infrastructure investment. For rail, attention has been focused on the impacts of new high speed rail infrastructure, though there are difficulties in accurately measuring the indirect impacts. In the UK, for example, Preston (2012) identifies passenger travel time savings as critical to the proposed HS2 (High Speed 2) line’s BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio), with less clarity on the extent of the wider impacts. In their assessment of nontransport benefits from rail investment, Banister and ThurstainGoodwin (2011) discuss the importance of issues such as regional network effects and land and property market effects, but highlight that traditional evaluation methods have generally not successfully accounted for such impacts. While their findings were based on passenger rail investment, evidence of measuring the broader impacts of freight-related rail investments is missing from the literature base. Increasing attention has been devoted to the challenges of moving intermodal units between ports and their hinterlands. Woxenius and Bergqvist (2011) highlight the major role that rail often plays in the movement of containers and identify a large range of studies from around the world that have examined this market. From a public policy perspective, a number of studies have examined the competitiveness of intermodal rail against road-only transport, generally focusing on cost-competiveness and environmental and organisational issues (e.g. Ricci and Black, 2005; Janic, 2007; Tsamboulas et al., 2007; Frémont and Franc, 2010). Transport infrastructure characteristics and capabilities have been identified as important factors in determining port hinterland transport efficiency (UNECE, 2010), and there is a growing research field based on the ‘dry port’ concept (e.g. Rodrigue, 2008; Roso et al., 2009; Wilmsmeier et al., 2011; Rodrigue and Notteboon, 2012). These studies tend to focus on organisational issues relating to the operation of container train shuttles between container ports and inland terminals, with detailed assessment of rail infrastructure issues generally limited to the terminals themselves. Witte et al. (2012) emphasise that bottlenecks in inter-
163
modal transport can relate to physical infrastructure constraints, but that a wide range of other factors (e.g. organisational, political, financial or institutional) can create bottlenecks and hinder the development of intermodal services. In previous research (Woodburn, 2011), it was noted that few studies have explicitly considered on-train capacity and load factors for intermodal freight trains. Academic literature has tended to focus on the modelling of intermodal terminal and train service operations, usually making assumptions about on-train capacities and load factors (e.g. Macharis and Bontekoning, 2004; Corry and Kozan, 2006; Wiegmans et al., 2007). Marinov and Viegas (2011) make a distinction between improvised rail freight operations, where trains operate as and when they are sufficiently well loaded, and structured (scheduled) operations, where trains run to a set timetable. In heavily utilised rail networks, such as in the UK, the latter dominates, particularly for intermodal services, so this places greater importance on on-train capacity utilisation. The optimisation of container train load planning was addressed in Bruns and Knust (2012), but from the specific perspective of allocating loads to wagons to minimise terminal handling cost. Kim and van Wee (2011) assess the sensitivities of various factors to the break-even distance for intermodal freight, but on-train capacity and load factors are not directly considered. Janic (2008) explicitly discussed these variables when modelling the impacts of long intermodal freight trains (LIFTs), comparing different train capacities but assuming a constant load factor. Trip and Bontekoning (2002) looked at the theoretical potential to bundle small volume flows to make up viable intermodal train operation, directly considering on-train capacity and, to a lesser extent, train loadings. Practical corridor-specific studies (such as those in IRIS, 2001; HPUK et al., 2004) have dealt with container train capacities and load factors, but no examples have been found in the published literature of a detailed examination of the actual impacts of a rail network infrastructure enhancement on on-train capacity, load factors and train loads. Studies that have analysed data on rail freight efficiency have tended to use macro-indicators based, for example, on average unit revenue or average energy efficiency (Laird, 1998), perhaps due to the challenges of detailed data collection.
3. Research methods To satisfy the research aim set out earlier, this study is based on a ‘‘before and after’’ survey of container train capacity provision and utilisation. The ‘‘before’’ survey took place in 2007 and, given the lack of detailed published information, included all four key rail-served container ports (i.e. Felixstowe, Southampton, Tilbury and Thamesport); full details of the 2007 survey methodology and results can be found in Woodburn (2011). The ‘‘after’’ survey was conducted in 2012 and focused mainly on Southampton so as to allow investigation of the impacts of the gauge enhancement. Thamesport was included as a comparator port where no gauge enhancement had taken place. The ‘‘after’’ survey took place more than one year after implementation of the increased loading gauge to Southampton, thus allowing time for the rail freight providers to adjust their service provision to reflect the new opportunities provided. The sampling method was the same for both survey periods, with the sampling framework designed so that the equivalent of 1 week’s service provision was recorded on video. For each train service observation, details of the number and type of wagons and the number and type of containers were collected. Container train timetables are very consistent on a week-to-week basis, and the sampling method ensured exact representation by port-inland terminal combination, direction of flow and rail freight operating company, and close to precise representation by day of week. The survey period in 2007 was slightly longer than in 2012. In
164
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
Table 1 Southampton weekly container train service provision (combined two-way totals). Source: author’s survey. Southampton to/from
2007
2012
Birch Coppice Cardiff Coatbridge Crewe Daventry Ditton Garston Hams Hall Lawley Street Leeds Trafford Park Wakefield
20 10 10 9 10 20 10 20 20 32 50 20
20 18 0 11 10 5 10 10 20 28 45 10
Total % W10 gauge
231 0
187 70
W10 gauge in 2012 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
2012, all surveys took place in the period from May to July, while in 2007 87% of observations were sampled within those same months. Table 1 shows the composition of the sample in each of the survey periods. The total number of services per week declined from 231 to 187 but the range of terminals served remained almost static. Coatbridge received no direct services in 2012 but, due to less-than-trainload volumes, it was still served by a portion attached/detached from another service at Crewe. Two rail freight operators (Freightliner and EWS/DB Schenker) operated the container trains in both 2007 and 2012. Given that the service provision in both periods was broadly similar, all services in both surveys have been included in the analysis. In combination with this consistent approach to data collection in both surveys, indepth analysis of changes between the two time periods can be carried out. Table 1 also shows the services able to benefit from the gauge enhancement, with only those to/from Cardiff, Leeds and Wakefield not operating over W10 gauge routes in 2012. The following research questions (RQs) form the focus of this study, answers to which will address the study aim outlined earlier. The questions reflect the impact of the rail gauge enhancement on the corridor from the port of Southampton to the West Midlands: RQ1: Did the average capacity per container train (measured in TEU1) to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ2: Did the average number of TEU carried per container train to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ3: If increases are found in the analysis of RQ1 and/or RQ2, are the rates of increase greater on services operating on W10 gauge routes in 2012? These research questions are based on the prospect that, for the services affected, the gauge enhancement has led to an increase in carrying capacity (i.e. RQ1) as a consequence of the ability to use standard wagons and an increase in average train load (i.e. RQ2) since it is now easier to carry the increasingly common 90 600 high containers. These operational benefits are limited to the gauge cleared services, thus the expectation that there has been a greater rate of improvement for them than for the remaining non-W10 gauge services (i.e. RQ3). For consistency, and because it provides the most appropriate measure of capacity provision and utilisation, the discussion and analysis in this paper is based on the TEU unit of measurement. Prior to considering the survey results and analysis, the next section provides the detailed context for the study.
1 A TEU is a 20-foot equivalent unit, meaning a standard 40 foot container is two TEU.
4. Detailed study context This section deals first with port trends that have an influence on the study. Next, the relevant rail freight trends are set out and finally the importance of W10 loading gauge for the port of Southampton is established. According to official statistics (DfT, 2012 and earlier years), while container volumes through UK ports had increased dramatically in recent decades, the economic downturn in 2008 resulted in a 17% drop in container traffic (measured in TEU) between 2007 and 2009. Since 2009, there has been some recovery, but the total throughput in 2011 remained 8% below that in 2007. The decline at Southampton was almost double the national rate, with 15% fewer TEU passing through the port in 2011 than in 2007 (DfT, 2012 and earlier years). Despite the general reduction in port container throughput since 2007, the ‘domestic intermodal’ rail freight category has seen volumes increase in every year from 2002–2003 to 2011–2012 and has increased its share of rail freight moved from 18% to 30% over the same period (ORR, 2012). While these statistics also include pure domestic intermodal flows, they comprise a very small component of the total volume in this category and it is clear that there has been a large increase in port container traffic by rail in recent years (Woodburn, 2012). As a consequence, rail’s share of the inland movement of containers to/from ports has been increasing. This is clearly an important market for rail freight, and one which is worthy of more detailed investigation to gain a better understanding of the reasons for the increasing volumes and market share. From the published literature relating specifically to the port of Southampton, it is evident that there have been considerable changes to container train operations in the period from 2007 to 2012. The key changes have been as follows (Freightliner, 2012; Network Rail, 2011a): Loading gauge enhancement between Southampton and the West Midlands. 30-wagon container train trials, giving a train length of approximately 640 m. New cranes at Freightliner’s Southampton Maritime terminal, providing greater handling capacity and faster transfer. It should be noted that the new cranes had not yet been installed at the time of the 2012 survey. According to DP World Southampton (2011), the loading gauge enhancement had a quick impact on volumes, with rail’s share of port throughput increasing ‘‘from 30% to 36% in less than 4 months’’. No detailed information on this change has been published, hence this paper’s focus on developing a better understanding of the impacts of the gauge enhancement. As stated by Network Rail (2011b), when considering the movement of containers it is necessary to take account of the combination of rail wagon and container dimensions. W10 gauge is of particular significance, since it ‘‘defines an 18.3 metre long ISO 9’ 6’’ high x 2,500 mm wide load on wagons with. . .deck heights of up to 945 mm’’ (RSSB, 2008, p. 14). In essence, this allows the carriage of 90 600 high containers on standard rail wagons, which has become a critical issue for the British rail freight industry as a consequence of the rapid growth in the use of these containers in global maritime trade. At Southampton, the proportion of 90 600 high containers rose from 30% of total container throughput in 2006 to 39% in 2009, with further growth anticipated (DP World Southampton, 2010). Furthermore, while 29% of standard (i.e. 80 600 ) height 400 long containers moved by rail in 2010, only 19% of 90 600 high 400 long containers were transported by rail (DP World Southampton, 2010). The gauge enhancement scheme was a response to the increasing challenge for rail to even maintain its mode share at the port of Southampton, given the inefficiencies
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
Low floor wagon carrying 9’ 6” high container
Pocket wagon carrying 9’ 6” high container
165
Standard height wagon carrying 8’ 6” high containers
Fig. 1. Before (upper photograph) and after (lower photograph) gauge enhancement. Source: author’s collection.
associated with having to use specialist pocket or low floor wagons to move the 90 600 high containers. In Fig. 1, the top photograph illustrates the rolling stock solution that allows 90 600 high containers to be carried on non-W10 gauge cleared routes, with a combination of low floor and pocket wagons which allow the container to sit lower than on a standard wagon. The lower photograph shows a mix of 80 600 and 90 600 high containers being carried on standard wagons on a service operating on a W10 gauge route. Fig. 2 shows the newly gauge enhanced route from Southampton to the West Midlands, with separate connections to Birmingham and the already gauge enhanced West Coast Main Line (WCML) at the northern end. The locations referred to in Table 1 are shown on the map, which makes clear that the majority of locations served to/from Southampton are now linked by a W10 route.
5. Results and discussion This section starts with the results which allow the first two research questions to be answered. Next, the differences in the 2012 survey between the W10 gauge and non-W10 gauge services are considered, providing the necessary evidence to address the third research question. The section concludes with a discussion of the results in the context of the research question analysis and the broader implications of the findings. Table 2 shows the findings relating to the key measures of capacity provision and utilisation in the two survey periods, with averages for train capacity, load factor and train load. This reveals a 28% increase in the average number of TEU carried between 2007 and 2012, resulting from a combination of an increase in the average capacity per train (up 19%) and a higher load factor (up 9%).
Grossing up the survey results to annual TEU by rail totals, assuming 50 weeks’ service provision per annum, reveals an increase from an estimated 446,000 TEU in 2007 to 461,000 TEU in 2012. This represents an increase in rail’s mode share from 24% in 2007 to 29% in 2012, using 2011 port throughput statistics as the base for the 2012 calculation as these are the most up-to-date available at the time of writing. It is assumed that the rail shares quoted by DP World Southampton (referred to in Section 3) are in number of containers rather than TEU, hence the differences. The survey evidence supports the quoted increase in rail’s mode share, and a slightly greater number of TEU is now being carried in 19% fewer trains, implying a considerable improvement in efficiency despite the lower container throughput through the port. By contrast, an equivalent before and after survey of service provision at Thamesport, where there has been no gauge enhancement, shows a reduction in rail’s mode share from an estimated 18% to 15% between 2007 and 2012. Trends in the key measures for those routes that are and are not now cleared to W10 gauge are now compared. It is evident that the improvements in both average on-train capacity and average train load have been considerably greater for the routes that are now gauge enhanced (see Table 3). As Table 2 showed, a typical Southampton container train in 2007 had a capacity of just under 58 TEU and a load of almost 39 TEU, giving a two-thirds load factor. By 2012, the non-W10 gauge services still had an average on-train capacity of less than 60 TEU, with the capacity on this subset of routes having increased by just 6% since 2007. By contrast, the on-train capacity of the services on W10 routes had increased by 25% to more than 73 TEU per train. From a position in 2007 where there was little difference between the two subsets of routes, a typical W10 gauge service now has almost 25% more capacity than
166
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
Southampton to West Midlands route enhanced to W10 gauge in April 2011
Fig. 2. British W10 ‘‘high gauge’’ rail network as of April 2011. Source: provided by Network Rail.
one on a non-W10 route. In 2007, load factors on the routes that remain non-W10 gauge cleared were slightly above the average, and have increased at a faster than average rate so that, in 2012, the non-W10 gauge services had an average load factor 12 percent-
age points higher than for services on the W10 routes. This may be a direct consequence of the lower average on-train capacity, since a higher load factor will be required to ensure that the fixed operating costs are covered – a low capacity train with a poor load factor
167
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169 Table 2 On-train capacity provision and load factors for Southampton container trains, 2007 and 2012. Source: author’s survey (n = 231 in 2007; n = 187 in 2012).
Average capacity per train (TEU) Average load factor (%) Average train load (TEU)
2007 survey
2012 survey
% Change 2007– 2012
57.93
69.08
19
66.73 38.64
72.74 49.34
9 28
is unlikely to be profitable. The critical measure, when considering overall train and network operating efficiency is the average train load, since this is a reflection of the extent to which a notional train path through the network is being utilised. It can be seen that the average train load on W10 gauge routes has increased much faster than on the non-W10 routes, albeit from a lower point in 2007. At 50 TEU per train in 2012, the W10 gauge services typically carried two more TEU than services on the non-W10 routes. A direct before and after comparison of the three routes that remain non-W10 gauge cleared in 2012 (i.e. to/from Cardiff, Leeds and Wakefield) reveals that the percentage of on-train capacity able to carry 90 600 high containers has increased from an average of 43% of TEU capacity in 2007 to 70% in 2012. This increase has been made possible by the redeployment of low floor and pocket wagons from services that no longer require them, providing secondary benefits to the few remaining non-cleared W10 routes from Southampton. Analysis of the equivalent Thamesport before and after survey shows that the on-train capacity able to cater for 90 600 high containers has increased from 20% to 37%, This suggests that the benefits have extended to other non-W10 gauge cleared routes across the British rail network, with more of the specialist wagons focused on those routes that remain unable to carry 90 600 high containers on standard wagons. Weighing up the evidence from the before and after surveys, Table 4 summarises the outcome of the analysis dealing with the research questions. Overall, it is clear that there have been considerable improvements in both on-train capacity and train loads between 2007 and 2012. It has also been shown that the gauge enhancement has had a direct impact on the services now able to carry 90 600 high containers on standard wagons, with the rate of increase in average on-train capacity being more than four times greater (at 25%) for W10 routes than the other routes, where the capacity increase was just 6%. The average train load on W10 ser-
vices increased at almost 2.5 times the rate for non-W10 services. The improvement rate for both measures has therefore been far greater on W10 services. It is perhaps surprising that there is very little difference in the absolute number of TEU carried per train on the two subsets of routes, as a result of the higher (and more improved) load factors for the non-W10 services. This may be a reflection of the overall decline in container throughput at the port of Southampton, which makes the task of aggregating larger train load volumes more challenging. Should port container throughput regain its longer-term upward trend and/or should rail achieve further gains in mode share, there is substantial potential for W10 services to carry greater volumes without the need to provide additional capacity and with no constraints on the height of containers that can be carried. By contrast, the non-W10 services have less spare capacity and have considerable constraints on the ways in which that capacity can be utilised due to the need for specialist wagons for 90 600 high containers. Indeed, the 2012 survey found that 88% of available low floor and pocket wagon capacity on non-W10 routes was utilised, compared to just 63% of standard wagon capacity being used. Not all of the containers using the specialist wagons were 90 600 high, but it is clear that there is less flexibility in the utilisation of space on the non-W10 services. With the fairly fixed supply of specialist wagons, particularly for Freightliner services, it seems unlikely that the improvements on the non-W10 routes would have been possible without the redeployment of such wagons from the other routes. It should also be noted that there has been a fundamental difference in the responses of the two rail freight operators to the gauge enhancement. While Freightliner has almost entirely eliminated the use of specialist wagons on services operating wholly on W10 gauge routes, DB Schenker still makes considerable use of low floor wagons on such routes, partly due to its far smaller pool of available standard wagons but also because it tends to interwork wagons between services on W10 and non-W10 routes. Due to its Wakefield service, DB Schenker is not yet maximising the benefits of the W10 gauge for services to its destinations on W10 routes (i.e. Birch Coppice, Hams Hall and Trafford Park). With the ongoing development of the Strategic Freight Network, by March 2014 the services to/from Leeds and Wakefield will benefit from a W10 route (Network Rail, 2012), with the Cardiff route expected to be gauge enhanced in the second half of the 2014–2019 period in conjunction with the electrification of the Great Western Main Line (Network Rail, 2011c). As the newly gauge enhanced routes come on stream, there should be further
Table 3 On-train capacity provision and load factors for Southampton container trains, by loading gauge, 2007 and 2012. Source: author’s survey (n = 231 in 2007; n = 187 in 2012) (N.B. routes are classified dependent on their loading gauge at the time of the 2012 survey). W10 gauge routes
Average capacity per train (TEU) Load factor (%) Average train load (TEU)
Non-W10 gauge routes
2007
2012
% Change
2007
2012
% Change
58.49 64.67 37.63
73.28 69.01 50.04
25 7 33
56.21 73.01 41.74
59.49 81.25 47.75
6 11 14
Table 4 Summary of research question findings. Research question (RQ)
Outcome
RQ1: Did the average capacity per container train (measured in TEU) to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ2: Did the average number of TEU carried per container train to/from Southampton increase between 2007 and 2012? RQ3: If increases are found in the analysis of RQ1 and/or RQ2, are the rates of increase greater on services operating on W10 gauge routes in 2012?
Yes – 19% increase Yes – 28% increase Yes – far greater increase in both measures on W10 routes
168
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169
opportunities to redeploy the specialist wagons, for example from Freightliner’s Leeds services to its Cardiff ones, for transfer to other ports (notably Thamesport, for which no gauge enhancement is currently planned) or for the development of new routes at Southampton or other ports. In addition, once all of DB Schenker’s services are on W10 routes, that operator may reconsider the composition of its fleet and opt for more standard wagons that are more space efficient.
6. Conclusions This paper has used a large scale ‘‘before and after survey’’ of on-train capacity, load factors and train loads to examine the impacts of the implementation in 2011 of the W10 gauge enhancement on the Southampton to West Midlands corridor, which allowed more than two-thirds of services to carry 90 600 high containers on standard wagons. Through the collection of original data in a consistent form across the two survey periods, considerable insight has been gained into the impacts, and these have been found to be substantial. There have been improvements in all three key measures, notably a 28% increase in the average number of TEU carried per train. The estimates of annual rail volumes suggest that there has been a slight increase in TEU carried by rail despite a 19% drop in the number of services operated, with rail’s share of port TEU throughput increasing from 24% in 2007 to 29% in 2012. By focusing on the changes for the services that now operate over W10 routes, it is evident that the overall improvement in train loads has been greater on these routes than on those that are still not cleared to W10 gauge. Further research would be worthwhile, to identify any longer-term responses to and trends in the key measures, and to identify whether the benefits become greater as yet more of the routes achieve gauge enhanced status and the need for specialist wagons lessens further. From the analysis in this paper, though it is clear that the improvements on one core corridor have directly benefited the services using that corridor, there have also been wider benefits to off-corridor locations served from Southampton (e.g. with the cascade of specialist wagons to Leeds and Cardiff services) and elsewhere across the network, evidenced by the increased capability for handling 90 600 high wagons on services from Thamesport. The impacts on rail freight efficiency of the gauge enhancement have been substantial, with considerable efficiency improvements evident even at a time of economic stagnation. While rolling stock solutions had allowed rail to cater for some 90 600 high container traffic at Southampton, the enhancement to the physical network has had a major and immediate effect and provides greater flexibility for future rail service provision. This study has specific relevance to the UK, but the approach taken to investigating the effects of rail network enhancements on rail freight efficiency issues may be appropriate elsewhere. Depending on the situation, there may be scope to investigate loading gauge enhancements to carry semi-trailers, full road vehicles (e.g. rolling motorway) or double-stacked containers. In undertaking similar studies elsewhere, it is important to attempt to capture the wider network benefits as well as the direct ones on the route under investigation. References Banister, D., Thurstain-Goodwin, M., 2011. Quantification of the non-transport benefits resulting from rail investment. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011), 212–223. Bruns, F., Knust, S., 2012. Optimized load planning of trains in intermodal transportation. OR Spectrum 34 (2012), 511–533. Corry, P., Kozan, E., 2006. An assignment model for dynamic load planning of intermodal trains. Computers and Operations Research 33, 1–17.
DfT, 2009. Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision. Department for Transport (DfT), London. DfT, 2011. Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy Guidance. Department for Transport (DfT), London. DfT, 2012. Port Freight Statistics. Department for Transport (DfT), London. DP World Southampton, 2010. Rail Gauge Clearance Project. Letter to all DP World Southampton Customers, 6 October. Southampton: DP World Southampton.
A. Woodburn / Journal of Transport Geography 33 (2013) 162–169 UNECE, 2010. Hinterland Connections of Seaports. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Geneva. Wiegmans, B., Stekelenburg, D.T., Versteegt, C., Bontekoning, Y.M., 2007. Modeling rail–rail exchange operations: an analysis of conventional and new-generation terminals. Transportation Journal Fall, 5–20. Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J., Lambert, B., 2011. The directional development of intermodal freight corridors in relation to inland terminals. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011), 1379–1886. Witte, P.A., Wiegmans, B.W., van Oort, F.G., Spit, T.J.M., 2012. Chokepoints in corridors: perspectives on bottlenecks in the European transport network. Research in Transportation Business and Management 5 (2012), 57–66.
169
Woodburn, A., 2011. An investigation of container train service provision and load factors in Great Britain. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 11 (2), 147–165. Woodburn, A., 2012. Intermodal rail freight activity in Britain: where has the growth come from? Research in Transportation Business and Management 5 (2012), 16–26. Woxenius, J., Bergqvist, R., 2011. Comparing maritime containers and semi-trailers in the context of hinterland transport by rail. Journal of Transport Geography 21 (2011), 680–688.