Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 440–463 | Cite as

Impact and relevance of transit disturbances on planning in intermodal container networks using disturbance cost analysis

  • Bart van Riessen
  • Rudy R Negenborn
  • Gabriel Lodewijks
  • Rommert Dekker
Original Article

Abstract

In North-West Europe, the options for intermodal inland transportation of containers are increasing. Inland corridors become increasingly interconnected in hinterland networks. To minimise operating costs, new methods are required that allow integral network operations management. The network operations consist of allocating containers to available inland transportation services, that is, planning. For adequate planning it is important to adapt to occurring disturbances. In this article, a new mathematical model is proposed: the Linear Container Allocation model with Time-restrictions. This model is used for determining the influence of three main types of transit disturbances on network performance: early service departure, late service departure and cancellation of inland services. The influence of a disturbance is measured in two ways. The impact measures the additional cost incurred by an updated planning in case of a disturbance. The relevance measures the cost difference between a fully updated and a locally updated plan. With the results of the analysis, key service properties of disturbed services that result in a high impact or high relevance can be determined. Based on this, the network operator can select focus areas to prevent disturbances with high impact and to improve the planning updates in case of disturbances with high relevance. The proposed method is used in a case study to assess the impact and relevance of transit disturbances on inland services of the European Gateway Services network.

Keywords

Intermodal synchromodal planning container transportation disturbances 

References

  1. Boardman, B.S., Malstrom, E.M., Butler, D.P. and Cole, M.H. (1997) Computer assisted routing of intermodal shipments. Computers & Industrial Engineering 33 (1): 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caris, A., Macharis, C. and Janssens, G.K. (2012) Planning problems in intermodal freight transport: accomplishments and prospects. Transportation Planning and Technology 31 (3): 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cho, J.H., Kim, H.S. and Choi, H.R. (2012) An intermodal transport network planning algorithm using dynamic programming – a case study: From Busan to Rotterdam in intermodal freight routing. Applied Intelligence 36 (3): 529–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crainic, T.G. and Laporte, G. (1997) Planning models for freight transportation. European Journal of Operational Research 97 (3): 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crainic, T.G. and Kim, K.H. (2007) Intermodal transportation. Transportation 14: 467–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crainic, T.G. and Rousseau, J.M. (1986) Multicommodity, multimode freight transportation: A general modeling and algorithmic framework for the service network design problem. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 20 (3): 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EGS. (2012) http://www.europeangatewayservices.com, accessed 9 March 2013.
  8. Groothedde, B., Ruijgrok, C. and Tavasszy, L. (2005) Towards collaborative, intermodal hub networks: A case study in the fast moving consumer goods market. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 41 (6): 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guelat, J., Florian, M. and Crainic, T.G. (1990) A multimode multiproduct network assignment model for strategic planning of freight flows. Transportation Science 24 (1): 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ishfaq, R. and Sox, C.R. (2012) Design of intermodal logistics networks with hub delays. European Journal of Operational Research 220 (3): 629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lucassen, I.M.P.J. and Dogger, T. (2012) Synchromodality pilot study. Identification of bottlenecks and possibilities for a network between Rotterdam, Moerdijk and Tilburg. Technical report P10128. The Netherlands: TNO. https://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context=thema&content=prop_publicatie&laag1=894&laag2=913&laag3=102&item_id=887, accessed 12 July 2012.
  12. Macharis, C. and Bontekoning, Y.M. (2004) Opportunities for OR in intermodal freight transport research: A review. European Journal of Operational Research 153 (2): 400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rodrigue, J.P. and Notteboom, T. (2012) Dry ports in European and North American intermodal rail systems: Two of a kind? Research in Transportation Business & Management 5: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Topsector Logistics. (2011) Operation Agenda Topsector Logistics. The Netherlands: Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, (in dutch).Google Scholar
  15. UNECE, ITF, Eurostat. (2009) Glossary for Transport Logistics. Geneva: UNECE.Google Scholar
  16. van der Horst, M.R. and de Langen, P.W. (2008) Coordination in hinterland transport chains: A major challenge for the seaport community. Maritime Economics & Logistics 10 (1): 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Riessen, B., Negenborn, R.R., Dekker, R. and Lodewijks, G. (2014) Service network design for an intermodal container network with flexible transit times and the possibility of using subcontracted transport. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics.Google Scholar
  18. Veenstra, A., Zuidwijk, R. and van Asperen, E. (2012) The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 14 (1): 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yen, J.Y. (1971) Finding the k shortest loopless paths in a network. Management Science 17 (11): 712–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ziliaskopoulos, A. and Wardell, W. (2000) An intermodal optimum path algorithm for multimodal networks with dynamic arc travel times and switching delays. European Journal of Operational Research 125 (3): 486–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart van Riessen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rudy R Negenborn
    • 2
  • Gabriel Lodewijks
    • 2
  • Rommert Dekker
    • 1
  1. 1.Econometric Institute, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Maritime and Transport TechnologyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations