Comparative evaluation of transhipment technologies for intermodal transport and their cost : final report.
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Subjects: European standard, combined transport, comparative analysis, harmonisation of standards, investment cost, rail network, report, trans-European network, transport safety, vehicle on rails

Comparative evaluation of 
transhipment technologies for 
intermodal transport and their cost 

Final Report 

Written by 
PricewaterhouseCoopers 
KombiConsult 

February – 2022 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contract: 

Framework contract MOVE/ENER/SRD/2016-498 Lot 6 

Specific Contract No MOVE/D1/SER/2019-280/SI2.839699 

Document status: 

22/02/2022, Final 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport  
Directorate B — Investment, Innovative & Sustainable Transport 
European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Comparative evaluation of 
transhipment technologies for 
intermodal transport and their cost 

Final Report 

22/02/2022 

Written by: 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Directorate B – Investment, Innovative & sustainable Transport   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 
No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information 
contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PwC EU Services, its members, employees and agents do 
not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or 
refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

ISBN 978-92-76-49148-4 
doi: 10.2832/743839 

© European Union, 2022 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledge

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.  STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ...................................................................... 7 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 8 

3. 

IDENTIFYING  A  DETAILED  LIST  OF  ALL  DIFFERENT  TYPES  OF  LOADING 
UNITS AND TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORT ..... 9 

3.1 

Identify  a  detailed  list  of  all  different  types  of  loading  units  in 
intermodal transport ......................................................................... 9 

3.1.1  Container ............................................................................. 9 

3.1.2  Swap bodies ........................................................................ 11 

3.1.3  Semi-trailers ....................................................................... 12 

3.1.4 

Full road vehicles ................................................................. 13 

3.1.5  Technical comparison of loading units ..................................... 13 

3.1.6  Share of intermodal loading units in Europe ............................ 18 

3.2  Detailed  list  of  all  different  types  of  transhipment  technologies  in 
intermodal transport; establishing the costs and investments needed 
associated with different transhipment technologies ............................. 22 

3.2.1  Description of the guidelines and assumptions for setting up 

the model ........................................................................... 26 

3.2.2  Description of the data collection and validation ....................... 29 

3.2.3  Description of the fact sheet elements .................................... 30 

3.2.4  Technology fact sheets ......................................................... 63 

3.2.5  Necessary  loading  gauge  per  technology  and  loading  unit 

combination (rail) ................................................................ 68 

3.3  Regulatory  framework/procedures  for  introducing  a  new  Loading 

Unit/Transhipment Technology .......................................................... 73 

3.3.1  Procedure and regulatory framework for Loading Units ............. 73 

3.3.2  Regulatory framework .......................................................... 76 

4.  ESTABLISH EU AND SWITZERLAND INTERMODAL NETWORK DATA ................ 82 

4.1  Number of terminals handling intermodal loading units in EU today ....... 82 

4.2  Today’s terminal handling capacity (maximum units per annum) in EU

 ..................................................................................................... 87 

4.3  Today’s use of the particular technology (units carried/transhipped per 

annum) .......................................................................................... 92 

4.4  TEN-T  corridors,  or  parts  of  TEN-T  corridors,  where  terminals  with 

particular transhipment technology are available ................................. 95 

4.5  Type  of  upgrade  needed  per  TEN-T  corridor  to  use  loading 

unit/transhipment technology ........................................................... 98 

4.6  Kilometres/network  percentage  per  TEN-T  corridor  where  loading 

units can be transported (loading gauge, bridges, water levels, etc.) ... 106 

4.7  Total investment to remove barriers/ blockades/ limitations on TEN-T 
core  network  corridors  for  loading  unit  (taking  into  account  current 
initiatives) .................................................................................... 128 

4.8  Overview  of  TEN-T  core  network,  including  breakdown  per  TEN-T 

corridor or parts of it, where network capacity problems exist today .... 134 

4.9  Total  cost  of  removing  network  limitations  per  TEN-T  corridor 

(terminals, infrastructure, etc.) ....................................................... 134 

4.10  2030 potential terminal handling capacity in EU ................................ 138 

4.11  2030 network capacity in comparison to terminal handling capacity ..... 141 

5 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

5.  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES ... 142 

5.1  Total system costs ......................................................................... 143 

5.2  Competitiveness  for  shippers/clients  for  a  typical  600  km/1  000  km 

door-to-door operation ................................................................... 152 

5.3  Potential 

for  modal  shift  by  2030  taking 

into  account  the 

competitiveness of the technology and today’s network limitations ...... 163 

5.4  Potential  for  saving  external  costs  by  2030  based  on  potential  for 

modal shift ................................................................................... 174 

5.5  Comparative costs taking into account also external costs .................. 177 

6.  GLOSSARY ............................................................................................ 181 

7.  ANNEXES .............................................................................................. 182 

7.1  Annex 1: Technology fact sheets ..................................................... 182 

7.2  Annex 2: analysis of the corridor studies update 2 (spring 2021) with 

regard to identified ten-t core network capacity problems ................... 557 

7.3  Annex  3:  Result  from  the  industry  assessment  and  ten-t  cnc  2021 

project list. ................................................................................... 565 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

1. Structure of the report 

This document is the final report of the study on the comparative evaluation of transhipment 
technologies for intermodal transport and their cost. This is the sixth deliverable submitted 
by  PricewaterhouseCoopers  EU  Services  and  KombiConsult  GmbH  to  the  Directorate 
General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) of the European Commission.  

The objective of this study is to provide a technical and economical comparative analysis of 
intermodal loading units (LU) and transhipment technologies (TT) as one of the foundations 
of  intermodal  transport  and  their  operating  and  total  system  costs  which  will  support  the 
European Commission in future legislative and financial initiatives to increase sustainability 
in the transport sector through modal shift. 

To  this  end,  the  technical  specifications,  necessary  investments,  operational  costs  and 
effectiveness  of  different  intermodal  loading  units  and  transhipment  technologies  were 
identified.  Furthermore,  combinations  of  loading  units  and  transhipment  technologies  in 
intermodal  transports  are  compared  within  each  other  and  with  road-only  unimodal 
transports. 

The study is divided into four main technical tasks aiming to establish the following set of 
information: 

•  a detailed list of all different types of loading units and transhipment technologies in 

intermodal transport (Task 1); 

•  costs and investments needed for all different transhipment technologies (Task 2); 
•  EU and Switzerland intermodal network data (Task 3); 
•  comparative analysis of different transhipment technologies (Task 4).  

The present report shows the results addressed in carrying out the above-mentioned Tasks. 
In particular Chapter 3 will provide the results addressed in performing Task 1 and Task 2, 
Chapter 4 is dedicated to Task 3 and finally Chapter 5 will present the results of Task 4.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

2. Introduction 

Freight transport and logistics are essential for the economic activity in the Single Market 
and quality of life in Europe at large. In 2019, the sector generated approximately EUR 675 
billion of gross added value (GVA) or about 5% of the EU’s total Gross Domestic Product. 
With more than EUR 1089 billion spent on transport-related items by private households 
(13% of total consumption) and more than 1.2 million enterprises active in transport and 
logistics, it is clear that the sector is fundamental to the EU economy.1 

The global breakdown of the freight transport sector by mode, useful to understand which 
branch  is  more  impacted  by  legislative  measures  concerning  loading  units  and,  broadly 
speaking,  innovative  transhipment  technologies,  reveals  that  of  the  108  trillion  tonne-
kilometres  transported  worldwide,  70%  is  done  by  sea,  18%  by  road,  9%  by  rail,  2%  by 
inland waterway, and less than 0.25% is shipped by air.2 When analysing the latest statistics 
available for inland transport in the EU, it is clear that road transport has the largest share 
of  all transport modes  in  EU. With  around  2000 billion  tonne-kilometres, it  accounted for 
75.3% of the total inland freight transport in 2017. From this, ca 55% is long-distance road 
transport on distances on more than 300km. In that same year, rail accounted for 18.7% or 
416 billion tonne-kilometres, while transport over inland waterways accounted only for 6% 
of the total inland freight transport.3 Furthermore, in 2017 the transport and logistics sector 
employed more than 11.7 million persons in the EU, which amounts to 5.3% of the total EU-
28 workforce.4 

In  addition  to  that,  global  freight  traffic  for  inland  modes  is  expected  to  triple  by  20505; 
Moreover, it is projected that surface freight traffic will grow by 53% by 2050 in the EU.6 

1 European Commission. (2019). EU transport in figures - Statistical pocketbook 2019, pp. 19, 25. 
2 OECD - International Transport Forum. (2019). ITF Transport Outlook 2019, p. 38. 
3 Eurostat. (2020). Energy, Transport and Environment Statistics: 2020 Edition, pp. 51-52. 
4 European Commission. (2019). EU transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook 2019, pp. 19, 25. 
5 OECD - International Transport Forum. (2019). ITF Transport Outlook 2019, p. 39. 
6 European Commission. (2018). In-depth analysis in support of Commission Communication COM (2018) 773 
- ‘A Clean Planet for all: A European long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate 
neutral economy’, p. 82. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

3. Identifying  a  detailed  list  of  all  different  types  of 
loading  units  and  transhipment  technologies  in 
intermodal transport 

For the purpose of the following analysis, this task lists the different intermodal loading units 
and  transhipment  technologies  to  be  investigated;  furthermore,  fact  sheets  containing 
technical  information  for  each  loading  unit  and  each  transhipment  technology  were 
prepared. The two lists were matched in a matrix form in order to easily depict the suitability 
of a certain transhipment technology in transhipping the different types of loading units. The 
task  is  closed  by  a  description  of  the  regulatory  framework  and  processes  required  for 
bringing new loading units and transhipment technologies to market. 

The loading units and technologies to be investigated in the following steps were identified 
in the  first stage  of  compiling  these lists.  The  indicative  list  of  transhipment technologies 
provided by the European Commission in the ToR proved to be a qualified starting point, 
from which an investigation was conducted to identify missing intermodal loading units and 
transhipment technologies. To validate the listed elements and identify missing elements, 
information from previous studies, press releases, website information, and contacts from 
the intermodal industry and partner consulting firms were used. Two lists, one for loading 
units and one for transhipment technologies were thus created to be further investigated in 
this study.  

3.1 Identify a detailed list of all different types of loading units in intermodal transport 

This task focuses on the identification and description of standardized intermodal loading 
units.  Transhipment  technology  specific  loading  units  are  not  considered  here  but  are 
described in chapter 3.2 in the framework of the description of transhipment technologies. 

For freight-transport in (standard) intermodal loading units the study basically distinguishes 
containers, swap bodies, semi-trailers as well as road vehicles l (vehicle combinations (road 
trains, articulated vehicles) and single road vehicles7). 

3.1.1  Container 

Freight containers come along in the form of ISO-containers (sea containers) and non ISO-
containers (inland containers). 

ISO-containers  

ISO-containers,  intended  for  intercontinental  traffic,  are  designed  according  to  ISO  6688 
with  standardised  dimensions,  for  example,  in  terms  of  size,  weight,  door  opening  size, 
corner  fittings.  The  ISO  668,  defined  by  the  International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO), 
thereby  regulates  not  only  the  external,  but  also  the  internal  (minimum)  dimensions  of 
containers.  Besides  the  external  length  of  20’,  30’,  40’  and  45’,  there  were  also  shorter 
containers with a length of 5’, 6-1/2’ and 10’ defined in former ISO 668 editions, but only the 
10’ is still included in the current edition. 

As  can  be  seen  in  Table  1,  not  every  dimension  in  length  and  height  is  foreseen  as  a 
combination. 

7 See Article 2 of Directive 96/53/EC amended by Directive 2002/7/EC and Directive (EU) 2015/719. 
8 Current version: ISO 668:2020-01, Series 1 freight containers — Classification, dimensions and ratings. 

9 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

Table 1: Selected nominal external length and height of freight containers according to ISO 668 and 
their ISO code 

Freight container designation 

Nominal 
height (mm) 

2 438 mm 
2 591 mm 
2 896 mm 

Source: ISO 668, KombiConsult analysis 

20’ 
1 C 
1 CC 
- 

Nominal length (ft) 
30’ 
1 B 
1 BB 
1 BBB 

40’ 
1 A 
1 AA 
1 AAA 

45’ 
- 
1 EE 
1 EEE 

Besides  the  nominal  heights  presented  in  Table  1,  reduced  heights  are  permissible  for 
certain types of containers, such as tank, open top, bulk, platform and platform-based: 

•  hard top - container consists of a removable metal roof; 
•  open top - container consists of a tarpaulin roof, thus this container cannot be 

stacked; 

•  open side containers: as the name says, it can be open also from the side; 
• 

flat - container: platform-based containers with no side walls and no roof, but with 
two either permanently installed or foldable end walls; primarily suitable for very 
heavy and bulk goods; 

•  plat – container: consists of a simple base plate with no roof and no side and end 

walls; also, primarily suitable for very heavy and bulk goods; 

•  conditioned containers for the transport of temperature-controlled cargoes; 
•  bulk containers: consists of filling openings on the roof for bulk material; 
• 

tank containers: consists of a round inner shape for the transport of liquids and 
gases. 

Inland container 

Sea  containers  have  a  standard  external  width  of  8’ (=  2.438  mm).  In  Europe, the  Euro-
pallet is the standard for transporting goods. Its external dimension are 800 x 1 200 mm. To 
reach a better capacity utilisation of the loading units, and thus to reduce costs and to be 
more  efficient,  the  dimensions  of  so-called  inland  containers,  also  called  pallet-wide 
containers, are geared to the European pallet dimensions and consequently wider with an 
external  width  of  2  550  for  normal  or  2  600  mm  for  insulated  containers.  Thus,  with  an 
internal width of at least 2.440 mm, these containers are able to load either two or three 
European  pallets  side  by  side.  Inland  containers  are  used  almost  exclusively  in  the 
European transport market and are even accepted by sea shipping companies, in particular 
on  Short  Sea  Shipping within  Europe  and  from and to North  Africa.  Like  sea  containers, 
inland containers can be transhipped and locked by corner fittings according to ISO 1161 
in order to fit the spreader and to the container spaces in ships. 

Most common type of containers in terms of length used in container transport are 20’ and 
40’ containers, and with a standard external height of 8’ 6’’ (2 591 mm) or 9’ 6’’ (2 896 mm, 
so-called high cube container). The predominant container is the 40’ container, but the still 
high share of 20’ containers shows that the advantage of economies of scale is sometimes 
limited.  Due  to  their  static  and  high  load  capacity  in  terms  of  tonnes  equal  to  the  40’ 
container, 20’ containers are more suitable for heavier goods and smaller charges. Besides 
the 20’ and 40’ containers, 45’ pallet-wide containers are more and more in use, espceciallly 
in  European  short  sea  traffic9.  It  can  load  33  Euro-pallets,  thus,  32%  more  than  a  40’ 
standard container with 25 Euro-pallets. The manufacturer Unit45 even offers a 45’ pallet-
wide container that can load 34 Euro-pallets. At the beginning the 45’ container was not well 
received. It did not fit in between the 20’ and 40’ containers on the ships, it led to problems 
in  road  transport,  and  for  the  transport  on  rail  two  45’  containers  did  not  fit  on  many 

9 https://unit45.com/de/aktuelle/45-ft-container-hat-aufwind-bekommen-59/. 

10 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

intermodal wagons in use like two 40’ containers. The first two problems were first solved 
by  rounding  the  corners,  also  adjusting  the  size  for  wider  containers  and  to  comply  with 
road transportation  regulations10,  and  later  by  amending  the  Regulation11.  The  amended 
regulation allows the maximum length of vehicle combinations transporting 45’ containers 
or  45’  swap  bodies,  empty  or  loaded,  to  be  exceeded  by  15  cm,  provided  that  the  road 
transport  of  the  container  or  swap  body  in  question  is  part  of  an  intermodal  transport 
operation. The third problem with the wagons could be solved by the increased number of 
longer (articulated) wagons that could carrry two 45’ containers. 

Tank Container 

Tank containers, which are widely used in intermodal transport, were made especially for 
the transport of hazardous or non-hazardous liquids, powdered goods or gases for intra-
European traffic.  The  vessels  are  surrounded  by  a frame which  fits  to the ISO  container 
standard for the use in intermodal transport to be loaded and unloaded from the top and the 
bottom.  Tank  containers  must  be  at  least  80%  full,  to  prevent  dangerous  surging 
movements during transport. 

3.1.2  Swap bodies 

Swap  bodies  are  standardised  in  the  norm  EN  284  for  class  C  (“short”  swap  bodies  of 
7.15m, 7.45m and 7.82m external length, though C715 are no longer included in the edition 
of the standard DIN EN 284: 2007-01), and EN 452 for class A (“long” swap bodies with 
length between 12.5m and 13.6m). There are two main types of swap bodies: bodies with 
a hard surface, which may be stackable up to three layers, and bodies with curtains and 
tarpaulins. 

For rail transport they have to be fitted with equipment that allows transhipment according 
to UIC IRS 50592, but they can have several pick-up points to be handled not only by crane 
or reach stacker, but also by a forklift. However, all are equipped with lower “corner” fittings 
positioned  in  ISO  668  dimensions  for  20’  or  40’  ISO-containers  respectively,  while  for 
transhipment purposes they have grappler pockets in the standard distance of 4 876 mm. 
Some  types  of  bulk  containers  even  have  both:  a  frame  with  lower  and  upper  corner 
castings making them top-lift and stackable as well as grappler pockets allowing a heavier 
weight when lifting. Except for the longer 13.60 m swap bodies, most swap bodies have 
four supporting legs so they can easily be switched between road vehicles and switched off 
for intermediate storage. The width on the outside is 2.50 meters for regular and 2.60 meters 
for refrigerated swab bodies respectively, and 2.44 meters on the inside. Thus, like inland 
containers, the dimensions of swap bodies are adapted to Euro-pallets to be used mainly 
for  continental  transport.  For  freight  forwarders  and  carriers,  swap  bodies  are  frequently 
used due to the fact that they can be handled quickly and switched without further technical 
equipment between road vehicles. The short swap bodies offer space for 17 (7.15m), 18 
(7.45m) or 19 (7.82m) Euro pallets. 

Their payload is up to 16 tons, so that a truck with a trailer can transport two swap bodies 
at once. The 13.60 m long swap body offers space for 33 Euro-pallets, equal to a 45’ inland 
container and only one less than a semi-trailer. That being said, today there are even swap 
bodies that can carry 34 Euro-pallets, making them comparable to semi-trailers. 

10 Directive 96/53/EC of July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the 
maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorized weights in 
international traffic. 
11 Directive (EU) 2015/719 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 amending Council 
Directive  96/53/EC  laying  down  for  certain  road  vehicles  circulating  within  the  Community  the  maximum 
authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international 
traffic. 

11 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

3.1.3  Semi-trailers 

Semi-trailers are trailers with one or more own axles on the rear end, carried by a tractor 
unit  to which  they  are connected  via  a kingpin on  the  semi-trailer  and a coupling  device 
called “fifth wheel” on the towing vehicle. Normally they are equipped with two legs that can 
be lowered to stand on its own when uncoupled. Motor vehicles and vehicle combinations 
or  the  type  road  trains  (motor  vehicle  coupled  to  a  trailer)  or  articulated  vehicle  (motor 
vehicle coupled to a semi-trailer) are designed according to different norms. Directive (EU) 
2015/719, which amends Directive 95/53/EC, sets maximum dimensions and weights for 
international road traffic, also ensuring that Member States cannot restrict the circulation of 
vehicles which comply with these limits from performing international transport operations 
within their territories. In the European Union the maximum permitted length of the semi-
trailer is 13.62 m. 

Semi-trailers  for  vertical  lifting  are  standardised  in  EN  16973  which  includes  general 
requirements like swept envelope, dimensions and positioning of the grappler pockets and 
other things. Relevant technical and operational data for semi-trailers can be found in Table 
2 and Table 3. 

Mega Trailer 

The word “Mega Trailer” is widely used for a semi-trailer of 13.62 m length and an external 
height of 4 m and an internal loading height of 3 m allowing three box pallets (according to 
automotive industry standard) to be stacked on each other. These trailers have smaller but 
wider tires to compensate the load. They can also be built in the form of craneable semi-
trailers for intermodal transport.  

Euro Trailer 

Since a high share of long-distance transports are said to be limited by the freight volume, 
but  not  by  their  weight,  certain  vehicle  concepts  for  enhancing  the  maximum  permitted 
length of trucks were developed. One of these concepts is the “Euro Trailer” (formerly known 
as “Big Maxx”), which is produced by the vehicle manufacturers Kögel and Fliegl. The length 
of the trailer is 14.92 m, which is 1.3 m longer than for other trailers. The extended semi-
trailer was first used in 2006 in Germany as part of a nationwide test, and since the end of 
the tests in 2017 the Euro Trailer has been allowed in almost all German federal states, with 
the initial exception of Berlin until the end of 2023. For intermodal transport, the Euro Trailer 
does  not  play  a  big  role,  as  cross  border  transports  are  not  generally  possible12  due  to 
different  national  regulations  and  from  a  technical  perspective  only  fits  on  some  pocket 
wagons with sufficient space such as the T3000e. Even more, the transhipment of the “Euro 
Trailer”  from  road  to  rail  and  v.v.  is  quite  difficult  due  to  small  room  for  manoeuvring. 
According  to  available  information,  the  “Euro  Trailer  Mega  Rail”  version  with  an  interior 
height  of  3 m  might  even  not  be  accepted  by  intermodal  operators,  as  the  necessary 
clearance in the rear area cannot be achieved. As it stands, the future of the “Euro Trailer” 
in intermodal transport is uncertain, however in road-only, especially national, transport it is 
gaining  further  attention and  momentum.  This  needs  to  be  observed  carefully,  since  the 
overall length is a sensitive figure for the compatibility of semi-trailers and rail wagon (see 
standard EN 16973). In practical application in particular if longer than 13.62 m trailers come 

12  Exemptions  exist  between  Belgium  and  The  Netherlands  as  well  as  between  Scandinavian  countries 
according  to  bilateral  State  Treaties.  The  recent  Treaty  between  The  Netherlands  and  Germany  on  the 
mutual  acceptance  of  longer  vehicle  combination  in  cross  border  transport  between  .the  two  countries 
includes different type of vehicle combinations but not the truck and longer trailer combination (“Type 1“) 
(https://www.eurotransport.de/artikel/abkommen-mit-den-niederlanden-lang-lkw-auch-
grenzueberschreitend-11189859.html). 

12 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

together  with  3  m  internal  height  design  (“Mega  Trailer”)  and  rear  underrun  protection 
devices which fulfil the standard ECE R 58.  

3.1.4  Full road vehicles 

Contrary to the containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers described before, road vehicles 
include a motor vehicle and thus are self-propelled vehicles which can be transported on 
specialized means of transport (for example “Rollende Landstraße”). Road vehicles can be 
distinguished into the two groups of single vehicles and vehicle combinations. 

A lorry, which is neither a road train nor an articulated vehicle, is still included in the current 
Directive 92/106/EC as an eligible loading unit for the definition of combined transport, but 
not covered anymore by this language. It is a synonym used for “truck” and means a motor 
vehicle for the transport of cargo. 

Vehicle  combinations,  as  set  in  Directive  96/53/EC,  hereby  can  be  either  road  trains  or 
articulated vehicles: 

•  a road train consists of a motor vehicle coupled to a trailer; 
•  an articulated vehicle consists of a motor vehicle coupled to a semi-trailer. 

“Articulated” hereby means that the coupling between the motor vehicle and semi-
trailer is by a permanent or semi-permanent pivot joint. 

There  exist  a  variety  of  full  road  vehicles  geared  to  specific  customer’s  requirements. 
technical parameters are nevertheless displayed in the next chapter exemplary. 

3.1.5  Technical comparison of loading units 

The technical parameters of different types of loading units are shown in Table 2 and Table 
3,  which  we  derived  from  regulations,  norms  and  other  sources.  As  some  technical 
parameters  are  fixed  according  to  regulations  (e.g.  external  dimensions),  the  loading 
capacity in terms of volume and weight may vary for each single loading unit as a result of 
different internal dimensions and weights. This is because, among other things: 

•  different manufacturers; 
•  different interiors materials (e.g. wood floor, steel floor, etc.); 
•  different uses (dry units, reefer, bulk, etc.); 
•  different age: use of more modern techniques and lighter materials but reaching 
the same strength. Some old units can exceed the stated weights below while 
newer containers are often slightly lighter. 

As  an  example:  for  containers,  the  exact  tare  weight  for  an  individual  unit  should  be 
displayed  on  the  container  door.  Typically,  a  standard  20’  container  weighs  about  2.2 
tonnes.  But  there  are  also  20’  containers  with  2.1  tonnes  or  2.4  tonnes.  High  cube 
containers at those sizes have about 150 kg more weight: more height = more metal, but 
despite the higher weight they have a much better ratio in terms of volume per tonne. The 
opposite concerns for example reefer containers, which have not only about more weight 
to carry due to the cooling or heating unit and the insulation, but also less volume, which is 
also  due  to  the  unit  and  the  insulation.  To  compensate  for  the  additional  weight  of  the 
cooling or heating system, at least partially, walls are often made of aluminium or composite 
material. 

13 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

Table 2: Technical comparison of selected loading units (exemplary external and internal dimension) 

Category 

Type 

Length 
(ft) 

External dimensions 
Width 
(m) 

Length 
(m) 

Standard 
Reefer 
Open Top 
Hard Top 
Flat Rack 
Bulk 
HC 
HC Reefer 
HC 
Standard 
HC 
HC Reefer 
HC Open Top 
HC Hard Top 
Reefer 
Open Top 
Hard Top 
HC 
PW 
PW HC 
PW 
PW HC 
PW HC (34 EUR) 
PW HC Reefer 

ISO container 

Inland container 

20' 

6.06 

30' 

9.13 

2.44 

40' 

12.19 

45' 

40' 

13.72 

12.19 

45' 

13.72 

2.55 

Internal dimensions* 

Height 
(m) 
2.59 
2.59 
2.59 
2.59 
2.59 
2.70 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.59 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.59 
2.59 
2.59 
2.90 
2.59 
2.90 
2.59 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

Length 
(m) 
5.87 
5.45 
5.90 
5.90 
5.6 
5.90 
5.87 
5.46 
8.93 
12.00 
12.00 
11.57 
12.02 
12.02 
11.58 
12.03 
12.02 
13.54 
12.00 
12.00 
13.56 
13.56 
13.62 
13.32 

Width 
(m) 
2.33 
2.29 
2.33 
2.33 
2.23 
2.34 
2.33 
2.29 
2.33 
2.33 
2.33 
2.29 
2.33 
2.33 
2.29 
2.33 
2.33 
2.33 
2.44 
2.44 
2.44 
2.44 
2.44 
2.44 

Height 
(m) 
2.35 
2.27 
2.34 
2.30 
2.22 
2.50 
2.66 
2.26 
2.66 
2.35 
2.66 
2.49 
2.65 
2.62 
2.18 
2.34 
2.30 
2.66 
2.35 
2.70 
2.39 
2.70 
2.72 
2.57 

Area 
(m²) 

Volume 
(m³) 

13.7 
12.5 
13.7 
13.7 
12.5 
13.8 
13.7 
12.5 
20.8 
28.0 
28.0 
26.4 
28.0 
28.0 
26.5 
28.0 
28.0 
31.5 
29.3 
29.3 
33.1 
33.1 
33.2 
32.5 

32.1 
28.2 
32.2 
31.6 
27.7 
34.5 
36.4 
28.3 
55.3 
65.7 
74.4 
65.9 
74.2 
73.4 
57.7 
65.6 
64.4 
83.9 
68.8 
79.1 
79.1 
89.3 
90.4 
83.5 

Euro-
pallets 
(n°) 
11 
10 
11 
11 
n.a. 
n.a. 
11 
10 
18 
25 
25 
23 
25 
25 
23 
25 
25 
27 
30 
30 
33 
33 
34 
33 

14 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

Category 

Type 

Length 
(ft) 

External dimensions 
Width 
(m) 

Length 
(m) 

20' 
20' 
30' 
40' 
45' 
52' 
7.15 m 
7.45 m 
7.45 m Jumbo 
7.82 m 
7.82 m Jumbo 
13.60 m 
13.715 m 
13.6 m 
13.6 m Mega 
13.6 m Coil 
13.6 m n.c. 
13.6 m Mega n.c. 
14.9 m Rail 
14.9 m Mega 
14.9 m non n.c. 
14.9 m Mega n.c. 
Truck/semi-trailer 
Road train 

Tank container 

Swap body 

Semi-trailer 

« Euro Trailer » 

Vehicle 
Combination 

20' 

30' 
40' 
45' 
52' 
24' 

25' 

26' 
26' 
45' 
45‘ 
45' 
45' 
45' 
45' 
45' 
50' 
50' 
50' 
50' 
n.a. 
n.a. 

6.06 

9.06 
12.19 
13.70 
15.80 
7.15 

7.45 

7.82 

13.60 
13.72 

13.68 

15.25 

Height 
(m) 
2.44 
2.59 
2.59 
2.59 
2.59 
2.59 
2.67 
2.67 
2.98 
2.67 
3.18 
2.67 
2.95 

2.44 

2.55 

2.55 
2.55 

2.55 
2.55 
2.55 
2.55 

2.55 

4.00 

Internal dimensions* 

Length 
(m) 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
7.05 
7.36 
7.28 
7.76 
7.71 
13.45 
13.61 
13.62 
13.62 
13.62 
13.62 
13.62 
14.92 
14.92 
15.00 
15.00 
13.60 
Various 

Width 
(m) 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
2.44 
2.44 
2.44 
2.44 
2.48 
2.44 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.48 
2.45 
2.45 

Height 
(m) 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
2.40 
2.40 
2.71 
2.40 
2.82 
2.40 
2.55 
2.93 
3.00 
2.65 
2.70 
3.00 
2.70 
3.00 
2.70 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

Area 
(m²) 

Volume 
(m³) 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
17.2 
18.0 
17.8 
18.9 
19.1 
32.8 
33.8 
33.8 
33.8 
33.8 
33.8 
33.8 
37.0 
37.0 
37.2 
37.2 
n.a. 
n.a. 

20-26 
20-26 
36.5 
46.0 
63.0 
73.5 
41.3 
43.1 
48.1 
45.4 
53.9 
78.8 
86.1 
99.0 
101.3 
89.5 
91.2 
101.3 
99.9 
111.0 
100.4 
111.6 
Various 
Various 

Euro-
pallets 
(n°) 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
17 
18 
18 
19 
19 
33 
34 
34 
34 
34 
34 
34 
34 
34 
34 
34 
34 
36 

15 

16.50 
18.75 

2.55/2.60 
2.55/2.60 

4.00 
4.00 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

Table 3: Technical comparison of selected loading units (exemplary external dimension, weight, craneability, transhipment, stackable) 

Category 

Type 

Length 
(ft) 

Standard 
Reefer 
Open Top 
Hard Top 
Flat Rack 
Bulk 
HC 
HC Reefer 
HC 
Standard 
HC 
HC Reefer 
HC Open Top 
HC Hard Top 
Reefer 
Open Top 
Hard Top 
HC 
PW 
PW HC 
PW 
PW HC 
PW HC (34 EUR) 
PW HC Reefer 

20' 

30' 

40' 

45' 

40' 

45' 

ISO container 

Inland container 

Weight* 

Tare 
(t) 

2.2 
2.9 
2.3 
2.7 
2.7 
2.7 
2.4 
3.1 
2.9 
3.8 
3.9 
4.5 
4.3 
4.9 
4.5 
3.7 
4.7 
4.8 
4.1 
4.6 
4.8 
4.6 
4.4 
6.1 

Max. 
payload 
(t) 
28.3 
27.5 
28.2 
27.8 
31.3 
32.3 
28.1 
27.4 
27.6 
26.7 
26.5 
26.0 
26.2 
25.6 
26.0 
26.7 
25.8 
25.7 
29.9 
29.4 
29.2 
29.4 
29.6 
27.9 

Gross 
weight 
(t) 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
30.5 
34.0 
34.0 
34.0 
34.0 
34.0 
34.0 

Craneable 

Trans-shipment 

Stackable 

Yes / NO 

Up to 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
9 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 

16 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST  

Category 

Type 

20' 
20' 
30' 
40' 
45' 
52' 
7.15 m 
7.45 m 
7.45 m Jumbo 
7.82 m 
7.82 m Jumbo 
13.60 m 
13.715 m 
13.6 m 
13.6 m Mega 
13.6 m Coil 
13.6 m n.c. 
13.6 m Mega n.c. 
14.9 m Rail 
14.9 m Mega 
14.9 m non n.c. 
14.9 m Mega n.c. 
Truck/semi-trailer 
Road train 

Tank container 

Swap body 

Semi-trailer 

« Euro Trailer » 

Vehicle 
Combination 

Length 
(ft) 

20' 

30' 
40' 
45' 
52' 
24' 

25' 

26' 
26' 
45' 
45‘ 
45' 
45' 
45' 
45' 
45' 
50' 
50' 
50' 
50' 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Gross 
weight 
(t) 
36.0 
36.0 
30.5 
75.0 
75.0 
16.0 
16.0 
16.0 
16.0 
16.0 
16.0 
34.0 
34.0 
39.0 
36.0 
36.0 
39.0 
39.0 
42.0 
39.0 
39.0 
39.0 
40/44.0 
40/44.0 

Weight* 

Tare 
(t) 

Max. 
payload 
(t) 
32.2 
31.5 
25.1 
66.2 
66.8 
13.0 
13.7 
13.0 
13.0 
13.0 
13.0 
29.4 
30.1 
31.8 
28.8 
28.2 
32.4 
32.6 
34.6 
31.3 
32.2 
32.1 

3.8 
4.5 
5.4 
8.8 
8.2 
3.0 
2.3 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
4.6 
3.9 
7.2 
7.2 
7.8 
6.6 
6.4 
7.4 
7.7 
6.8 
6.9 
14.1  25.9/29.9 
16.0 

24/28 

Craneable 

Trans-shipment 

Stackable 

Yes / NO 

Up to 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
No 

Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Spreader 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Grappler arm 
Grappler arm 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No/Yes 
No/Yes 
No/Yes 
No/Yes 
No/Yes 
No/Yes 
No/Yes 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 

5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

17 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

3.1.6  Share of intermodal loading units in Europe 

Container 

About  38  million  TEU  of  standard  containers  are  estimated  to  be  currently  in  circulation 
around the world13. To avoid misunderstanding, this is the number of containers that are 
currently in use or in service, not the number of transport operations with containers that is 
recorded in transport statistics, where a single container can be counted more than once 
during  a  year  while  others  disappeared  in  the  “after  market”.  Estimations  are  that  dry 
containers make up about 93% of this number, the rest is reefer containers with about 6 % 
and tank containers with about 1%14. That being said, 1% share for tank containers would 
mean  about  380  000  units,  but  the  International  Tank  Container  Organisation  (ITCO) 
estimates a tank container fleet of about 600 000 units. Thus, such numbers have to be 
treated with caution.  

Nevertheless, as concerns the number of transported containers, about 152.5 million TEU 
were  transported to  and  from  European ports  via ship  in 201915.  According  to the “2020 
Report on Combined Transport in Europe”16, which focuses on intermodal transport by rail, 
in  the  same  year  about  7.81  million  TEU  were  transported  on  rail  in  domestic  maritime 
intermodal transport and about 4.19 million TEU on rail in international maritime intermodal 
transport  in  Europe17.  This  sums  up  to  about  12  million  TEU  for  maritime  intermodal 
transport or container hinterland transport on rail18: this is a share of almost 8% of the global 
sea container transport, which were transported on rail from the European seaports to the 
European hinterland and vice versa.  

The “2020 Report on Combined Transport in Europe” also states that a total of about 24.8 
million TEU were transported on rail in Europe (including continental intermodal transport). 
Thus,  maritime  intermodal  transport  accounts  for  about  48%  of  all  transported  goods  in 
intermodal transport on rail. 

The conversion factor between average loading units and TEU often varies between about 
1.5 TEU per LU and about 1.7 TEU per LU, with a tendency towards 1.7 LU per TEU. On 
the basis of 1.7 TEU per LU, it would mean that a volume of 12 million TEU for maritime 
transport is equal to about 7.1 million containers, of which about 2.1 million LU would be 
20’ container and about 4.9 million would be 40’ containers, assuming that other sizes are 
of a lesser share and are often not counted at all. Thus, 40’ containers account for 70% of 
all maritime containers transported by rail, and 20’ containers for about 30%. 

13 http://www.hamburg-container.com/en/container.html. 
14 Drewry Maritime Research. 
15 Destatis.de. 
16 2020 Report on Combined Transport in Europe, November 2020. The Report aims to provide an 
assessment of the entire European combined transport market 
(https://uic.org/spip.php?action=telecharger&arg=3200); Although the Report is titled “Combined 
Transport” it does not only count “combined transport” but rather intermodal transport according to an 
explanation of the UIRR provided to DG MOVE. 
17 In the 2020 Report maritime combined transport means the movement of goods (mainly in containers with 
origin and/or destination overseas) between European seaports and European inland destinations by rail. 
18 In the 2017 Updating Study for the Commission the terms “Maritime Combined Transport” and “Container 
Hinterland CT” are defined as a combined transport operation, mostly of containers, that feeds to or delivers 
from maritime transport (short sea or ocean going) and they are used simultaneous.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Table 4: Volume of global sea shipping and European maritime CT by rail, 2019 

European 
shipping volumes 
Total 
m. TEU 
152.5 

European container hinterland transport by rail 

Total 

m. TEU 
12 

m. LU 
7.1 

20’ 
m. LU 
2.1 

40’ 
m. LU 
4.9 

Source: destatis.de, UIC/UIRR 2020 Report, KombiConsult analysis 

As  concerns  EU  inland  waterway  shipping,  about  6.7  million  TEU  of  containers  were 
transported  on  inland  waterways  in  201919.  Eurostat  thereby  calculates  the  share  of  the 
different  container  sizes  on  basis  of  TEU-km.  Assuming  a  similar  share  for  TEU,  we 
estimated about 4.2 million containers that were transported on inland waterways in Europe 
in 2019. 

Table 5: Volume of European maritime intermodal transport  by inland waterway shipping, 2019 

European container hinterland transport by IWW 
>20’ - <40’ 
1% 
0.07 
1.5 
0.04 

20’ 
26% 
1.7 
1.0 
1.7 

40’ 
72% 
4.8 
2.0 
2.4 

Total 
100% 
6.7 

4.2 

45’ 
1% 
0.07 
2.3 
0.03 

unit 

% 
TEU 
TEU/LU 
LU 

Source: Eurostat, KombiConsult analysis 

Summarising  rail  and  inland  waterways,  in  total  about  18.7  million  TEU  or  11.3  million 
containers respectively were transported in Europe in 2019. 20’ container account for about 
3.9  million  containers,  and  40’  containers  for  about  7.4 million,  considering that from  the 
statistical side other sizes are of a lesser share. Nevertheless, it is worth to mention that 
other  sizes  are  often  not  explicitly  shown  by  the  statistics.  For  the  statistics  on  inland 
waterways,  for  instance,  only  Germany  reported  larger  containers than 40’.  Thus, this  is 
only an assumption and especially the volume of larger sizes, such as 45’ containers, may 
be higher. 

Table 6: Volume of European maritime intermodal/container hinterland transport, 2019 

European container hinterland transport  

Rail 
Inland 
waterways 
Total 

m. TEU 
12.0 

6.7 

m. LU 
7.1 

4.2 

m. LU 20’ 
2.1 

m. LU 40’ 
4.9 

1.7 

3.9 

2.4 

7.4 

11.3 
Source: UIC/UIRR 2020 Report, Eurostat, KombiConsult analysis 

18.7 

The  aforementioned  statistics  and  reports  –  despite  their  naming  -  focus  mainly  on 
intermodal transport which is also the scope of the present study and not on the combined 
transport only as defined in Directive 92/106/EEC. The statistical evidence of the difference 
between combined transport and intermodal transport is however not easily available. 

19 Eurostat.eu. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Tank containers 

As  concerns  tank  containers,  the  International  Tank  Container  Organisation  (ITCO) 
estimates that at beginning of 2021 the global tank container fleet stood at 686 650 units 
worldwide (2020: 652 350)20. 

Figure 1: Tank Container World Fleet (2000-2021) 

Source: ITCO, 2021 Global Fleed Report 

The  tank  container  market  is  thereby  dominated  by  a relatively  small  number  of  players 
(tank container operators and leasing companies). 

Figure 2: Top Ten Tank Container Operators (1 January 2021) 

Source: ITCO, 2021 Global Fleet Report 

Swap bodies and semi-trailers 

The  UIC/UIRR  2020  Report states that  containers  are  the  most  used  accounted  loading 
units with almost a two third of the rail intermodal rail (62%). Swap bodies have a share of 
17%, and semi-trailers about 21%. 

20 https://www.international-tank-container.org. 

20 

0100.000200.000300.000400.000500.000600.000700.000800.000 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Figure 3: Distribution of loading units in intermodal transport 

Source: 2020 Report on Combined Transport in Europe 

As concerns the number of swap bodies, there are several estimations of about 300 000 to 
400 000 units in Europe, although no reliable statistical information is available.  

According to Eurostat, there were 2.8 million semi-trailers registered in the EU and 17 800 
semi-trailers  in  Switzerland  in  201921,  but  a  large  majority  of  them  is  never  used  in 
intermodal  transport.  There  is  no  information  available  regarding  the  number  of  existing 
craneable and non-craneable semi-trailers in circulation. 

In any case, the share of transhipped and transported semi-trailers in intermodal transport 
have increased significantly over recent years. This was shown for example in an analysis 
of the German unaccompanied intermodal rail transport market between 2005 and 2019. 
Within  this  timeframe  the  share  increased  from  about  5%  (152  000  transported  semi-
trailers) to almost 20% (942 600 transported semi-trailers) in 2016, where it could remain 
at  this  level  over  the  past  years.  In  2019,  over  one  million  transports  of  semi-trailers  in 
unaccompanied intermodal transport were conducted in Germany alone.  

An  exact  amount  of  the  number  of  semi-trailers  (box  trailers)  suitable  for  direct  vertical 
transhipment in intermodal transport (craneable) in Europe cannot be determined, as there 
are no statistics on how many of the manufactured semi-trailers are craneable or not. There 
are certain estimations that between 90% and 95% of the total European semi-trailer fleet 
might  be  non-craneable  (including  all  different  types  of  semi-trailers).  In  Germany  for 
example, the  transport  of  non-craneable  semi-trailers  has  not  played  a big role so  far  in 
intermodal rail transport and the share of non-craneable semi-trailers is likely in the single 
digit percentages. Assuming 1 million transports of craneable semitrailers in Germany and 
2 transhipments per transport, the total number of transhipments of craneable semitrailers 
is 2 million per year in Germany.  

In comparison, the total number of annual transhipments involving all technologies enabling 
the  transhipment  of  non-craneable  semitrailers  onto  rail  in  the  whole  of  Europe 
(CargoBeamer,  Modalohr,  Nikrasa,  ISU  and  r2l)  adds  up  to  less  than  half  a  million 
(determined  in  chapter  4.3).  As  some  of  these  technologies  are  also  used  for  the 
transhipment and transport of craneable semi-trailers (e.g. Modalohr), the actual number of 
transhipped non-craneable semitrailers is even lower.  

21  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/road_eqs_semit/default/table?lang=en,  semi-

trailers with a permissible maximum gross weight of over 30 tonnes 

21 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Figure 4: Development of share of semitrailers in unaccompanied intermodal rail transport in Germany 
2005-2019 

Source: Destatis, KombiConsult analysis 

For the purpose of this study, we reduced the number of loading units used for the further 
analysis in our model environment to a small selection of typical loading units. The selected 
loading  units  are  suitable  to  facilitate  the  comparison  between  different  transhipment 
technologies and for different modes of transport.  The selected loading units can be seen 
in Table 7 below. A simple 20’ ISO Box container has the lowest tare weight, while the non-
craneable semi-trailer has the highest payload. However, it is only 600 kg higher than the 
payload of a craneable semi-trailer. 

Table 7: Intermodal loading units and their technical dimensions selected for the further purpose of 
this study 

Group 

Type 

ISO-Container 

Semi-trailer 

Complete road 
vehicle 

20’ 
40’ 
Craneable 
Non craneable 

Truck with semi-trailer 

16.50 

External 
length 
(m) 
6.09 
12.19 
13.68 
13.68 

Max gross 
weight (t) 

Tare 
(t) 

Payload 
(t) 

30.5 
30.5 
39 
39 

44 

2.2 
3.8 
7.2 
6.8 

14.1 

28.3 
26.7 
31.8 
32.4 

29.9 

Source: KombiConsult analysis;  

3.2 Detailed  list  of  all  different  types  of  transhipment  technologies  in  intermodal 
transport;  establishing  the  costs  and  investments  needed  associated  with 
different transhipment technologies 

This chapter concerns the ToR tasks 1.2 and 2 including all subtasks. Data gathering for 
these tasks has taken place together. When contacting manufacturers/providers or users 
of transhipment technologies, questions about the costs and investments associated with 
the  technologies  were  included  with  the  operational  data  to  avoid  a  second  round  of 
inquiries. The results for tasks 1.2 and 2 are displayed in the fact sheets shown in Annex 1.  

The list of transhipment technologies to be examined in this study was compiled starting 
from the indicative list of transhipment technologies provided by DG MOVE in the ToR. With 
the help of the sources mentioned in the text an investigation was conducted regarding the 
technologies on the indicative list as well as to look for further technologies that had not 

22 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Semi-trailersContainer and Swap bodies 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

been considered so far. However, the indicative list proved to be comprehensive and no 
other technologies were identified. 

This  resulted  in  the  compiled  list  of  transhipment  technologies  to  be  further  investigated 
shown in Table 8. The list provides the name and a short description of the technologies. 

Table 8: List of transhipment technologies to be evaluated in the study 

Transhipment 
Technology 

Short description 

1  Gantry Crane 

A crane for handling intermodal loading units which is built on a gantry, 
which spans over the workspace beneath and can usually move along 
rails (Rail Mounted Gantry Crane / RMG) or tracks (Rubber Tyred 
Gantry Crane / RTG). The working area can be extended via 
cantilevers to the left and right of the gantry. A spreader is required for 
transhipment of the loading units. 

2  Reach Stacker 

A rubber tyred vehicle used for the handling of intermodal loading units. 
The required spreader for the transhipment of intermodal loading units 
is attached in front of the vehicle at the end of a lifting arm. 

3 

Hydraulic Material 
Handling Crane 

A mobile crane which is capable of rotating on its base and which uses 
a hydraulic lifting arm for lifting loading units or other objects. For 
intermodal transhipment, this requires a spreader for intermodal 
loading units. 

4 

Mobile Harbour 
Crane 

A mobile crane which is capable of rotating on its base and which uses 
hoist ropes, wire ropes or chains and sheaves for the lifting of loading 
units or other objects. For intermodal transhipment, this requires a 
spreader for intermodal loading units. 

5  Crane Ship 

A ship with deck cranes for the autonomous loading/unloading without 
the necessity for further terminal handling equipment. For intermodal 
transhipment, this requires a spreader for intermodal loading units. 

6 

Furmia RTS 500 

A horizontal transfer machine which was originally (1999/2000) built by 
Neuweiler AG, Switzerland. Development was continued eventually by 
Bosch Rexroth Hungary in the framework of the European InHoTra 
project between 2000 and 2004.  

7 

RoRo Ramp 
to/from Ship 

8 

RoRo double 
stacking 
cassettes 

A ship with built-in ramps over which wheeled cargo can be loaded or 
unloaded. RoRo stands for roll-on/roll-off. There are variants within the 
technology where land-based ramps, pontoon bridges and/or other 
additional equipment is utilized depending on local and operational 
circumstances and which are agreed upon bilaterally between the 
shipping lines and the ports. 

A cassette (platform) which can be used to transport two stacked 
containers on RoRo-ships with sufficient deck height. The cassette is 
hauled by a terminal truck with a translifter. This specific technology is 
distinguished from the common practice since a second container can 
be stacked and fixed on the first layer for 
loading/transporting/unloading the vessel. 

9  Metrocargo 

Horizontal loading technology capable of loading containers and swap 
bodies on trains working under the catenary (prototype developed 
2011-2013). 

23 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Transhipment 
Technology 

Short description 

10 

N.E.H.T.S. 
(Neuweiler) 

Horizontal Transfer Machine originally (1999/2000) built by Neuweiler 
AG, Switzerland which was part of the European InHoTra project 
between 2000 and 2004. The technology reached the demonstrator 
stage of the InHoTra project and a prototype was built in Zurich.  

11 

IUT (ÖBB Rail 
Cargo Austria) 

Innovativer Umschlagterminal / IUT (Innovative transhipment terminal). 
Rack structure for the stacking of non-stackable loading units, random 
access to these units and for the vertical handling of containers and 
swap-bodies in rail-road transhipments developed to a demonstrator 
until 2010. 

12  CarConTrain 

Horizontal loading technology capable of loading containers and swap 
bodies on trains working under the catenary. The technology was part 
of the European InHoTra project between 2000 and 2004.  

13  Sidelifter 

A device, usually mounted on a chassis used for the direct 
transhipment of loading units between the chassis and the ground, rail 
wagons or another chassis. 

14  BOXMover 

A brand and specific type of a sidelifter with some technical differences 
developed by the company BOXmover. (www.boxmover.gmbh) 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Mobiler (Rail 
Cargo Austria) 

A horizontal loading technology for specifically designed loading units 
and brand of Rail Cargo Austria (www.railcargo.at). 

Container Mover 
3020 (Innovatrain) 

A horizontal loading technology for swap-bodies and containers and 
brand of the company Innovatrain (www.innovatrain.ch). 

Cargo Beamer 1st 
generation 
(Cargobeamer 
AG) 

Horizontal transhipment system for "non craneable" semi-trailers with 
terminal installations and specifically designed rail wagon. Product and 
brand of the company CargoBeamer (www.cargobeamer.com). 

Cargo Beamer 
next generation 
(Cargobeamer 
AG) 

Horizontal transhipment system for "non-craneable" semi-trailers with 
terminal installation and specifically designed wagon, which can also 
be loaded "vertically", if semi-trailers are craneable. Product and brand 
of the company CargoBeamer (www.cargobeamer.com). 

19 

Modalohr 1st 
generation (AFA) 

20 

Modalohr 2nd 
generation 
« N/A » 
(Lohr Industrie) 

Horizontal transhipment system for semi-trailers and tractor units with 
terminal installations and specific wagons, which require adaptations in 
the lower UIC loading gauge on the rail tracks with regard to dwarf 
signals. The first generation, still in operation between Aiton and 
Orbassano, targeted at accompanied non-craneable semi-trailer 
transports. Product and brand of the company LOHR (www.lohr.fr). 

Horizontal transhipment system for semi-trailers and tractor units with 
terminal installations and specific wagons, which require adaptations in 
the lower UIC loading gauge on the rail tracks with regard to dwarf 
signals. The second generation, still in operation on certain lines, 
targeted at « non-accompanied » (« N/A »)  transport of « non-
craneable » semi-trailers. Product and brand of the company LOHR 
(www.lohr.fr). 

21 

Modalohr UIC 
(Lohr Industrie, 
VIA) 

Horizontal transhipment system for semi-trailers with terminal 
installations and specific wagons, which, due to its adaptability, 
respects the UIC loading gauge. Present product and brand of the 
company LOHR (www.lohr.fr). 

24 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Transhipment 
Technology 

Short description 

22  Helrom 

Special rail wagon which turns out for loading/unloading semi-trailers 
promoted and used by company Helrom (www.helrom.com). 

23  Nikrasa 

A transport plate form for craning "non-craneable" semi-trailers in 
pocket wagons (promoted and used by TX Logistik). A corresponding 
terminal platform is required. All other technologies necessary for the 
transhipment and transport of the loading unit, such as crane, 
spreader, semi-trailer and wagon, do not have to be modified. 

24 

ISU (ÖBB Rail 
Cargo Austria) 

Innovativer Sattelanhänger Umschlag / ISU (Innovative Semi-Trailer 
transhipment) consists of a ramp in terminals and beams attached to 
ropes to load "non-craneable" semi-trailers into pocket wagon 
(promoted and used by Rail Cargo Austria). 

25  Megaswing 

A special rail wagon which turns out for loading/unloading semi-trailers 
which was developped by Kockums Industrier in Sweden. The 
Megaswing technology has been taken over and is marketed by 
Helrom. It is included in this study under the new name (see technology 
22 in this list) and will not be mentioned separately from here on. 

26  Cargospeed 

A special rail wagon which turns out for loading/unloading semi-trailers 
with the help of a pop-up mechanism located between the rails in the 
terminal which is used to lift or drop the wagon floor for the 
unloading/loading process.  

27 

Rail Runner 
(Europe) 

The Rail Runner technology consists of a specially designed semi-
trailer with in-build rail components which can be placed on two 
boogies for rail transport. 

28  RoLa Ramp 

RoLa (Rollende Landstraße or Rolling Highway) is a technology for the 
transport of full vehicles on specially designed rail wagons. With the 
help of a ramp, the truck can drive onto the train itself. 

29 

Eurotunnel Le 
Shuttle freight 

The Eurotunnel Le Shuttle freight system is a localized technology for 
the transport of full vehicles on specially designed rail wagons through 
the Eurotunnel. 

30  Flexiwaggon 

The Flexiwaggon is a special type of rail wagon which turns out for the 
loading/unloading of full vehicles. Product and brand of the company 
Flexiwaggon (www.flexiwaggon.se). 

31 

r2l 2.0 road rail 
link (VEGA) 

Road Rail Link is made of a ramp in terminals and basket type of tray 
to load all types of vehicles into pocket wagon (promoted and used by 
VEGA Trans, VTG and TX Logistik). 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

This  provides  a  consolidated  and  comprehensive  base  for  further  investigation  of 
transhipment  technologies  for  intermodal  transport  chains  involving  road  to  rail,  inland 
waterway or  short  sea transhipments  in the  EU. The connected modes  of transport  also 
enable  a  distinction  of  the  various  technologies.  Whereas  some  technologies  were 
specifically  designed  to  be  used for  transhipments  between  specific  modes  of  transport, 
others can be used in combination with different modes of transport, but possibly changing 
the operational characteristics and performance indicators according to the involved modes. 
A further distinction can be made between the “transhipable” loading units. For the study 
this effectively implies that the technologies might have to be evaluated in multiple different 
settings depending on the involved modes of transport and the transhipped loading units. It 

25 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

is important to note that the technologies are not all mutually exclusive. Cranes and reach 
stackers,  for  example,  can  also  be  used  jointly or  in  combination  with  a  technology  that 
allows the handling of loading units that it was not previously capable of. 

Further classifications of the transhipment technologies can be made according to the type 
of  intermodal  service,  i.e.  accompanied  or  unaccompanied  transport,  and  the  type  of 
transhipment, i.e. vertical or horizontal transhipment. 

3.2.1  Description of the guidelines and assumptions for setting up the model 

To have comparable framework conditions for the different technologies and thereby enable 
the  comparative  evaluation,  all  technologies  were  analysed  in  a  dedicated  model 
environment.  This  means  that  the  terminal  setting  and  transport  chain  are  created  and 
described for the exclusive use of an individual transhipment technology with one mode of 
transport for the main leg and an individual type of loading unit. All transport chains consist 
of the main leg via. rail, IWW or SSS, one transhipment conducted in a terminal dedicated 
to the transhipment technology at each end of the main leg as well as pre and post carriage 
of the LU via road leg to or from the terminal. Multi-purpose facilities, mixed load transports 
and  transhipments  between  more  than  two  different  modes  of  transport  are  therefore 
purposefully excluded from this analysis. Furthermore, unplanned waiting times, delays and 
other technology  independent  events  are  not  incorporated  as  they  would affect  absolute 
values for every technology but not change the results of the comparison. For this reason, 
certain  assumptions  about  the  terminal  setup,  terminal  processes  and  the  transport  are 
made  in  a  generalized  manner  for  all  technologies.  Terminal  check-in  for  example  is 
handled differently in different terminals and depending on the type of loading unit, however 
there  is  no  reason  why  certain  automation  principles  could  not  be  adopted  by  other 
terminals (and transhipment technologies) as well. 

Although the goal is to enable a realistic comparison between the different transhipment 
technologies,  the  logistics  reality  is  far  more  complex  than  can  be  shown  here.  Some 
simplifications made to allow comparison in this study may overlay or hide certain situation-
dependent principles and considerations for choosing a certain technology or might cause 
certain values to differ from the real operating conditions. However, the approach is well 
suited  to  achieve  the  main  objective  of  this  study,  which  is  to  establish  a  comparative 
evaluation between different transhipment technologies and to provide information on their 
individual strengths and weaknesses. 

When  creating  the  model  environment,  the  following  basic  guidelines  and  assumptions 
were applied in the terminal design: 

• 

the terminals need to be able to handle trains, barges or ships, used on the main 
leg, according to the following specifications as specified DG MOVE: 
trains with a max. length of 740m and a max. weight of 2 000t. 

– 
–  Barges with a length of 110m, a width of 11.4m and a height of 3.5m as well 

as a capacity of 2 800t or 200 TEU. 

–  Short  Sea  Ships  with  a  capacity  of  1  000  TEU  or  2  500  lane  meters.  An 
exemplary 1 000 TEU short sea container ship can have a length of 150m 
and a width of 22.5m. For the RoRo-Ship with 2 500 lane meters a length of 
180m and a width of 25m can be assumed. 

•  The  terminal  layout  will  include  a  gate  area,  an  intermediate  buffer  area,  a 
transhipment  area  and  driving  or  loading  lanes  as  standard  elements  as  well  as 
technology  specific  elements.  Other  general  supporting  elements,  which  are  not 
directly linked to the transhipment process, are excluded. 

•  The non-technology specific terminal operations are assumed to be the same for all 
technologies.  This  especially  concerns  the  check-in  and  check-out  processes  as 

26 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

well as most preparation and security processes for the full train, barge or ship. For 
the terminal check-in rail-road a differentiation is made based on the type of loading 
unit  transhipped.  Containers,  swap  bodies  and  craneable  semi-trailers  take  less 
time during the technical check-in than non-craneable semi-trailers. For the later the 
technical check-in takes a little longer and has a different focus due to the necessity 
to  check  the  suitability  of  the  specific  loading  unit  for  rail  transport.  This  does 
however not prolong the total check-in time as the technical check-in takes place in 
parallel to other check-in processes. It does however increase the working time per 
LU  of  the  checker  conducting  the  technical  check-in.  This  assumption  has  been 
coordinated with technology providers and terminal operators22 accepting different 
types of loading units.  

•  For certain necessary security processes during the transhipment of a single loading 
unit and caused by the type of loading unit being transhipped, additional personal is 
shown  supporting  the  transhipment.  For  example,  in  the  vertical  transhipment  of 
semitrailers onto rail waggons, an additional groundsman is included who checks 
the correct placement and securing of the semitrailer on the rail waggon.  

•  The terminal was designed in a compact way to reduce in terminal driving times. For 
all  driving  times  an  average  based  on  the  expected  distance  distribution  was 
assumed which is already included in the shown process times if applicable. 

•  Extra  movements  of  the  train,  barge  or  ship  or  the  terminal  equipment  for  the 
transhipment in the terminal are avoided unless they are explicitly required by the 
technology. For example, rearrangements of buffered loading units are not included 
whereas relocating the mobile harbour crane is required multiple times during the 
loading/unloading of a full train as the length of the train exceeds the range of the 
crane hoist many times over. After entering the terminal trains, barges or ships are 
not moved for any technology included until the unloading and loading process is 
finished.  

•  An indirect terminal operation organisation is assumed for all technologies to provide 
a common basis. In indirect terminal operations, the loading unit is not transhipped 
directly  onto  the  truck  or  the  train,  barge  or  ship,  but  is  first  deposited  in  an 
intermediate buffer area, thereby decoupling the linked modes of transport. The time 
spent in the buffer area will not be included in the process times. This also means, 
that  each transhipment  in the  model  consists  of two loading  unit  handlings  in  the 
terminal,  either  by  the  same  or  different  equipment.  This  approach  has  been 
discussed with all consulted technology providers and users and is considered to 
accurately reflect the common practice. 

•  The intermediate buffer area is spaced to accommodate loading units up to roughly 

50% of the daily handling capacity. 

•  Shunting  of  trains  is  not  considered  for  all  technologies.  To  this  end  for  vertical 
transhipment technologies for rail/road terminals we are assuming the catenary to 
extend over the ends of the transhipment tracks pointing towards the main line. With 
this solution the wagon sets can be placed on and picked up from the transhipment 
tracks  by  the  electric  main  line  locomotive  without  requiring  additional  shunting 
equipment. 

For the transport chain, the following basic guidelines and assumptions were applied in the 
model design: 

• 

the total transport distance of 600 km and 1 000 km is split between the main leg 
and the road legs. An initial approach aimed to differentiate the road leg and main 
leg lengths depending on the mode of transport of the main leg. The study “Updating 
EU combined transport data” concluded, that the average and median main leg and 
road  leg  distances  in  intermodal  transport  chains  in  Europe  differ  based  on  the 

22  E.g.  Terminali  Italia  in  Verona,  where  a  multitude  of  different  loading  units  is  transhipped  using  different 
technologies, amongst others NIKRASA for the transhipment of non-craneable semi-trailers. 

27 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

chosen  mode  of  transport.23  However  the  study  data  does  not  allow  for  a  clear 
conclusion  of  a  positive correlation  between the average or  median  length of the 
road  legs  and  the  length  of  the  main  leg.  Therefore,  scaling  up  the  proportions 
between road leg and main leg distance to the 600 km and 1 000 km total transport 
chains  analysed  in  this  study  was  not  feasible.  Furthermore,  using  the  absolute 
average  or  median  road  leg  distances  from  the  study  would  lead  to  implausible 
distances for these transport chains as well. Table 9 below shows an example of 
the resulting distances when using the absolute median road leg distances from the 
study and only scaling the main leg per mode of transport. 

Table 9: Variation of road leg distance per mode of transport 

600km 

1 000km 

Rail/Road 
Barge/Road 
ShortSea/Road 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

Main leg 
440km 
560km 
340km 

Road legs 
2*80km 
2*20km 
2*130km 

Main Leg 
840km 
960km 
740km 

As can be seen, the resulting distances would not have allowed for a  meaningful 
comparison  between  transhipment  technologies  used  for  different  modes  of 
transport. For this reason it was finally decided, to assume an equal distance of 75 
km for each road leg and each mode of transport, thereby enabling a fair comparison 
of transhipment technologies for the 600km and 1 000 km transport chains.  
This assumption leads to the distances shown in Table 10 below which will be used 
for this study. 

Table 10: Uniform road leg distance per mode of transport 

600km 

1 000km 

Rail/Road 
Barge/Road 
ShortSea/Road 
Source: KombiConsult analysis 

Main leg 
450km 
450km 
450km 

Road legs 
2*75km 
2*75km 
2*75km 

Main Leg 
850km 
850km 
850km 

•  The start point and the end point of the transport chain lay at a distance of 600 km 
or  1  000  km  as  the  crow  flies.  It  is  therefore  further  assumed,  that  a  transport 
between these two points is always conducted on the same straight connecting line, 
regardless of the mode of transport. 

•  For  all  technology  and  loading  unit  combinations  a  load  weight  of  20  tons  is 
assumed, unless the technology is technically incapable of this weight. If this is the 
case,  the  load  weight  is  lowered  to  the  possible  max.  load  weight.  Other 
characteristics of the loaded goods, which influence the choice of the optimal loading 
unit, like the type, density/ volume and grouping of the cargo are purposefully not 
considered  for  this  study  and  no  other  assumptions  about  the  loaded  cargo  are 
made. 

•  After the train, barge or ship has left the terminal, no planned stops will be listed until 
it enters the terminal at the destination. This explicitly excludes border and customs 
controls,  material  and  personnel  changes  as  well  as  any  other  disruptions. 
Accordingly, a constant average speed is applied for the entire transport between 
the two linked terminals: 

– 

the  average  speed  for  the  road  leg  is  assumed  to  be  60  km/h  based  on 
evaluations conducted for other assignments. 

23 Study “Updating EU combined transport data“. 

28 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

–  The average speed for rail transport is set at 40 km/h. The average speed of 
flexible point-to-point rail freight transport in Germany is 50 km/h24, however 
this average value is not achievable on all lines in all European countries. 
We  therefore  lower  the  average  speed  of  the  train  to  account  for  regional 
differences. As the max. speed of freight trains on properly developed main 
lines usually is between 90 and 120 km/h, this average speed value already 
includes implicit assumptions about operational stops. 

–  The average speed for Short Sea ships is set to be at 17 knots or 31.5 km/h 

on average.  

–  The average speed for Inland Waterway is set to be at 8 knots or 15 km/h on 

average. 

3.2.2  Description of the data collection and validation 

Figure 5 : Data collection for the transhipment technology fact sheets 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

For the transhipment technologies (TT) to be evaluated in the study, detailed technological 
and operational data was collected in fact sheets for each transhipment technology based 
on the model environment. The approach to data collection and validation is shown in Figure 
5. A preliminary knowledge base on the basic parameters, modes of operation and areas 
of  application  was  built up  in desk  research.  This  involved,  among  others,  data from  the 
following types of sources which was gathered in draft self-completed fact sheets: 

• 

•  sources  provided  by  the  European  Commission  in  the  ToR.  The  provided 
documents include a number of studies, which previously examined the technical 
and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  financial  properties  of  various  intermodal  transhipment 
technologies; 
information material made  publicly  available  from manufacturers  and  providers  of 
the transhipment technologies; 
information  from  logistics  industry-specific  sources  such  as  journals  and  blogs, 
which published pieces about certain technologies; 
further identified relevant studies like the In HoTra study of the year 2001-2003 on 
horizontal transhipment technologies or the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport 
Study on RoLa Services; 

• 

• 

24 Netzwerk Europäischer Eisenbahnen, Studie 35 – Güterverkehrsverlagerung aus Betreibersicht. 

29 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

• 

information  from  professional  experience  and  previous  assignments  was  used  to 
complement and validate the above-mentioned sources of information. 

Based on this preliminary research and the draft fact sheets, manufacturers, promoters and 
users  of the  technologies  were  contacted.  The  outreach  followed  two objectives.  On  the 
one hand, the data that had been collected was to be validated by these stakeholders. On 
the other hand, additional data was collected to fill data gaps for which no information was 
previously  available.  All  the  data  collected  was  subjected  to  a  plausibility  check  and  if 
reasonable  was  incorporated  in  the  fact  sheet.  If  further  discussions  were  necessary, 
especially  for  discrepancies  in  the  information  provided  by  different  stakeholders  for  the 
same  transhipment  technology,  the  stakeholders  were  contacted  again  to  clarify  these 
issues  and  open  points.  From  the collected  data  certain other  values  were  calculated to 
finalize  the  fact  sheets  for  further  use.  The  content  of  the  fact  sheets  and  how  it  was 
compiled is described in the following chapter. 

3.2.3  Description of the fact sheet elements 

The  fact  sheets  created  in  task  1  and  task  2  provide  detailed  technical,  operational  and 
financial information about the different transhipment technologies. While some information 
and values were collected directly in the research or from stakeholders, other values had 
to be  calculated  therefrom  taking  into  account the  framework  of  our model  environment. 
The various items contained in the fact sheets and the way in which this information was 
assembled are explained below.  

All  costs  shown  in  the  fact  sheets  are  part  of  the  total  system  costs  for  the  various 
technologies  as  defined for  this  study.  These  total  system  costs  consist  of  different  cost 
elements which are incurred either on the transport legs or during transhipment. The main 
goal of the analysis of system costs as conducted in this study is to enable and to optimize 
the comparative evaluation between the different transhipment technologies. The focus is 
therefore on cost elements which are closely linked to the deployment of the technologies 
and cost elements which differ for the various technologies and for which the differences 
are  triggered  by  the  choice  of  technology.  Cost  elements,  like  overhead,  insurances, 
interest or information and communication technology costs, are not considered because 
they are not directly influenced by the choice for a specific technology and are assumed to 
be  identical  for  the  different  technologies  when  deployed  under  similar  conditions.  It  is 
therefore  important  to  note  that  the  total  system  costs  shown  here,  and  parts  of  them, 
deviate from the costs to be expected in operational practice. Costs in operational practice 
are expected to be higher than those shown here as not all cost elements are taken into 
account and the operational practice is in fact too complex to be adequately modelled within 
the scope and limitations of this study. 

Picture of the technology 

A  display  of  the  technology  is  included  to  provide  a  visual  reference  and  aid  on  the 
functionalities and applications.  

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (referring to 
ToR item 1.2, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10) 

This  element  provides  a  qualitative  description  of  the  technologies,  their  elements, 
necessary support equipment and possible variants and configurations of the technology 
as  well  as  how  a 
is 
technically/operationally  carried  out.  Furthermore,  the  common  use  cases  for  the 
technology  are  explained  while  also  describing  factual  limitations  and  restrictions  for  the 
technology  or  by  the  technology  on  elements  of  the  transportation  chain.  The  content 
provided  herein  has  been  coordinated  and  verified  with 
technology 
manufacturers/providers and users. 

transhipment  process 

the  main 

the  road 

from 

the 

leg 

to 

30 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Classification 

In  this  item  the  technologies  are  classified  into  horizontal  or  vertical  transhipments  and 
whether  they  facilitate  accompanied  or  unaccompanied  transportation  services  or  both. 
These are standard classifications in intermodal transport chains. 

Horizontal  transhipment  describes  a  transhipment  process  during  which  the  transhipped 
loading unit is not lifted or is lifted only a small amount to release it from the transport locks. 
Horizontal  transhipment  technologies  can  usually  be  used  under  the  overhead  line 
(catenary). 

Vertical transhipment on the other hand describes a transhipment process during which the 
loading  unit  is  subject  to  a  high  vertical  lift  to  be  moved  between  the  different  modes  of 
transport. These technologies cannot be used under the overhead line (catenary). 

Accompanied intermodal transport describes a form of transport where the loading unit is 
transported by rail, inland waterway or sea and is accompanied by the tractor unit and the 
road vehicle driver.  

Unaccompanied intermodal transport describes the transport of loading units on rail, inland 
waterway or sea without the accompanying driver and usually also without the tractor unit. 

Connected modes of transport 

This  element  shows  with  which  modes  of  transport  the  technology  can  be  used  for  the 
transhipment of intermodal loading units. For this study only transhipments between road 
and  one  other  mode  of  transport  are  included.  This  results  in  the  following  relevant 
combinations to be further investigated: 

rail/road intermodal transport; 
inland waterway/road intermodal transport; 

• 
• 
•  short sea/road intermodal transport. 

A technology might be suitable for one or more of these combinations. If it is suitable for 
more than one combination, the following sections of the fact sheet are done separately for 
each combination, as the technologies’ characteristics can vary highly between the different 
modes of transport and showing them in the same place is not feasible. 

Technology readiness level and prevalence of the technology 

Due  to the  large  variety  of  technologies  investigated  this  element  provides  an  indication 
towards the technical readiness and market prevalence of the technology. 

This assessment was made based on the desk research and interview results.  

The  technical  readiness  assessment  is  performed  based  on  the  European  Technology 
Readiness Levels (TRL), which were established for the use in EU-funded research and 
development projects and first introduced in the HORIZON 2020 program with respect to 
transport technologies. The technologies are rated on a scale ranging from 1 to 9, with 1 
representing  the  lowest  and  9  the  highest  TRL.  This  standardized  system  enables  a 
common understanding of the status of a particular technology. The levels are described in 
Table 1125. 

25 https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2016-2017/annexes/h2020-wp1617-
annex-ga_en.pdf. 

31 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Technology 
Readiness 
Level 
TRL 1 
TRL 2 
TRL 3 
TRL 4 

TRL 5 

TRL 6 

TRL 7 
TRL 8 

TRL 9 

Table 11: European Technology Readiness Levels 

Description 

Basic principles observed. 
Technology concept formulated. 
Experimental proof of concept. 
Technology validated in lab. 
Technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant 
environment in the case of key enabling technologies). 
Technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant 
environment in the case of key enabling technologies). 
System prototype demonstration in operational environment. 
System complete and qualified. 
Actual system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing 
in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space). 

Source: HORIZON 2020 – WORK PROGRAMME 2014-2015 General Annexes 

The  prevalence  of  the  technology  was  assessed  based  on  identified  use  cases.  This 
assessment considered two aspects: the total number of use cases and the geographical 
spread of these  use  cases across  Europe.  Arguments  for the  degree  of prevalence of  a 
specific technology were provided, considering the identified factors such as the degree of 
specialization, ease and flexibility of use, and barriers to deployment.  

Based on the TRL and the prevalence of a particular technology, it was decided whether 
further technology assessment should be conducted as part of this study. Regarding their 
TRL,  the  main  decision  factor  was,  whether  the  transhipment  technologies  were 
successfully developed and are actively used or at least being promoted on the European 
intermodal market. Technologies that never achieved a high TRL or have since been pulled 
from the market were excluded from this study. Furthermore, with respect to prevalence, 
the main decision factor was whether a technology is technically and operationally suitable 
to  be  deployed  outside  of  its  current  area  of  application.  If  a  technology  is  either  too 
specialized,  faces  major  barriers  to  wider  deployment  or  has  been  identified  as  being  in 
decline due to specific technical and competitive disadvantages they were also excluded 
from the further analysis in this study. 

Indicative qualitative assessment – Strengths and Weaknesses/Limitations 

A list will be provided in this element showing an indicative list of strengths and weaknesses 
of the technology. The list focuses on strengths and weaknesses directly identified in the 
research or mentioned in the interviews, which were not based on further evaluation and 
therefore do not prejudge the outcome of the study. The strengths and weaknesses listed 
here  are  qualitative  in  nature,  and  do  not  serve  to  directly  compare  the  different 
technologies.  The  purpose  of  this  list  is  to  give  a  better  impression  of  the  suitable,  or 
unsuitable, areas of application of the technology. 

Transhipable loading units (LU) 

This item provides information on which types of loading units the transhipment technology 
is technically capable of transhipping. Furthermore, relevant exceptions and limitations are 
listed,  for  example  regarding  the  outer  dimensions  or  weight  of  the  loading  units  and 
whether these exceptions and limitations are strict or if there are ways to overcome them. 
Later parts of the fact sheet might focus only on one type of loading unit or even only one 
size of a LU-type and will be repeated accordingly per analysed type and/or size of LU. Not 
all technically transhipable loading units will be analysed per transhipment technology, for 

32 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

an easier comparison the focus will be on ISO-containers as well as semi-trailers and truck 
and semi-trailer combinations (full vehicles). 

Transhipable max. weight 

The  transhipable  max.  weight  is  the  max.  weight  which  the  transhipment  technology  is 
technically  able to  handle  during  standard  operations.  In  practice  however,  there  can  be 
other factors limiting the max. weight of the loading unit. These are, for example, regulations 
limiting the max. weight of road vehicles or the max. weight to be transported on the main 
leg. As these limitations are not specific to the technology and are influenced by the choice 
of  transport  equipment, they  are  not  provided  here.  They  are  however  considered  in the 
calculations for the transport chain in the model environment according to the equipment 
chosen for the model environment to ensure the validity of the results. 

Description of the model terminal 

This element provides the layout of a basic model terminal for the transhipment technology 
and  a  particular  modes  of  transport  combination.  The  model  terminal  is  based  on  the 
general  guidelines  and  assumptions  described  in  3.2.1  as  well  as  the  technologies 
individual characteristics and focuses on the terminal elements which are involved in the 
transhipment  process,  the  gate  area,  the  intermediate  buffer  area  and  the  transhipment 
area. The goal is to create a favourable model environment for each technology; however, 
this  does  not  mean  that  the  specific  terminal  design  is  the  optimum  for  the  specific 
technology. To enable the main goal of the comparison between the different technologies 
some generalisations regarding the terminal layout had to be made which can be improved 
upon when the goal is shifted to designing an optimal terminal for a specific transhipment 
technology. The model terminal does however not include elements which are common for 
all types of technologies and which are depending on the operational process of the mode 
of  transport  e.g.  to  park  rail  wagon,  and/or  logistics  considerations,  e.g.  to  store  loading 
units for a longer time. 

Necessary road leg equipment 

This element lists the equipment necessary for the road leg in conjunction with a specific 
technology. This equipment was either described in detail in the transhipment technology 
description for technology specific equipment or in 3.2.1 for standardized equipment like a 
truck  or  chassis.  The  listing  here  functions  as  a  reference  to  these  more  detailed 
descriptions.  

Necessary main leg equipment 

This element has the same function as the “Necessary road leg equipment element” in the 
way, that it also only provides references to main leg equipment, that was either described 
in the technology description for technology specific equipment or in 3.2.1 for standardized 
equipment used for multiple technologies. However, this element is different in so far, as it 
provides references for the necessary main leg equipment to be used in conjunction with 
the particular transhipment technology for a specific mode of transport whereas the road 
leg equipment is the same for all connected modes of transport.  

Max. number of units on full trains/barges/ships 

For the comparative evaluation of the different transhipment technologies, the max. number 
of loading units that can be transported on a full train, barge or ship on the main leg is an 
important performance indicator as well as a basis for later cost calculations. The calculation 
procedure for this result differs depending on the mode of transport. 

33 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

For the short sea transport using container ships, the max. capacity is, as per the definition 
of the standard ship for the purpose of this study, 1 000 TEU. According to our research a 
plausible max. load weight for container ships this size is 13 000 t. 

For the short sea transport using RoRo ships we are assuming a usable capacity of 2 500 
lane  meters.  This  is  a  simplification  to make  the comparison  possible. In practice,  RoRo 
ships are oftentimes designed and built to maximize capacity for a specific transport profile 
whereby  the  usable  lane  length  and  loading  unit  capacity  of  a  2  500  lane  meter  ship 
depends on the exact ship and loading unit combination as well as the specifications for 
lashing.  Each  loading  unit  requires  at  least  its  own  length  in  loading  meters,  however 
typically  additional  loading  length  is  required  per  loading  unit.  The  space  requirement  is 
entirely dependent on the shipping companies’ specifications for the loading scheme and 
the  lashing  (securing)  of  the  cargo.  Based  on  our  interviews  the  additionally  required 
“loading length” typically lies between one to one and a half meters per loading unit. We will 
therefore assume a required length of 15 meters for semitrailers, and 13.5 meters for 40’ 
cassettes and roll trailers. To reach the max. capacity in terms of loading unit spots the 2 
500  lane  meters  are  then  divided  by the  required length for the respective loading  units’ 
“loading length”. The max. load weight for the RoRo ship is assumed to be 12 000 t. 

For the barge in inland waterway transport, the max. capacity is, as per the definition of the 
standard barge for this study, 200 TEU, with the added restriction of a max. load weight of 
2 800 t or 14 t per TEU on average. 

For all ships it was first checked, how many loading units can be transported with the max. 
load  weight  restriction.  For  this  the  weights  of  the  loaded  goods,  the  loading  unit  and,  if 
applicable, the additional equipment per loading unit spot were added up and the max. load 
weight  for  the  ship  was  then  divided  by  this  total  weight  per  loading  unit  spot.  For  the 
average  load  weight  per  loading  unit  20  t  are  assumed  which  is  a  weight  also  used  in 
previous studies analysing intermodal transhipment technologies.26 The loading unit weight 
is  taken  from  task  1.1  and  the  additional  equipment  weight  depends  on  the  specific 
transhipment technology. If the result of the division is lower than the max. number of LU 
spots, the limiting factor is weight. If the result is higher the number of loading unit spots is 
the limiting factor. 

The calculation was more complex for the full train with a total max. weight of 2 000 t and a 
max.  length  of  740  m  as  different  wagon  parameters  had to  be  taken  into  account.  The 
model assumes that one locomotive with a weight of 90 t and a length of 20 m is sufficient 
to pull the train. The loaded wagon sets can therefore have a max. weight of 1.910 t and a 
max. length of 720 m. Depending on the type of loading units, a fitting standard wagon from 
the list shown in Table 12 was chosen. If the technology requires a special type of rail wagon 
listed in the second part of the table this was of course used instead.  

26 https://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/alpinnoct/outputs/deliverable-d.t1.2.1.pdf ; 17.06.2021. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Table 12: List of standard rail wagons 

Standard Rail wagons for the main leg 

Name of 
wagon 

6-axle 
Megatrail
er Pocket 
Wagon 

4-axle 
Container 
wagon 

6-axle 
articulate
d 
Container 
wagon 

6-axle 
articulate
d swap 
body 
wagon 

Type 

Sdggmrs
s “TWIN” 

Sgnss 60’ 

Sggrss 
80’ 

Sggmrss 
104’ 

8-axle 
low bed 
container 
wagon 

Sffggmrrs
s 
"Megafret
" 

6-axle 
container 
wagon 

6-axle 
double 
pocket 
wagon 

Sggmrss 
90’ 

T3000e 

Length 
over 
buffers 
[mm] 
Loading 
length 
[mm] 
Maximum 
loading 
weight [t] 
Loading 
height 
[mm] 
Tare 
Weight [t] 
Total max. 
mass [t] 

Name of 
wagon 

34 030 

19 640 

26 700 

33 480 

36 440 

29.590 

34 200 

4 x 7 820; 
2 x 15 
761 

18 400 
(60’) 

2 x 12 
370 (40') 

2 x 15 
765; 
4 x 7 820 

2 x 16 
105 

2 x 
13.820(4
5') 

4 x 7.820; 
2 x 
15.761 

100 

70 

107 

105 

89 

106 

100.9 

1 155 
(270) 

35 

135 

1 155 

1 155 

1 155 

825 

1 155 

20 

90 

28 

135 

30 

135 

39 

128 

29 

135 

Special Rail wagons for the main leg 

1 155 
(270) 

34.1 

135 

Flexiwagon 

Low floor RoLa-
wagon 

Type 

Flexiwagon SW 

Saadkms 

CargoBeamer 
wagon 
Sdkmss with 
„CargoBeamer 
JetModule“ 

Modalohr UIC 

UIC 2 

Length 
over 
buffers 
[mm] 
Loading 
length 
[mm] 
Maximum 
loading 
weight [t] 
Loading 
height 
[mm] 
Tare 
Weight [t] 
Total max. 
mass [t] 

26 610 

19 090 

19 330 

32 940 

17 300 

45 

230 

45 

90 

n/a 

44 

410 

18.5 

62.5 

n/a 

37 

240 
(210-230) 

29 

66 

n/a 

76.3 

213 

40.7 

117 

Source: KombiConsult knowledge base and technology providers 

In addition to the wagon data and the loading unit data from task 1.1 assumptions about the 
load weight were necessary to conduct the capacity calculation. The average weight of the 
loaded  goods  is  assumed  to  be  20  t  as  for  the  other  modes  of  transport.  For  some 
technologies where 20t is above the max. weight limitation the transhipped and transported 
weight per loading unit is reduced to the possible max. weight. 

35 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

The capacity calculation was then carried out in three steps as shown in the example in 
Table  13.  In  the  final  step  the  lower  of  the  two  calculated  numbers  was  chosen  which 
represents  the  overall  number  of  max.  wagons  per  train  considering  both  the max.  train 
weight of 2 000 t and the max. train length of 740 m. To then receive the max. number of 
loading units this number was multiplied with the number of LU spots on one wagon. 

Table 13: Exemplary calculation of max loading units per train 

Calculation of max. wagons per train considering weight (2000t; loco ~ 90t) 

For 20’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 

Loading unit 

Wagon 

Payload 

Tare 

Total 

Tare 

20t 

2.23t 

22.23t 

28t 

LU-
spots 
4 

Tare 

Equipment 
On 
wagon 
- 

- 

Full 
wagon 
weight 

Max. 
train 
weight 

Wagons 
per train 

116.92 

1910t 

16 

Calculation of max. wagons per train considering length (740m; loco ~ 20m) 

Wagons 
per train 
16 

Wagon length 
over buffer 
26.7m 

Train length 

427.2m 

Max. train 
length 
720m 

Wagons to be 
reduced 
- 

Wagons per 
train (final) 
16 

Max. units per full trains (740 m, 2000 t) 

64 20’ containers 

 Source: KombiConsult analysis 

First, the maximum number of loading units per wagon set depending on the max. number 
of loaded wagons in compliance with the made assumptions, especially the max. weight, 
was calculated. The total loading unit weight was multiplied with the number of loading unit 
spots on one wagon and the wagons own weight was added to calculate the total weight of 
one loaded wagon. The max. weight for the total wagon set of 1 910 t was then divided by 
the weight of one (loaded) wagon and the result rounded down to receive the permissible 
total number of wagons per train by weight. In the second step, the max. wagon set length 
of 720 m was divided by the length of one wagon and the result rounded down to calculate 
the permissible total number of wagons per train by length. In the final step the lower of the 
two calculated numbers was chosen which represents the overall number of max. wagons 
per train considering both the assumed max. train weight of 2 000 t and the assumed max. 
train length of 740 m. To then receive the max. number of loading units this number was 
multiplied with the number of LU spots on one wagon. For different train parameters, like 
shorter max. trains, the result of the loading unit capacity calculation might vary. 

This calculation was done for the different sizes and variants within one class of LUs where 
applicable.  

For  the  further  model  calculations  within  this  study  the  assumption  was  made,  that  on 
average  only  85%  of  the  max.  available  capacity  for  loading  units  will  be  utilized  per 
transport. Therefore, based on the possible max. number of loading units, also the number 
of loading units on a train, barge or ship assuming only 85% capacity utilization is provided 
here which will be used for the further transport chain analysis. 

The  results  of  the  max.  wagons  per  train  by  length  and  by  weight  under  our  model 
assumptions as well as the resulting max. LU capacity and the LUs at 85% utilization are 
shown in  Table  14  below.  The table  also provides  information on the  considered  wagon 
type  as  well  as  any  peculiarities  of  the  technology  and  loading  unit  combination  like 
additional necessary equipment or technology limitations which influence the calculation of 
the  wagon  capacity.  Details  about  the  peculiarities  can  be  found  in  the  respective 
technology fact sheet in Annex 1. 

36 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Table 14: Model train capacity per technology and loading unit combination 

Loading 
unit 

Wagon 
type 

Peculiarities 

Capacity wagons  Capacity LUs 

By total 
length 

By total 
weight 

Max. 
capacit
y 

85% 
utilizati
on 

Tranship-
ment 
Technolo
gy 

Gantry 
Crane 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St 
(craneabl
e) 

BOXmover  40’ Ct 
St with 
Flexiwaggo
truck 
n  
20’ Ct 

Reach 
stacker 

RoLa 

CargoBea
mer 

40’ Ct 

St 
(craneabl
e) 
St with 
truck 

St (non-
craneable
) 

Sidelifter 

40’ Ct 

Modalohr 

r2l 2.0 
trailer-use 

Mobile 
harbour 
crane 

NiKRASA - 
crane 

Hydraulic 
crane 

St (non-
craneable
) 
St (non-
craneable
) 
20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St (non-
craneable
) 
20’ 
Container 
40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

Container-
Mover 

40’ Ct 

ISU 

Mobiler 

St (non-
craneable
) 
30’ Ct 

Sggrss 80’ 

Sggrss 80’ 

T3000e 

Sggrss 80’ 
Flexiwaggo
n SW 
Sggrss 80’ 

Sggrss 80’ 

T3000e 

Low floor 
wagon 
(Saadkms) 
“Sdkmss” 
with 
„CargoBea
mer 
JetModule“ 
Sggrss 80’ 

UIC 2 

T3000e 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Club car 

- 

- 

- 

Club car 

- 

- 

- 

Transport 
platform 

Sggrss 80’ 

Sggrss 80’ 

- 

- 

T3000e 

Sggrss 80’ 

Sggrss 80’ 

Sggrss 80’ 

Sggrss 80’ 

T3000e 

Transport 
platform 

Lower goods 
weight 
Lower goods 
weight 
Lower goods 
weight; 
adapter weight 
Lower goods 
weight; 
adapter weight 

Additional 
equipment 

Sggmrrss-y 
2 x 60' 

- 

26 

26 

21 

26 

26 

26 

26 

21 

36 

37 

26 

21 

21 

26 

26 

21 

26 

26 

26 

26 

21 

18 

16 

25 

21 

25 

23 

16 

25 

21 

35 

34 

25 

20 

19 

16 

25 

20 

16 

26 

20 

31 

21 

14 

64 

50 

42 

50 

23 

64 

50 

42 

35 

34 

50 

40 

38 

64 

50 

40 

64 

52 

80 

52 

42 

56 

54 

43 

36 

43 

20 

54 

43 

36 

30 

29 

43 

34 

32 

54 

43 

34 

54 

44 

68 

44 

36 

48 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Detailed description of the transhipment process (referring to ToR items 1.2.1 and 
1.2.2) 

In this element the transhipment process for one loading unit, from entering the terminal (by 
road) to leaving the terminal (by the main leg mode), and vice versa, was described in detail. 
The  description  focusses  on  the  path  of  the  loading  unit.  The  analysis  focused  on  the 
operational  process  steps,  administrative  process  steps  not  directly  linked to the  loading 
unit  and  its  transhipment  were  not  considered  since  they  occur  independently  from  the 
transhipment technology and mode combination. Furthermore, storage and waiting times 
are excluded from the analysis if they are not relevant for the transhipment technology or 
the terminal operations.  

Table 15: List of terminal and transport personnel functions 

Terminal and other involved personnel 

Name 
Direct terminal personnel 
Checker 
Gate Agent 
Handling Equipment Driver 
Terminal Truck Driver 

Instructor “groundsman” 

Terminal dispatcher 
Road leg personnel 
Truck driver 
Truck dispatcher 
Main leg personnel-rail 

Visitor/Wagon Inspector 

Train dispatcher 
Train driver 

Attendant 

Function description 

Person performing the Technical Check-in 
Person carrying out the Administrative Check-in 
Driver of crane, reach stacker etc. 
Driver of internal terminal trucks 
Person supporting the Handling Equipment Driver from the 
ground, if needed, and assuring that the loading units are safely 
fixed on vehicles 
Person overseeing the entire terminal processes 

Driver of truck 
Person scheduling several trucks and organises transports 

Person responsible for checking the train before leaving 
(function of the railway undertakings) 
Person overseeing the main leg transport 
Driver of the train 
Attendant for the passengers in the club car in accompanied 
intermodal rail transport 

Main leg personnel-Inland water way 

Captain 

Helmsman 
Sailor 
Main leg personnel-short sea 

Captain 

Helmsman 
Sailor 

Source: KombiConsult knowledge base 

Person navigating the ship, planning the loading and unloading 
of the ship and organising the transport 
Person supporting the captain 
Further vessel crew 

Person navigating the ship, planning the loading and unloading 
of the ship and organising the transport 
Person supporting the captain 
Further vessel crew 

Each  individual  process  step  includes  descriptive  information  about  the  necessary 
equipment and involved personnel as well as the time per personnel and the total process 
step duration. The description is provided for both the loading and the unloading process of 
the  train,  barge  or  ship.  Furthermore,  it  mentions  when  process  steps  vary  for  the 
transhipment of different types of loading units. For better understanding, Table 15 shows 
a list of standard personnel with a short description of their function. The personnel for the 
different transport legs are shown in the table as well as they are relevant for later analyses. 

38 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Table 16: List of standard transhipment process steps 

Transhipment process steps 

Description 

Process steps 
Loading main leg 

Technical check-in 

Administrative check-in 

Drive to drop-off/parking 

Handover of loading unit 

Movement of loading unit 

Preparing transhipment 

Transhipment of loading 
unit 

Terminal check-out 

Further procedures for 
departure 
Departure 
Unloading main leg 
Arrival 

Further arrival procedures 

Terminal check-in 

Transhipment 

Preparing transhipment 

Movement of loading unit 
Handover of loading unit to 
truck 

Administrative check-out 

Drive from drop-off/parking 
Source: KombiConsult knowledge base 

The loading units are checked by the terminal for their 
compatibility with the transhipment and transport process as well 
as for existing damages 
The truck drivers check in to the terminal for LU drop-off and pick-
up  
The truck drivers drive to the dedicated drop-off/parking spot 
The loading units are handed over to the terminal and are placed 
in the intermediate buffer area, either by being dropped off on 
their own or being lifted off with terminal equipment 
The loading units are moved from the intermediate buffer area to 
the transhipment area using terminal equipment 
If required by the technology, further process steps for the 
preparation of the transhipments are conducted 

The loading units are transhipped onto the main leg 

The transhipped loading units are prepared and checked for 
departure 

The main leg equipment is prepared and checked for departure 

The main leg equipment departs from the terminal 

The main leg equipment arrives at the terminal 
If required, further process steps for the arrival procedure are 
conducted 
The loading units are checked into the terminal and are examined 
for damages 
The loading units are transhipped from the main leg 
If required by the technology, further process steps for the 
transhipment or the further handling are conducted. Depending on 
the technology, these might be conducted earlier or later than 
implied by the order of process steps listed here 
The loading units are placed in the intermediate buffer area 
The loading units are picked up by the trucks either on their own 
or with the help of terminal equipment 
The truck drivers check out of the terminal. In our model process 
the check-out is included in the check-in because the same truck 
driver is dropping off as well as picking up a loading unit. 
Therefore, this process step is not shown in the fact sheets 
The trucks depart from the terminal 

The total process step duration is not necessarily equal to the sum of the individual times 
per personnel as they might work in parallel and not sequential. Information about both the 
total duration as well as the individual times allows for conclusions about whether the work 
is done consecutively or in parallel as well as the total working time per process step. The 
general process steps for the loading and unloading process are shown in Table 16 above.  

The  upstream  and  downstream  processes  of  the  actual  transhipment  are  typically  not 
technology-specific and were therefore described as uniformly as feasible for the different 
transhipment technologies. The further from the transhipment they are, the more uniformly 
they  become.  This  means  that,  for  example,  the  technical  and  administrative  check-in 
processes are assumed to be similar for all technologies, as the reasons for efficiency gains 
currently  achieved  in  one  terminal,  for  example  due  to  the  terminal  layout  or  the  use  of 

39 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

camera/OCR  gates,  could  be  adopted  in  all  other  terminals  as  well,  regardless  of  the 
transhipment technology.  

One exception to this is the process step “further procedures for departure” for the main leg 
on rail. The length of the wagon technical inspection depends on the number of loaded rail 
wagons and the overall number of axles on the full wagon set. From our consultation with 
wagon  inspectors  and  rail  freight  operators  a  duration  of  0.6  minutes  per  axle  and  an 
additional 0.4 minutes per loaded wagon was gathered. The duration for the process step 
therefore depends on the number and type of wagons, the load factor, and thereby indirectly 
on the assumptions made for the specific technology. The duration of the wagon technical 
inspection,  included  in  the  further  procedures  for  departure,  was  calculated  for  each 
technology using the mentioned inputs. 

The  upstream  and  downstream  processes  in  the  loading  process,  for  which  uniform 
assumptions were made for all technologies, are the technical check-in, the administrative 
check-in, the drive to drop-off/parking, the terminal check-out and the departure. For the 
unloading  process  these  are  the  arrival,  the  terminal  check-in  and  the  drive  from  drop-
off/parking.  Detailed  information  about  these  processes  was  available  from  previous 
assignments and was validated for this study by consulting with terminal operators. 

For  the  gathering  and  determination  of  the  necessary  information  for  the  other  process 
steps, first a general understanding of the technology specific transhipment process was 
built up in the consultation with the technology providers and/or users. This process was 
then adopted to our model environment, especially taking into consideration the terminal 
layout  as  well  as  the  available  equipment.  The  detailed  description  of  the  transhipment 
process was then verified and validated by the technology providers and users as far as 
possible. 

Total time for the transhipment of one loading unit (referring to ToR item 1.2.1) 

The  time for  the  transhipment  of  one  loading  unit  was  directly  derived  from  the  detailed 
description of the indirect transhipment process. Two values are provided here: the first is 
the total duration of the terminal processes for one LU (i.e. how long is the loading unit in 
the  terminal  without  storage  time)  before  it  is  placed  and  secured  on  the  main  leg 
equipment.  This  is  calculated  by  adding  up  the  times  provided  for  “Total  LU”  in  the 
description of the transhipment process up to the check-out. The second is based on the 
time the actual transhipment technology or equipment, as the likely bottleneck, is involved 
in the transhipment of one loading unit. This is calculated by adding up the times for which 
the handling equipment driver (or truck driver or terminal truck driver for some technologies 
where no handling equipment is used) is involved in the process steps described for the 
transhipment process and only concerns the processes which take place in between the 
intermediate buffer area and the main leg transhipment. Both values are provided for the 
loading as well as the unloading from the main leg. For unloading the time for all process 
steps includes all time provided for “Total LU” starting after the terminal arrival. 

Time spent in Terminal for the road haulage operator (referring to ToR item 1.2.6) 

The time spent in the terminal was again directly derived from the detailed description of 
the transhipment process by adding up the times during which the truck driver is involved 
in the transhipment. One value is provided for the loading and one for the unloading process 
steps. For the model it is assumed, that the truck is dropping off as well as picking up one 
loading unit during its time in the terminal, thereby the total time spent by the road haulage 
operator in the terminal is the sum of the loading and unloading times provided in this item. 
The one exception to this is accompanied intermodal transport where the truck driver stays 
with the LU for the main leg. 

40 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Total  time  for  loading/unloading  one  train/barge/ship  (excl.  headway)  (referring  to 
ToR item 1.2.4) 

The total time for loading or unloading one train, barge or ship (excluding headway) includes 
the total time from the first LU being loaded up to the time the train, barge or ship is fully 
loaded (loading) or the total time between the first LU being unloaded to the time the train, 
barge  or  ship  is  fully  unloaded  (unloading).  For  train/barge/ship  it  does  not  include  the 
“headway” time which is the time the main leg means of transport spent in the terminal prior 
to  the  unlading  and  after  the  loading.  To  determine  the  total  time  for  the  loading  and 
unloading of one train, barge or ship, the time for the loading or unloading of one loading 
unit based on the transhipment technologies involvement is multiplied with the number of 
loading units per train, barge or ship considering the assumed capacity utilization of 85%. 
The  result  is then  divided  by the  number  of  involved  equipment  which  were  assumed  to 
work  in  parallel  and  which  were  described  in  the basic terminal  description.  The formula 
below shows the calculation for the total loading time of a train, barge or ship.  

𝑡𝑙𝑒 =

𝑡𝑡𝑒 ∗ 𝑋𝐿𝑈
𝑋𝐸

With:  
tle = Total time for loading one train, barge or ship (excl. headway) 
tte = Time for the transhipment of one LU (based on terminal equipment driver) 
XLU =  number of LUs on the train, barge or ship 
XE = Number of involved terminal handling equipment 

If applicable, a differentiation was made for different loading unit sizes and variants due to 
a different total number of loading units on a train, barge or ship. For terminals with multiple 
transhipment  tracks  or  berths  the  total  terminal  handling  capacity  is  determined  by  the 
handling equipment time per transhipment excluding headway, as the handling equipment 
can continue transhipping on another track or berth. This is true assuming the headway is 
less than 𝑋𝐼 times the total time for unloading plus loading a full train, barge or ship with 𝑋𝐼 
being the number of tracks or berths.  

Total  time  for  loading/unloading  one  train/barge/ship  (incl.  headway)  (referring  to 
ToR item 1.2.4) 

The total time for loading or unloading one train, barge or ship (including headway) is based 
on  the  loading/unloading  time  calculated  without  headway  and  then  adding  the  arrival, 
further  arrival  procedures  and  terminal  check-in  times  for  the  unloading  process  or  the 
terminal  check-out,  further  procedures  for  departure  and  departure  times  for  the  loading 
process.  Including  the  headway  is  important  for  terminals  only  having  one  transhipment 
track or berth. The additional time spent in the terminal by the train, barge or ship limits the 
total  handling  capacity  of  the terminal  because  the  next train,  barge  of  ship can  only  be 
unloaded and loaded after the previous one has left the terminal. 

Trains/barges/ships  that  can  be  handled  in  an  8-hour  shift  (referring  to  ToR  item 
1.2.5) 

This  fact  sheet  element provides  the total  number  of trains,  barges  or  ships that  can  be 
handled  in  an  8-hour  shift.  The  calculation  was  based  on  the  process  times  already 
assessed  in  the  detailed  description  of  the  transhipment  process.  Specifically,  the  total 
loading and unloading times for one train, barge or ship were taken into account. 

Furthermore, the terminal layout, especially the number of tracks or berths for transhipment 
influences the calculation. For a single track or berth terminal the total time incl. headway 

41 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

must be taken because the track or berth is not available for other trains, barges or ships 
during the headway times. For a multiple track or berth terminal another train, barge or ship 
can be loaded or unloaded in the terminal during the headway time of another train, barge 
or ship, therefore the total time for loading or unloading one train, barge or ship excluding 
headway times is used in the calculation for these terminals.  

In either terminal, 7 hours of productive working time for one 8-hour shift are assumed. The 
other hour is assumed to be lost due to inefficiencies and disturbances. For the calculation 
these 7 hours, or 420 minutes, were divided by the sum of the total times for unloading and 
loading  one  train,  barge  or  ship, either  incl.  or  excl.  headway  depending  on the terminal 
layout. If applicable for the technology, this calculation was carried out per different type of 
main loading units. 

Description of a full 600 and 1 000 km transport chain (referring to ToR item 1.2.3) 

This  element  describes a  full  600 and  1  000  km  door-to-door  transport within our model 
environment including two transhipments using the specific transhipment technology in the 
model  environment  as  previously  described  in  detail.  Furthermore,  the  transport  chain 
consists of the initial and the final road leg as well as the main leg via rail, inland waterway 
or  sea.  For  all  five  elements  information  about  the  involved  personnel  and  their  working 
times  as  well  as the total  duration is  provided. Because  the transhipments  have already 
been  described  in  detail,  their  description  here  was  kept  short.  The  distances  for  the 
transport legs also provided here are as described in chapter 3.2.1, Table 9. The initial road 
leg  begins  after  the  road  vehicle  has  been  loaded  at  the  ramp  of  the  shipper,  this  initial 
loading procedure is not included in our transport chain analysis. This loading procedure 
may include loading the goods into the loading unit or “just” picking up the loading unit with 
the  road leg means of  transport.  It  is  however  worth to mention  that  some transhipment 
technologies  require  specific  means  of  transport  for  the  road  leg  which  provide  specific 
loading options at the shippers’ ramp . Accordingly, the final road leg ends with the arrival 
of the road vehicle at the destination without incorporating the unloading into this analysis. 
The total duration of the road legs and the main legs was calculated using the assumed 
average speeds of travel as described in chapter 3.2.1.  

The description focusses on one type of LU, albeit a differentiation for different LU sizes 
might be included where applicable. 

The information about the involved personnel and working times for the transhipments was 
taken  from the  previous elements.  For  the  description of the  road  legs  and  the main leg 
initial  assumptions  were  developed  and  then  discussed  with  relevant  practitioners  to 
determine their validity and plausibility. The personnel include the operational personnel as 
well as personnel in production back office that is directly involved with the transport like 
dispatchers. Personnel in the administrative back office was excluded as this was assumed 
to be the same for all technologies.  

For  the  road  legs  it  is  assumed,  that  one  road  dispatcher  is  necessary  per  12  trucks, 
therefore its working time is 1/12th of the road leg duration. 

For the main leg rail, the working time of the production back office was set to be 1/5th of 
the main leg rail duration based on inquiries to rail freight operators. 

For inland waterway and short sea main legs, the functions captain, helmsman and sailor 
are summarized in one item, the ship’s crew, for all required main leg personnel. The input 
for this item has been gathered from other studies and from industry experts.  

For inland waterways, when determining the working hours for the main leg duration, 3 crew 
members are assumed to be working at each point of the journey. 

42 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

A study by Deloitte indicates a crew size between 15 and 26 crew per European ship, with 
smaller ships being on the lower end.27 The study did not distinguish between short sea 
shipping and deep-sea shipping. For short sea shipping the crew is assumed to be at the 
lower end of the range, therefore assuming 16 personnel in various functions for this study. 
Of these crew members 8, or half of the total number, are assumed to be working at each 
point of the journey for determining the total working hours.  

In accompanied intermodal transport, the main leg duration can, at least partly, be used for 
mandatory  rest  periods  of  the  truck  drivers,  though  to  which  extent  this  is  possible  or 
feasible depends on the circumstances and characteristics of the accompanying road legs. 
The distances in the model environment with relatively short road legs and long main legs 
are  not  representative  for  most  practical  implementations  of  accompanied  intermodal 
transport. Having long rest periods above 8 hours after short driving times on the road is 
neither  optimal  nor  economically  feasible  from  the  freight  forwarders  point  of  view.  To 
accommodate  this  aspect  the  decision  was  made  to  not  count  the  main  leg  duration  as 
working  time  of  the  truck  drivers  in  accompanied  intermodal  transport.  However,  when 
looking at personnel costs later on, a per diem for the truck driver for the time spent on the 
main leg is assumed. 

For the road legs the working time was determined based on transporting one LU per truck, 
regardless of the type or size of the LU. For the transhipments and the main leg the working 
time was determined for a full train, barge or ship. 

After the description of the individual elements of the transport chains, the sums for the total 
duration  and  the  total  working  hours  are  shown  for  both  the  1  000  km  and  the  600  km 
transport chain. The total duration is calculated by adding up the individual durations of the 
transhipments and the transport legs.  

For the total working hours, the shown labour for the transhipments and the main leg can 
be summed up as well, although the working time for the road legs only shows the transport 
of one LU. Therefore, the working time for one LU as shown is multiplied by the number of 
transported LUs on the transport chain to calculate the total working hours for the road legs. 
The result is then added to the working hours of the transhipments and the main leg to get 
the total working hours for the transport chain. 

Finally, the working hours are also provided on a per LU basis for the technology for the 1 
000 km and 600 km transport chains to enable a better comparison with regard to personnel 
efficiency.  

Terminal infrastructure 

A detailed list of the terminal infrastructure in the model terminal for the technology and the 
connected modes of transport is provided here. The listed terminal infrastructure relates to 
the pathway of the loading unit in the model terminal; other infrastructure elements which 
might reasonably be part of an existing terminal but do not interact with the loading unit and 
are  not  relevant  to  the  technology,  like  offices  or  social  rooms,  are  not  included  in  this 
analysis.  

For the chosen elements, information is provided on their dimensions, the number of units 
and unit costs as well as the total area and total costs for the terminal infrastructure element. 
The  dimensions,  number  of  units  and  unit  costs are  input parameters  which are  used to 
calculate  the  total  area  (dimensions  multiplied  with  number  of  units)  and  the  total  costs 
(number  of  units multiplied  with  unit  costs).  Some unit  costs  are  expressed  as  costs  per 

27 https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/dttl-er-challengeindustry-08072013.pdf; 
17.08.2021. 

43 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

area or costs per length, in these cases the unit costs are multiplied with the corresponding 
value, either total area or length dimension, to calculate the total costs. 

The shown terminal infrastructure elements and their unit costs are used uniformly for all 
transhipment  technologies.  Table  17  below  provides  the  description  of  these  standard 
terminal  elements  and  their  unit  costs.  Technology  specific  infrastructure  elements  are 
closely linked to the technology specific equipment and are listed and described there. 

The  dimensions  and  number  of  units  of  the  general  elements  per  model  terminal  were 
based  on  experiences  from  previously  conducted  terminal  projects  as  well  as  further 
research and were then discussed with the technology providers and users for validation. 
The corresponding unit costs were gathered through inquiries to engineering firms in the 
relevant field known to us from previous assignments. The general terminal infrastructure 
is scaled to accommodate a full train (740 m, 2 000 t), barge (110 m, 200 TEU) or ship (1 
000 TEU, 2 500 loading meters) regardless of the number of loading units transported and 
transhipped in our model environment per train, barge or ship. 

Table 17: List of standard terminal infrastructure elements and their unit costs 

Element 
Gate area 

Driving lane 

Loading lane 

Turning area 

Intermediate buffer area 
(stackable) 
Switch from main line 

Line connection 
Transhipment track 
Terminal switch 

Buffer stop 

Driving range reach 
stacker/mobile harbour 
crane/HMHC 
Sea port quay per metre 

Inland port quay per 
metre 
Crane tracks (two tracks) 
per metre 

Terminal infrastructure elements 

Description 

Fortified area for terminal check-in and 
administrative processing 

Lane for trucks and terminal trucks inside the 
terminal to reach the loading/unloading place. 
Normally there are 2 lanes per terminal (inbound 
and outbound) 

Transfer lane for parking the truck and loading 
unit and wait for transhipment 
Area for changing between the two lanes (inbound 
lane and outbound lane) at the end of the terminal 
Area for the storage of stackable LU. Stacking 
height is 4 LU on top of each other 
Connecting switch between main line and terminal 
connection 
Rail connection between main line and terminal 
Track for transhipment in the terminal 
Switch to connect line connection with the 
individual transhipment tracks 
A device to prevent railway vehicles from going 
past the end of a transhipment track 

A specially fortified area for heavy transhipment 
equipment 

Berth for ships in a seaport 

Berth for ships in an inland port 

Tracks used by gantry cranes  

Unit costs 

80- €/m² 

80- €/m² 

80- €/m² 

80- €/m² 

90- €/m² 

62 500- €/unit 

1 000- €/m 
1 000- €/m 

62 500- €/unit 

12 000- €/unit 

90- €/m² 

75 000 €/m 

45 000 €/m 

2 500 €/m 

Source: KombiConsult knowledge base 

After describing and calculating the terminal infrastructure elements’ area and cost, the sum 
for the total terminal area is provided. Based on the area, additional costs of 50€ per square 
metre for general structural engineering (e.g. lighting, fencing,) and 100 € per square metre 
for general earthworks and civil engineering are assumed and calculated. The total terminal 
building costs are provided by adding up the values for the individual elements as well as 
costs for structural engineering and earthworks and civil engineering. 

44 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Planning costs of 20% of the building costs are then calculated and added to derive the 
total terminal building costs. The value of 20% is derived from previously conducted terminal 
assignments. 

Terminal building cost range 

For the terminal building cost range cost factors based on the European construction cost 
price index were used.28 From the website construction cost factors have been gathered for 
the European average as well as the individual countries. The costs presented so far are 
consistent with the European average. The list of cost factors is shown in Table 18 below. 
By  multiplying  the  total  terminal  building  costs  with  the  shown  factors,  the  indicative 
construction costs per terminal per country can be calculated. In the fact sheets only the 
calculated maximum value as well as the minimum value will be shown for the respective 
transhipment technology and loading unit combination. 

Table 18: European construction costs price indices 

Construction cost factors Europe 

Country 
EU 27 
Denmark 
Sweden 
Finland 
France 
Austria 
Luxembourg 
Germany 
Italy 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Slovenia 
Malta 
Ireland 
Spain 
Poland 
Greece 
Czechia 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Slovakia 
Portugal 
Bulgaria 
Romania 

Factor compared to European average 
100.00% 
145.38% 
134.18% 
114.04% 
103.87% 
100.67% 
98.21% 
96.62% 
93.63% 
89.29% 
82.00% 
80.00% 
79.58% 
79.18% 
70.52% 
65.61% 
63.46% 
61.11% 
60.29% 
59.33% 
58.72% 
57.90% 
55.00% 
53.24% 
51.68% 
50.33% 
48.69% 
46.40% 

28 http://constructioncosts.eu/cost-index/; 20.08.2021. 

45 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Depreciation time terminal 

The  depreciation  time  for  the  terminal  infrastructure  is  assumed  to  be  25  years  for  all 
following  calculations.  This  timeframe  also  coincides  with  the  assumed  service  life  and 
payback period of the terminal infrastructure. The implication for our model calculation is 
that the terminal will only be fully paid off at the end of the service life, which is typically not 
the case in practice, however this approach is suited to enable a fair comparison between 
the different technologies. If the payback period were defined differently, e.g. in the sense 
of the period required to operate the terminal and order to earn the operational costs and 
investment costs certain assumptions on the development of the revenues from sales would 
have to be made. These would depend on an estimate how fast the number of handlings 
per year can reach the maximum operational capacity and the development of the price per 
handling over time. For the comparison of transhipment technologies this information is not 
necessary so that we focused on the cost side and the depreciation time. 

Terminal building costs per year 

Here the terminal building costs per year are calculated. With regard to the financing an 
interest  rate  of  5%  and  constant  yearly  repayments  is  assumed.  The  financing  period 
corresponds to the depreciation period. 

Terminal equipment 

The equipment used in the model terminal operations is described here. The information 
provided  per  equipment  covers  the  unit  costs,  the  number  of  units  in  operation  in  the 
terminal, the total costs per equipment and the depreciation time of the equipment. The unit 
costs, number of units and the depreciation time are input parameters which were collected 
and  validated  in  desk  research  and  from  the  producers  of  the  equipment.  From  these 
parameters the total costs are calculated multiplying the unit costs with the number of units. 

The depreciation time in years, as for the infrastructure, also represent the service life and 
payback period of the equipment. An aftermarket for used and depreciated equipment was 
not considered as it was deemed highly circumstantial and dependent on external changing 
factors which cannot be analysed within the scope of this study. 

The total costs for all equipment are then summed up to provide a value for the total costs 
of the terminal equipment.  

Planning costs of 20% of the investment are again assumed, which are added to the total 
equipment  costs.  Furthermore,  as  for  infrastructure  a  constant  yearly  repayment 
considering  5%  interest  is  assumed  for  the  calculation  of  the  total  terminal  equipment 
investment costs per year. 

Total terminal investments (infrastructure and equipment) 

For  infrastructure  and  equipment,  the  total  investments  including  planning  costs  are 
summed-up to provide the initial necessary investment for starting up the terminal. In the 
same way the infrastructure and equipment investments including planning costs per year 
are summed up to provide the total investment costs per year for a complete terminal for 
the respective transhipment technology. 

Total terminal handling capacity 

The  total  terminal  handling  capacity  in  loading  units  handled  per  year  of  the  previously 
described and analysed model terminal is described here.  

46 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

To  determine  the  total  handling  capacity  of  the  model  terminal  it  is  important  to  know 
whether the tracks/berths or the handling equipment are the limiting factor: two calculations 
are  therefore  conducted  per  technology  and  LU  combination  to  determine  the  handling 
capacity limitation. 

For the yearly operating time of the terminal 250 operating days per year with 2 shifts of 7 
productive working hours each per day are assumed. 

The  handling  capacity  per  year  of  the  tracks  or  berths  is  calculated  with  the  following 
formula: 

𝐶1 = 𝑋𝐼 ∗

𝑡𝑂𝑇
𝑡𝐻

∗ 2𝐶𝑇𝐵𝑆 

𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ: 
𝐶 1 = 𝐻𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑦 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑠 
𝑋𝐼 = 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑠)  
𝑡𝑂𝑇 = 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 (𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠) 
𝑡𝐻 = 𝐻𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛, 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙. ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (minutes) 
 𝐶𝑇𝐵𝑆 = 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛, 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 

The handling capacity per year of the handling equipment is calculated with the following 
formula: 

𝐶2 = 𝑋𝐸 ∗

𝑡𝑂𝑇
𝑡𝑇

𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ: 
𝐶2 = 𝐻𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑦 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 
𝑋𝐸 = 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡  
𝑡𝑂𝑇 = 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 (𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠) 
𝑡𝑇 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝐿𝑈 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑛𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 

From the two calculated values the lower one is the resulting total terminal handling capacity 
per year shown here. 

Terminal maintenance costs 

The  costs  incurred  for  the  repairs  and  maintenance  of  the  terminal  infrastructure  and 
equipment are calculated using a percentage rate of the investments. For the infrastructure 
a fixed rate of 5% per year on the total infrastructure investments (excluding planning costs) 
is assumed. This percentage covers all maintenance work on fortified areas, traffic lanes, 
tracks, supply and disposal systems. The value is based on our previous experience and 
has been verified with terminal operators contacted for this study. 

For the equipment the percentage has been gathered from the equipment manufacturers 
or users for the individual pieces of equipment and might therefore be different from the 5%. 
The  percentage  rate  is  applied  to  the  total  equipment  investments  (excluding  planning 
costs) to calculate the yearly equipment maintenance costs as for the infrastructure. 

With the yearly percentages on the investment costs the costs per year are calculated for 
the infrastructure and all equipment and the results are then summed up to derive the total 
terminal maintenance costs per year.  

47 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Terminal energy consumption 

In addition to the energy required for handling, which is technology-dependent, energy costs 
for the infrastructure are also included under this item. Based on the area of the terminal, 
the same value of 1.1 kWh per square metre and year is applied for all terminals regardless 
of the technology. This value has been gathered from terminal operators and includes the 
energy  costs  for  lighting,  switch  heating,  etc.,  which  are  not  directly  caused  by  the 
transhipment technology. 

The  energy  required  for  handling  is  consumed  by  the  terminal  equipment.  All  energy 
consuming  equipment  is  listed  here  with  the  type  of  energy  source  it  uses  and  the 
consumption per transhipment which has been gathered from the technology providers and 
users.  The  energy  consumption  per  year  for  the  equipment  is  then  calculated  using  the 
terminal handling capacity per year. Using the corresponding costs for the type of energy, 
the annual energy costs are calculated for the infrastructure and the equipment.  

For  electricity  costs,  the  average  European  energy  cost  per  kWh  for  non-household 
consumers of 0.125 €/kWh (incl. non-recoverable taxes) is applied.29  

For diesel costs, the average European diesel cost per litre of 1.12 €/l (incl. non-recoverable 
taxes) is applied.30 

Summing  up  the  partial  costs  per  energy  consumer  gives  the  overall  value  for  the  total 
terminal energy costs per year. 

Terminal energy cost range 

The  terminal  energy  cost  range  in  Europe  was  determined  by  taking  into  account  the 
electricity as well as diesel cost range across Europe. The electricity costs per country as 
well as the EU27 average were gathered from the Eurostat database and the cost factors 
per  country  calculated  using  the  EU27  average  as  the  100%  baseline.31  The  resulting 
electricity cost factors are shown in Table 19 below.  

29 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics#Electricity_prices_for_non-household_consumers; June 
2021. 
30 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/data-analysis/weekly-oil-bulletin_en ; June 2021. 
31 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_pc_205/default/table?lang=de ; August 2021. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Table 19: Electricity cost range Europe (Index EU27 = 100) 

Country 
EU27 

Germany 
Italy 
Ireland 
Cyprus 
Malta 
Slovakia 
Belgium 
Austria 
Spain 
Portugal 
Poland 
Greece 
Latvia 
Netherlands 
Lithuania 
Croatia 
Romania 
Slovenia 
France 
Hungary 
Luxembourg 
Estonia 
Bulgaria 
Czechia  
Finland 
Denmark 
Sweden 

Electricity cost factors Europe 

Factor compared to European average 
100.00% 

144.98% 
120.73% 
118.50% 
108.77% 
107.42% 
104.94% 
94.50% 
94.42% 
93.70% 
88.84% 
85.89% 
84.45% 
84.13% 
82.54% 
81.82% 
81.58% 
81.26% 
77.83% 
76.08% 
74.96% 
74.80% 
69.62% 
67.22% 
67.15% 
60.53% 
54.70% 
46.89% 

For the diesel cost range the diesel costs per country as well as the European average were 
gathered  from  the  European  weekly  oil  bulletin.32  The  bulletin  only  provides  information 
about the diesel costs either completely including or excluding taxes and levies. To enable 
a better comparison, the Value Added Tax (VAT) has been deducted from the costs per 
country including all taxes and levies. With these new values excluding VAT the cost factors 
are calculated as for the electricity cost range. The resulting diesel cost factors are shown 
in Table 20 below. 

32 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/data-analysis/weekly-oil-bulletin_en ; August 2021 for the week of August 16th. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Table 20: Diesel cost range Europe (Index EU27 = 100) 

Diesel cost factors Europe 

Country 
EU27 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Italy 
Finland 
Netherlands 
France 
Portugal 
Germany 
Ireland 
Denmark 
Greece 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Spain 
Luxembourg 
Austria 
Czechia 
Malta 
Latvia 
Estonia 
Hungary 
Romania 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Bulgaria 

Factor compared to European average 
100.00% 
122.20% 
110.27% 
110.09% 
108.91% 
107.34% 
106.41% 
104.43% 
104.20% 
103.46% 
100.62% 
100.21% 
98.39% 
98.15% 
95.95% 
93.46% 
93.21% 
92.96% 
92.64% 
91.59% 
91.34% 
90.81% 
90.64% 
88.57% 
87.09% 
87.09% 
86.33% 
82.37% 

With each cost ranges the resulting values for the minimum and maximum electricity and 
diesel costs per technology and loading unit combination are calculated. Furthermore, the 
total minimum and maximum energy costs per technology and loading unit combination are 
calculated by adding up the minimum electricity and diesel costs as well as the maximum 
electricity  and  diesel  costs  based  on  the  technology’s  specific  energy  consumption.  It  is 
important  to  note,  that  the  resulting  total  minimum  and  maximum  values  are  calculated 
theoretical values and not concrete values from any of the European countries. As can be 
seen in the tables above the order of countries is different between both types of energy 
and the minimum or maximum values per type of energy occur in different countries and 
not  in  the  same  one,  as  is  assumed  for  the  calculation  of  the  provided  minimum  and 
maximum values. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Terminal personnel 

The  table  provides  the  relevant  terminal  personnel  functions  and  information  about  their 
necessary numbers per shift and per year as well as the resulting personnel costs per year. 

The necessary personnel per function and per shift in FTE (full time equivalent) is calculated 
from the number of handling equipment and accordingly the necessary number of handling 
equipment  drivers  which  are  assumed  to  be  set  and  provide  the  starting  point  for  the 
calculation. Based on the time each function is involved in the loading and unloading of one 
loading unit the ratio compared to the handling equipment drivers can be determined per 
function.  As  an  example,  if  one handling  equipment  driver takes  10 minutes to load  and 
unload one loading unit and there are two FTE in handling equipment drivers, then another 
function that is only involved in the process for 5 minutes must be filled with one FTE to 
keep the process and handling equipment running. 

As this calculation oftentimes provides uneven results, the necessary personnel per shift 
was  rounded-up  to  half  FTE,  providing  a  more  realistic  and  feasible  assumption  for  the 
number of required personnel.  

To calculate the number of necessary personnel per year the necessary personnel per shift 
was multiplied by two to account for the two shifts per day and a factor of 1.635 to account 
for absences due to public holidays (~10 days), vacation days (~30 days) illness (~5 days) 
and  other  reasons  (~3  days)  as  well  as  a  25%  productivity  factor  subtracted  from  the 
remaining  working  hours  to  account  for  time  spent  by  the  personnel  on  other  tasks  not 
directly included to the transhipment process.33 

The personnel costs per year per employee for a specific function are shown in Table 21 
below.  Yearly  personnel  costs  were  gathered  in  consultation  with  different  terminal 
operators and then standardized to correspond to the European average personnel costs 
using the data provided by Eurostat about the ratios between the average European labour 
costs and the labour cost level per country the gathered information applied to.34 

Table 21: Terminal personnel costs 

Terminal personnel costs 

Function 

Checker 
Gate Agent 
Handling Equipment Driver 
Terminal Truck Driver 
Instructor “groundsman” 
Terminal dispatcher 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

Yearly personnel costs 
 26 500 €  
 33 000 €  
 35 000 €  
 32 000 €  
 31 000 €  
 37 000 €  

The overall personnel costs per function are calculated by multiplying the general yearly 
personnel costs as shown above with the technology specific necessary personnel per year 
for each function. 

The sum of the personnel costs for all functions then provides the total terminal personnel 
costs per year. 

33 https://www.billomat.com/magazin/jahresarbeitszeit-berechnen/; June 2021 
34 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lc_lci_lev/default/table 

51 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Terminal personnel cost range 

As for the other cost ranges, a minimum and a maximum value for the terminal personnel 
costs is provided. These values were determined from the European average labour costs 
per country for the group of industry, construction and service workers which includes the 
logistics sector.35 Based on the provided labour costs the cost factors per country compared 
to the EU27 average were determined.  

Table 22 below shows the resulting cost factors per country. 

Table 22: Personnel cost range Europe (Index EU27 = 100) 

Country 
EU27 

Denmark 
Luxembourg 
Belgium 
France 
Netherlands 
Sweden 
Germany 
Austria 
Finland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Spain 
Slovenia 
Cyprus 
Greece 
Malta 
Portugal 
Czechia  
Estonia 
Slovakia 
Croatia 
Poland 
Hungary 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Romania 
Bulgaria 

Personnel cost factors Europe 

Factor compared to European average 
100.00% 

161.37% 
150.18% 
146.21% 
132.13% 
131.41% 
131.05% 
128.52% 
125.27% 
122.74% 
119.86% 
103.97% 
78.70% 
68.59% 
62.82% 
59.21% 
54.15% 
52.71% 
48.74% 
48.38% 
45.13% 
40.07% 
38.63% 
35.74% 
35.74% 
33.94% 
27.80% 
21.66% 

35 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/LC_LCI_LEV/default/table ; August 2021. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Total ground costs per year 

The total ground costs for the terminal are calculated under the assumption of 5 € per m² 
per  year.  As  ground  costs  in  the  EU  and  Switzerland  vary  greatly  and  depend  on  local 
conditions the flat rate of 5 € per m² per year was agreed with  DG MOVE beforehand to 
have some simplified way of including them. 

With this final cost element included for the analysis in this study, the total terminal costs 
per year are also provided. 

Furthermore, a variation of the ground costs with costs per square metre of zero (0 €) and 
10 € per m² and year is shown.  

Total costs per year 

The sum of the terminal building costs and terminal equipment investments costs per year 
(both including planning costs) as well as the yearly ground costs is shown here.  

Costs per transhipment 

Based  on  the  previously  calculated  terminal  costs  per  year  as  well  as  the  total  terminal 
handling  capacity  per  year  the  different  cost  elements  per  transhipment  are  calculated. 
These are yearly values for the total terminal investment costs (building and equipment incl. 
planning), maintenance costs, energy costs, personnel costs as well as ground costs per 
transhipment. The maintenance, energy and personnel costs per transhipment summed up 
provide the value for the total operational costs per transhipment. 

Cost range per transhipment in EU 

The  overall  cost  range  for  the  transhipment,  based  on  the  cost  ranges  previously 
determined for the construction, energy, personnel and ground costs, is shown here. The 
minimum and the maximum value are calculated using the individual cost ranges for the 
different cost elements. Therefore, as has previously been explained for the energy costs 
and for the same reasons specified there, the resulting total minimum and maximum values 
are  calculated  theoretical  values  and  not  concrete  values  from  any  of  the  European 
countries. 

Loading unit investments and costs 

This  element  provides  information  about  the  LU  investments  and  costs  for  further 
consideration in the following analysis of the transport chain. The LU specifications do not 
change for different technologies, only the chosen LU or LUs might vary. Table 23 below 
provides information about unit costs, depreciation time and maintenance costs per year 
for different LU types. The information has been gathered from producers and users of the 
mentioned LUs and from previous assignments. From the gathered values for investments 
and  maintenance  the  total  costs  per  operating  hour  have  been  calculated  under  the 
assumptions of 5% interest and constant repayments over the depreciation time as well as 
300 operating days per year with 16 operating hours each. 

For technology-specific loading units or loading unit adapters the relevant investment costs 
were obtained directly from the supplier and are described in the respective fact sheets. 

53 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Table 23: Standard loading units and their costs 

LU type 

LU 

Unit costs 
(€) 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance 
per year (€) 

ISO-
Container 

Mobiler 
Container 
Swap 
bodies 

Semi-
trailer 

Complete 
road 
vehicle 

20’ 
40’ 
40’ HC 
30’ 

7 m 
13.6 m 
Craneable 
Non craneable 

3 000 
4 200 
4 900 
20 000 

9 500 
17 000 

27 000 
26 000 

Truck with semi-
trailer 

126 000 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

Main leg investments 

12 
12 
12 
12 

12 
12 
11 
11 

10 

90.00 
126.00 
147.00 
300.00 

285.00 
510.00 

810.00 
780.00 

10 780.00 

Costs per 
operating 
hour (€) 
0.06 € 
0.09 € 
0.11 € 
0.38 € 

0.20 € 
0.37 € 

0.61 € 
0.59 € 

4.24 € 

The  necessary  costs  for  main leg  equipment  are  shown here.  The values  for unit  costs, 
number of units and depreciation time are input parameters. The information was gathered 
from  equipment  providers  and  from  equipment  users.  The  total  costs  per  main  leg 
equipment are calculated multiplying the unit costs with the number of units. To calculate 
the total costs per operating hour first the yearly investment costs, assuming 5% interest 
and constant repayments over the depreciation time, are calculated and the result is then 
divided by the operating hours per year. For main leg equipment 300 operating days per 
year with 16 operating hours a day are assumed.  

Then the sums of the total costs and the total costs per operating hour are calculated for all 
listed equipment. 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

The main leg equipment maintenance costs were gathered as a yearly percentage of the 
total  investment  costs.  With  this  percentage,  the  total  maintenance  costs  per  year  were 
calculated which were then broken down further to maintenance costs per operating hour 
using  the  previously  mentioned  assumption  of  300  operating  days  per  year  with  16 
operating hours a day. 

The total maintenance costs per operating hour for all listed equipment were then summed 
up. 

Main leg energy consumption 

This  element  lists  the  main  leg  equipment  which  consumes  energy.  For  each  listed 
equipment  the  type  of  consumed  energy  and  the  consumption  were  gathered  in  desk 
research and from industry practitioners.  

For the main leg rail an electric locomotive is assumed, and the consumption is expressed 
in consumption per ton-kilometre (tkm).  

For the calculation of the rail tkm the calculated weight per train from the calculation of the 
number of loading units, assuming an 85% load factor, is used. 

54 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Results from a 2018 study, which analysed the energy consumption for electricity powered 
freight trains travelling between Germany and the Netherlands36, are used for estimating 
the energy consumption. The locomotive observed in this study, a Siemens ES64F4, is a 
common  locomotive  used  in  rail  freight  and  assumed  to  be  comparable  in  energy 
consumption to our model locomotive. The study results show a typical energy consumption 
of 0.02 kWh/tkm with the achievable optimum being at 0.01 kWh/tkm. Different total train 
weights and lengths were looked at in this study, with higher weight and lower length moving 
the consumption closer to the optimum. The trains calculated for the technologies have a 
high weight but are also relatively long with over 600 m. We therefore assume the typical 
energy consumption observed of 0.02 kWh/tkm for our transport model. This consumption 
value has been confirmed to be plausible by rail freight practitioners. 

For IWW and SSS the consumption of gasoil (diesel for ships) is assumed.  

The energy consumption for IWW is assumed to be 0.004 l/tkm. This value falls within the 
consumption  range  determined  in  a  study  commissioned  by  the  German  Federal 
Waterways and Shipping Administration.37  

For SSS the energy consumption is assumed to be 0.003 l/tkm based on a report by the 
international energy agency38 and in line with other sources found during the research for 
this study. 

From the consumption per distance described above the consumption per hour was derived 
using the average speed per mode of transport as mentioned in chapter 2.2.1. 

The consumption per hour was then multiplied with the cost factor per consumed energy to 
calculate the energy costs per operating hour for the equipment. 

The full cost of electricity per kWh for the consumer is assumed to be 0.125 €. This value 
includes  applicable  and  non-recoverable  taxes  and  levies.  The  value  is  the  European 
average cost of electricity for non-household consumers39. 

For  diesel  used  in  IWW and SSS  operations  the  costs  are  assumed to  be  0.72  €/l.  This 
includes the bunker costs and has been coordinated with shipping operators. 

Other operational costs main leg 

In addition to maintenance and energy costs there are other costs incurred during main leg 
transport.  For  all  modes  of transport  personnel costs fall  under this  category.  These  are 
calculated using the total working time determined for the main leg and the hourly costs per 
each main leg personnel function as shown in Table 24. These have been determined in 
the same manner described already for the terminal personnel costs but were then broken 
down to personnel costs per working hour instead of personnel costs per year assuming 
the same personnel efficiency factor of 1.635 described for the terminal personnel.  

For accompanied rail intermodal transport, in addition to the train driver, the attendant and 
the train dispatcher, a per diem for the truck drivers is added as a flat value of 20 € per truck 
driver per transport in the personnel costs. 

36 TNO 2018, Insight into the energy consumption, CO2 emissions and NOx emissions of rail freight transport; 
https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34626344/HT13Na/TNO-2017-R11679.pdf; 11.06.2021. 
37 Verkehrswirtschaftlicher und ökologischer Vergleich der Verkehrsträger Straße, Schiene und Wasserstraße; 
https://www.bafg.de/DE/08_Ref/U1/02_Projekte/05_Verkehrstraeger/verkehrstraeger_lang.pdf?__blob=public
ationFile; 18.08.2021. 
38 https://www.iea.org/reports/international-shipping. 
39https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_pc_205/default/table?lang=en;11.06.2021. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_pc_205/default/table?lang=en; 11.06.2021. 

55 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

For IWW and SSS the personnel costs per hour are provided for the entire ship’s crew as 
one  item.  The  crew  item  considers  the  respective  crew  sizes  per  mode  of  transport  as 
described under working hours. 

Table 24: Main leg personnel costs 

Main leg personnel costs 

Personnel function 

Train driver 
Train dispatcher 
Wagon inspector 
Attendant 
Ship crew IWW 
Ship crew SSS 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

Personnel costs 
per hour (€) 
 35.38 €  
 32.43 €  
 35.38 €  
 30.96 €  

60.40 € 
285.76 € 

For  rail  transports  additional  track  access  charges  are  incurred.  According  to  a  study 
conducted by PWC in 2018, the average track access charge for rail freight in Europe was 
2.98 € per track kilometre in the year 201740: track access charges of 3 € per track kilometre 
will thus be assumed for this study. 

For SSS an additional port fee of 1 494 € per transport will be assumed based on the study 
“The COMPetitiveness of EuropeAn Short-sea freight Shipping compared with road and rail 
transport (COMPASS)” commissioned by DG Environment.41 

Road leg investments 

This element shows the necessary investments into road leg equipment for the technology. 
In most cases the listed equipment is less dependent on the technology but rather on the 
transhipped loading units. Semitrailers and full vehicles used as loading units and described 
and considered under loading unit investments will not be included as road leg equipment 
again.  

Similarly,  to  what  has  been  done  with  the  main  leg  equipment,  the  unit  costs  and  the 
depreciation  time  were  gathered  as  input  parameters  from  previous  assignments  and 
validated with freight forwarders. As each listed equipment is only used once, there is no 
necessity to show number of units and total costs. With the unit costs and depreciation time 
the total costs per operating hour are calculated under the assumption of 5% interest and 
constant yearly repayments as for all other investments as well as 250 operating days per 
year and 14 operating hours per day as for terminal equipment. 

The total road leg investment costs and the total road leg investment costs per operating 
hour are summed up for all listed equipment. 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

For intermodal transport with the loading unit semi-trailer (non-craneable and craneable) an 
estimate is provided for a reasonable fleet size depending on the main leg distance, e.g., 
how  many  semi-trailers  should  be  used  per  truck  to  achieve  a  good  utilization  of  both 
equipment types.  

40 PWC, Studie zur Gestaltung der Eisenbahninfrastrukturpreise in Europa, https://www.pwc.de/de/offentliche-
unternehmen/eisenbahninfrastrukturpreise_012018.pdf; 11.06.2021. 
41 https://www.tmleuven.be/en/project/europeanshortseashipping; August 2021. 

56 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

To  calculate  this  ratio,  first  the  time  one representative truck  is  involved  in  the  transport 
chain for both road legs is estimated. This time includes the time spent in the terminal by 
the road haulage operator during loading and unloading, two times the road leg duration as 
well as an assumed time of 60 minutes for breaks and an assumed time of 240 minutes 
spent at the start/end point of the road leg.  

Second, the time of one semi-trailer transport on the entire 600 km or 1 000 km transport 
chain was  calculated.  For  the calculation it  was  assumed,  that the  transport time of  one 
semi-trailer is equal to the involvement time of the truck plus the main leg duration and the 
total terminal time for loading and unloading one full train or ship.  

By then dividing the transport duration of the semi-trailer by the time the truck is involved, 
a ratio between the two times is calculated which also represents an adequate ratio between 
trucks and semi-trailers. 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

The road leg equipment maintenance costs were gathered as a yearly percentage of the 
unit costs from which the total maintenance costs per year and equipment can easily be 
derived. Based on the assumption of 250 operating days per year and 14 operating hours 
per day the costs per operating hour are then calculated, again also providing a sum for the 
total maintenance costs per operating hour for the road leg. 

Road leg energy consumption 

In  this  item  information  is  provided  about  the  road-leg  energy  consumption  and  type  of 
energy  consumed  per  100  km.  For  all  technologies  the  type  will  be  diesel  and  the 
consumption of the truck is assumed to be 33 l/100 km on average. Using the assumed 
average speed of 60 km/h the consumption per operating hour is calculated to be 19.8 l for 
the described standard truck. The consumption is then multiplied with the costs per unit of 
energy to calculate the energy costs per operating hour for the road leg.  

For the road-only transport the fuel consumption is assumed to be 30l /100 km due to better 
fuel efficiency on longer distances. 

The cost of diesel is assumed to be 1.12 € based on the European average costs for diesel 
fuel. This value includes the cost of the diesel fuel and the various non-recoverable taxes.42 

The costs per operating hour for all energy consumers on the road leg are summed up to 
calculate the total energy costs per operating hour for the road leg. 

Personnel costs road leg 

To  calculate the  personnel  costs  for  the road-leg,  personnel  costs  per  hour for  the  truck 
driver and the dispatcher are provided here. The personnel costs per hour are assumed to 
be 22.11 € for the truck driver and 24.32 € for the dispatcher. These values already include 
the personnel efficiency factor of 1 635 described for the terminal personnel. 

Other operational costs road leg 

For the road legs, we assume that 80% of the transport distance takes place on toll roads. 
An average cost of 0.187 € per km driven on toll roads in Europe is assumed for this study 
based on data found in desk research.43 

42 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/data-analysis/weekly-oil-bulletin_en; June 2021. 
43 https://impargo.de/en/blog/truck-toll-europe. 

57 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Total costs 600 km/1 000 km transport 

To determine the total costs of the transport chain, first the total costs for the road legs, for 
the main legs with 600 and 1 000 km lengths, for the transhipments and the LU costs are 
individually determined and then added together for the grand total. The costs are provided 
for both the transport of all loading units on the train, barge or ship as well as for a single 
LU. 

The  total  costs  for  the  first  road  leg  are  first  determined  for  one  LU  using  the  following 
formula: 

𝑅𝐿1 = (𝐼𝑟 + 𝑀𝑟 + 𝐸𝑟 + 𝑊𝑡𝑑) ∗ (𝑡𝑟𝑙 +   𝑡𝑡𝑙) + 𝑊𝑟𝑑 ∗ 𝑡𝑟𝑑   

𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ: 
𝑅𝐿1 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔 
𝐼𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (€/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟) 
𝑀𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (€/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟) 
𝐸𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (€/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟) 
𝑊𝑡𝑑 =  𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (€/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟) 
𝑡𝑟𝑙 = 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
𝑡𝑡𝑙 = 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 (hours) 
𝑊𝑟𝑑 =  𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (€/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟) 
𝑡𝑟𝑑 = 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑔 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 

The investments and operational costs for the road leg equipment as well as the costs for 
the truck driver per hour are multiplied with the sum of time spent on the road leg and the 
time spent in the terminal for the road haulage operator during loading. Then the costs for 
the road dispatcher are added based on the working time determined per road leg. 

For the second road leg the calculation is mostly the same, only the ‘Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage operator loading’ is changed to the ‘Time spent in Terminal for the road 
haulage operator unloading’. 

As  these  are  the  costs  for  the  transport  of  one  loading  unit  on  the  road  leg,  they  are 
multiplied with the number of loading units transported on the main leg for the technology 
to receive the total costs per road leg. 

The costs for the transhipment of one loading unit have already been calculated and can 
be taken directly from the element ‘Total costs for one transhipment’. These costs are used 
both for the first and for the second transhipment of one LU.  

As for the road leg they are multiplied with the number of loading units transported on the 
main leg to receive the total costs for the first and the second transhipment in the transport 
chain. 

For the main leg rail of 450km length (and similarly for the main leg of 850 km length) the 
total costs are calculated for all loading units on the full train with the following formula: 

𝑀𝐿𝑟 = (𝐼𝑚𝑟 + 𝑀𝑚𝑟 + 𝐸𝑚𝑟 + 𝑂𝑚𝑟 + 𝑊𝑡𝑝) ∗ (𝑡450𝑚𝑟 + 𝑡𝑎 + 𝑡𝑑) + 
(𝐼𝑤𝑚𝑟 + 𝑀𝑤𝑚𝑟) ∗ (𝑡𝑙𝑖 + 𝑡𝑢𝑖 − 𝑡𝑎 − 𝑡𝑑) + 𝑊𝑡𝑑 ∗ 𝑡𝑡𝑑450 + 𝑊𝑤𝑖 ∗ 𝑡𝑤𝑖 + 𝑊𝑝𝑑   

𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ: 
𝑀𝐿𝑟 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙 

𝐼𝑚𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

) 

58 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

𝑀𝑚𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

𝐸𝑚𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

𝑂𝑚𝑟 =   𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

𝑊𝑡𝑝 =  𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (
𝑡450𝑚𝑟 = 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 450 𝑘𝑚 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
𝑡𝑡𝑎 = Time of train personnel for arrival of train in terminal 
𝑡𝑡𝑑 = Time of train personnel for departure of train from terminal 

€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

) 

€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

) 

) 

€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

) 

𝐼𝑤𝑚𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

€
) 
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

) 

𝑀𝑤𝑚𝑟 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (
𝑡𝑙𝑖 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙. ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
𝑡𝑢𝑖 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙. ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

𝑊𝑡𝑑 =  𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (
𝑡𝑡𝑑450 = 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 450 𝑘𝑚 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 

) 

𝑊𝑤𝑖 =  𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (
𝑡𝑤𝑖 = 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
𝑊𝑝𝑑 = Costs for the per diems of truck drivers (only in accompanied intermodal transport) 

) 

€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

The investments and operational costs for the main equipment as well as the costs for the 
train personnel per hour are multiplied with the duration of the main leg and the time of the 
train driver  in the  terminal  during  arrival  and  departure.  The  train personnel  include only 
one44 train driver for unaccompanied transport and one train driver and one attendant for 
accompanied  transport.  Then  the  investments  and  operational  costs  for  the  wagon  set 
multiplied with the total time they spend in the terminal, minus the time they spend in the 
terminal with the train driver, are added. Then, the personnel costs for the train dispatcher 
and the wagon inspector are added based on their individual working times on the full train. 
For unaccompanied intermodal transport the calculation is done, however for accompanied 
intermodal transport finally the per diem for each truck driver is added. 

If additional main leg equipment besides the loco and the wagon set is used, it will be treated 
like the  wagon  set  and its  costs  per  hour  will  also be  added  for the standing  time  in  the 
terminal. 

This is the calculation for the train, therefore, to get the costs per LU the result is divided by 
the number of loading units on the train. 

The calculation for the 850 km rail main leg follows the same formula, only changing the 
duration of the main leg and the working time of the dispatcher from the 450 km to the 850 
km values. 

For IWW and SSS the calculation follows a similar approach with the differences as shown 
below. 

44 It is known that in some regions in Italy a second person is required in the cabin of a locomotive, but this is 

neglected in the calculation since it is not determined by the transhipment technology. 

59 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

𝑀𝐿𝑤 = (𝐼𝑚𝑟 + 𝑀𝑚𝑟 + 𝐸𝑚𝑟 + 𝑊𝑡𝑝) ∗ (𝑡450𝑚𝑟 + 𝑡𝑎 + 𝑡𝑑) + 
(𝐼𝑤𝑚𝑟 + 𝑀𝑤𝑚𝑟) ∗ (𝑡𝑙𝑖 + 𝑡𝑢𝑖 − 𝑡𝑎 − 𝑡𝑑) + 𝑊𝑡𝑑 ∗ 𝑡𝑡𝑑450 + 𝑊𝑤𝑖 ∗ 𝑡𝑤𝑖 + 𝑊𝑝𝑑   

𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ: 
𝑀𝐿𝑚𝑤 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝐼𝑊𝑊/𝑆𝑆𝑆 

𝐼𝑚𝑤 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

𝑀𝑚𝑤 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

𝐸𝑚𝑤 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

𝑊𝑐𝑤 =  𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑤 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (
𝑡450𝑚𝑤 = 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 450 𝑘𝑚 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
𝑡𝑡𝑎 = Time of crew for arrival of barge/ship in terminal 
𝑡𝑡𝑑 = Time of crew for departure of barge/ship from terminal 

) 

€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

𝐼𝑚𝑤 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (

€
) 
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

) 

€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

) 

€
) 
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
€
ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

𝑀𝑚𝑤 =  𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 (
𝑡𝑙𝑖 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒/𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙. ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
𝑡𝑢𝑖 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒/𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙. ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 
𝑂𝑚𝑤 =  𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔 

) 

For one, all investment and maintenance costs are also applied to the entire transhipment 
duration  because  the  main  leg  equipment  cannot  be  split  like  for  rail.  Furthermore,  no 
additional  personal  costs  other  than the  ship’s  crew  are  assumed.  Additionally  flat  other 
operational costs, for example port fees, are added per main leg.  

Also, for IWW and SSS the 850 km main leg is calculated in the same way, only changing 
the main leg duration. 

For the grand total costs of the 600 km and 1 000 km transport chains the costs for the 
loading unit are left to be determined. These will be calculated by multiplying the costs per 
operating hour for the LU and the total duration of the transport chain of 600k km or 1 000 
km length. 

In order to take into account the additional organizational costs that are necessary to plan 
and carry out an intermodal transport chain, a surcharge of 25% on the previous total costs 
will be added in agreement with the DG MOVE.45 

All the described costs for the 600 km and 1 000 km transport chains can now be summed 
up to calculate the grand total costs for both distances. 

45 See also the variety of assumptions in TRT/MDS Transmodal, Gathering additional data on EU combined 
transport, Final Report, 2017. The study determines the total additional costs for organizing intermodal 
transports to be 40%, as also summarized in the 2017 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT (DG MOVE). These total additional costs of 40% include cost factors which are 
incorporated in this study in other cost elements, for example for longer transport durations, which we will not 
be considering again at this point. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Cost range 600 km/1 000 km transport in EU 

The cost range provided for the 600 km and 1 000 km transport chain takes into account 
the minimum and maximum transhipments costs previously determined and applies these 
values to both transhipments in the transport chain. 

External costs 

External  costs  (social,  environmental  and  economic  costs)  are  those  costs  that  are  not 
borne by the entities or people causing them but are imposed on society or third parties. 
Freight  transport  produces  exhaust  gases  and  noise.  In  addition,  fuel  and  infrastructure 
must be provided. All these points have a direct and indirect impact on third parties. The 
amount of negative externalities inflicted upon others depends on the involved modes of 
transport, with road transport causing higher external costs per transported ton than rail, 
IWW  or  SSS.  This  chapter  aims  to  present  the  external  costs  between  the  different 
transhipment  technologies  and  modes  of  transport  and  to  compare  them  with  road-only 
transport. 

In this study external costs are composed of the costs of accidents, air pollution, climate 
change,  noise,  congestion,  well-to-tank  emissions  (WTT),  habitat  damage  and  other 
external cost categories (e.g., soil and water pollution) as specified in the Handbook on the 
external costs of transport.46 The values for the average external costs of the EU states in 
tonne-kilometres (tkm) for freight transport of the individual modes of transport HGV (heavy 
goods vehicle), rail and inland waterways can be seen in the Handbook Table 73 on page 
172. The external costs include CO2 emissions as climate change costs.  

For the external costs of rail freight, the values shown here assume a share of 25% of diesel 
and only 75% electricity in the fuel consumption. In our model environment we are assuming 
all electric traction for the rail main leg, therefore the excel sheet provided with the handbook 
was used to calculate the external costs for this case. For electric traction only, the external 
costs for rail freight are calculated to be 1.1 €-cent/tkm instead of the 1.3 €-cent/km shown 
as the overall average including the diesel-traction share. For HGV and IWW transports the 
external costs are applied as shown in table 73 of the handbook.  

The values for the external costs are then determined for the tkm of the 600 and 1 000 km 
transport  chains  including  the  rail  and  inland  waterway  main  legs  as  specified  for  the 
individual  transhipment  technology  and  LU  combinations.  For  short  sea  shipping,  the 
Handbook  has  little  data.  Primarily,  external  costs  for  ferries  with  a  focus  on  passenger 
transport  are  given  in  €-cents  per  passenger-kilometre.  For  this  reason,  the  values  for 
maritime transport are used as the basis for external costs for short-sea shipping. For short-
sea  transport,  Figure  16  on  page  159  in  the  handbook  and  the  Excel-table  “Complete 
overview of country data for Handbook” are used, which takes into account air pollution, 
climate change and WTT costs as external costs for maritime transport. 

Following the premises stated above, the Handbook provides the following external costs 
for the individual modes of transport: 

HGV (Road): 3.4 €-cent/tkm 

Rail: 1.1 €-cent/tkm 

Inland waterways: 1.9 €-cent/tkm 

Short sea shipping (maritime transport): 0.7 €-cent/tkm 

46 Handbook on the external costs of transport (2019). 

61 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

The  Handbook  does  not  show  separate  data  on  external  costs  for  the  transhipment 
terminals. To obtain a comparison of the individual transhipment technologies in the context 
of their environmental friendliness, the energy consumption and thus the CO2 emissions 
per transhipment are assessed. Technologies in which the truck driver loads the loading 
units with his own truck are assessed in this context like a terminal tractor were used. The 
energy  consumption  per  transhipment  of  each  technology  have  previously  been 
determined.  The  CO2  equivalent  emissions  per  consumed  unit  of  fuel  have  been 
determined to be 255 g CO2e per kWh for electricity47 and 2 700 g CO2e per l for diesel48.  

Based on the values provided in the Handbook external costs on p. 65 f. of 100 € per ton 
of  CO2e  are  assumed  and  applied  to  the  CO2e  emissions  per  transhipment  for  the 
technologies. 

To determine the external costs, the transport performance of the individual transport legs 
along the transport chain is the basis. This is then multiplied by the average external costs. 
To make the results of the different technologies comparable, the external costs determined 
are calculated in terms of net tonnes transported. This gives a better representation of the 
relationship between different payloads and deadweight. For example, technologies with a 
lot of additional necessary material will have the same transport performance as ones using 
less  material,  but  the  external  costs  will  be  greater  per  net  tonnes  transported  than  for 
technologies with less deadweight. 

For the two road legs before and after the main leg in the example transport chains, the 
distances  listed  in  Table  10:  Road  leg  distance  per  mode  of  transport  for  the  individual 
modes of transport are used. These are multiplied by the weights of the truck, loading unit 
and loaded goods. If a loading unit is not self-driving, the weight of the chassis is added. 
For technologies that require additional  equipment for road transport,  this  is  also  added. 
The resulting transport performance added up for both road legs is multiplied by the external 
costs  for  road  transport.  Due  to  the  different  loading  units,  the  performance  of  the 
transhipment technologies and the additional equipment required in some cases, there are 
different external costs for road transport. 

For  the  main  leg,  the  total  train  weight  determined  for  each  transhipment  technology  is 
multiplied by the distances listed in Table 10: Road leg distance per mode of transport for 
the individual modes of transport and by the factor for rail from the Handbook. The resulting 
external  costs  are then divided by the  number  of  loading  units  transported.  The result  is 
added  to  the  external  costs  determined  for  the  road  leg.  Due  to  the  different  transport 
distance, modes of transport, loading units, performance of the handling technologies and 
the additional equipment required in some cases, there are different external costs for the 
main leg. 

To enable the comparison with road-only transport, it is assumed that a truck pulls a semi-
trailer loaded with 20 t of goods. The calculated transport performance results in external 
costs of € 695.64 for the 600 km and € 1 159.40 for the 1 000 km road-only transport. These 
costs are the same for all transhipment technologies in intermodal transport, because from 
today's  point  of  view  the  described  combination  of  truck  and  semi-trailer  is  the  most 
common in long-distance road transport. 

The  difference  between  the  intermodal  transport  chain  and  road-only  transport  is  the 
external costs saved or the economic benefit of choosing one transport chain over the other. 
These are shown in the fact sheet for each transhipment technology. 

47 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-8/#tab-
googlechartid_googlechartid_chart_111_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters
%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_date%22%3A%5B2019%5D%7D%7D ; August 2021 
48 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/461/publikationen/4306.pdf ; August 2021 

62 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

3.2.4  Technology fact sheets 

Based on the process for data collection described in chapter 3.2.1 the fact sheets for the 
transhipment technologies listed in Table 8 were created. Their layout follows the elements 
described in chapter 3.2.3. All technology fact sheets can be found in Annex 1. 

Within  the  scope  of  the  technology  fact  sheets,  certain  technologies  are  excluded  from 
further analysis in this study as explained in the description of the “Technology readiness 
level and prevalence” element in chapter 3.2.3. The fact sheets for technologies which were 
excluded  stop  after  this  element  and  an  explanation  of  the  application  of  the  described 
exclusion criteria for the specific technology is provided. 

The status of all transhipment technologies is shown in Table 25 below providing an 
overview of which technologies are included in or excluded from the further evaluation in 
this study.  

Table 25: Status of the transhipment technology analysis per technology 

Transhipment Technology 

1  Gantry Crane 
2  Reach Stacker 
3  Hydraulic Material Handling Crane  
4  Mobile Harbour Crane 
5  Crane Ship  
6 

Furmia RTS 500 

7  RoRo Ramp to/from Ship 
8  RoRo double stacking cassettes 
9  Metrocargo 
10  N.E.H.T.S. (Neuweiler) 
11 

IUT (ÖBB Rail Cargo Austria) 

12  CarConTrain 
13  Sidelifter 
14  BOXMover 
15  Mobiler (Rail Cargo Austria) 
16  Container Mover 3020 (Innovatrain) 
17  Cargo Beamer 1st generation (Cargobeamer AG) 
18  Cargo Beamer next generation (Cargobeamer AG) 
19  Modalohr 1st generation (AFA) 

20 

21 

Modalohr 2nd generation « N/A » 
(Lohr Industrie) 
Modalohr UIC 
(Lohr Industrie, VIA) 

22  Helrom 
23  Nikrasa 
24 

ISU (ÖBB Rail Cargo Austria) 

25  Megaswing 
26  Cargospeed 
27  Rail Runner (Europe) 
28  RoLa Ramp 
29  Eurotunnel Le Shuttle freight 
30  Flexiwaggon 

Included/ excluded in 
further evaluation 

Included 
Included 
Included 
Included 
Excluded 
Excluded 
Included 
Included in RoRo 
Excluded 
Excluded 
Excluded 
Excluded 
Included 
Included 
Included 
Included 
Excluded 
Included 
Excluded 

Excluded 

Included 

Excluded 
Included 
Included 
Renamed to Helrom 
Excluded 
Excluded 
Included 
Excluded 
Included 

63 

 
  
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Transhipment Technology 

31 

r2l 2.0 road rail link (VEGA) 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

Included/ excluded in 
further evaluation 

Included 

As shown 13 of the initial 31 technologies are to be excluded from further evaluation for the 
reasons  provided  in  their  technology  fact  sheets.  One  of  the  technologies  has  been 
renamed and will only be looked at under its new name and one of the technologies will be 
included as subset of another technology. Both are marked accordingly. This results in 16 
distinct technologies to be included in the further evaluation conducted within this study. A 
special case is the Modalohr technology, or better the three Modalohr technologies of which 
the 1st and 2nd generation are excluded from further analysis due to them being gradually 
replaced  and  only  Modalohr  UIC  will  be  included  for  the  comparative  evaluation.  For 
technical  and  financial  aspects  this  statement  is  fully  correct.  However,  as  the  earlier 
generations are still in use and it will take some time before they are fully replaced, when 
analysing the EU and Switzerland intermodal network data in task 3, data for these earlier 
generations will be included in Modalohr UIC for tasks 3.1 to 3.4. 

Table 26 below shows the possible transhipment technology and LU combinations. A “x” 
means the technology is technically capable and commonly used for the transhipment of 
the respective loading unit whereas a “(x)” means that the technology is technically capable 
of transhipping the loading unit however due to operational reasons this is not commonly 
done. If there is no marking, then the technology is technically not capable of transhipping 
the loading unit. 

Table 26: Technology and Loading Unit Compatibility Matrix 

Transhipment 
Technology 

Type of Loading Unit 
Containers 

Swap Bodies 

Semi-Trailers 

Full vehicles 

1  Gantry Crane 
2  Reach Stacker 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

Hydraulic Material 
Handling Crane  
Mobile Harbour 
Crane 
RoRo Ramp 
to/from Ship 
Sidelifter 
BOXMover 
Mobiler (Rail 
Cargo Austria) 
Container Mover 
3020 
Cargo Beamer 
next generation  
11  Modalohr UIC 
12  Nikrasa 
ISU  
13 

10 

8 

9 

14  RoLa Ramp 
15  Flexiwaggon 

16 

r2l 2.0 road rail 
link 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

(x) 

(x) 

x 

(x) 
(x) 

x 

x 
x 

(x) 

(x) 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

Source: KombiConsult analysis; * “Full Vehicle” means a motor vehicle or a vehicle combination (road trains and/or articulated 
vehicle); “x” means technical capable and commonly used, “(x)” means technically possible but not operationally meaningful 

64 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

One of the main results of the technology analysis are the total costs for the 600 km and 1 
000 km transport chain per technology and loading unit combination on different modes of 
transport. An overview of the transport costs is provided in Figure 6 for the 600 km transport 
chain and in Figure 7 for the 1 000 km transport chain as explained in the description of the 
fact sheet elements. 

65 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Figure 6: Total transport costs for the 600 km model transport chain per LU 

66 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR  

Figure 7: Total transport costs for the 600 km model transport chain per LU 

67 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

3.2.5  Necessary loading gauge per technology and loading unit combination (rail) 

To allow a relatively easy checking if a loading unit / wagon combination is suitable for rail 
transport  on  certain  rail  lines  a  codification  system  was  agreed  upon  in  the  Interunit 
committee  between  railways  and  intermodal  operators  and  documented  in  UIC  leaflets 
(among others the IRS 50596-6). 

The following illustration visualizes the principle of the system which distinguishes between 
pocket wagon (coded “P”) and flat wagon for swap bodies and containers (coded “C”) as 
well as between semi-trailers with an outer width of < 2 500 mm and containers and swap 
bodies with an outer width of 2 550 mm for which a two-digit coding is used and semi-trailers 
of  >  2 550 mm  and containers/swap  bodies  of  2  600 mm  for  which a  three-digit  code is 
used. 

Figure 8: Loading gauge for rail freight 

The coding of a loading unit is depending on its relation to the reference profile of coding 
according to IRS 50596-6. 

At the time of invention of the coding system the reference level for semi-trailers was 330 
cm above the stand-up position of the pocket which itself was 33 cm above top of rail level, 
while the reference level for containers and swap bodies was 245 cm above the stand-up 
position on the flat wagon which itself was 1 175 mm (rounded 118 cm) above top of rail, 
and 845 mm (rounded 85 cm) above pocket level. These profiles were called P/C 00 and 
P/C 330 respectively. The C 00 coding allowed to transport standard 8 feet ISO containers 
(8  feet  rounded  245  cm)  on  standard  wagon  and  the  P00  coding  the  transport  of  semi-
trailers with 330 cm (corner) height. For higher swap bodies and containers, one had to add 
the two-digit coding value to the 245 and for semi-trailers to 330 to calculate their maximal 
height. 

For the wider units the three-digit code was relevant which is equal to the maximal (corner) 
height of semi-trailers while for containers and swap bodies one had to subtract 85 cm (the 
initial distance between the “P” and the “C” Reference Levels) from the three-digit code. 

68 

245 cm8 FeetStandardContainerP/C 410P/C 364P/C 341P/C 330Width <= 255/260Width <=250/255P/C 80P/C 45P/C 22P/C 00245330117,53384,5330341364410ReferenceLevel „C“804522Top of Rail LevelReferenceLevel „P“201175351155825Modern WagonMegafret1033011,7230213FlexiwaggonLohr270T30006„Gaining“ of codingpointsbywagontechnologyLoadingProfilesfordifferent LoadingUnit/Wagon Combinations© KombiConsult GmbH2,90 m High Cube3,25 m Swap Body70P/C 70ReferenceLevelP/C 4004004,00 m Semi-TrailerPrincipleillustration(not scaled) 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Example 1: 260 cm wide semi-trailer coded P400 = total height for rail transport 400 cm 
plus 33 height of the base level above top of rail results to 433 corner height above top of 
rail when loaded on standard pocket wagon. 

Example 2: 255 cm wide swap body of 325 cm height plus height of the reference loading 
level (1 175 mm, rounded 118 cm) minus height of the base level above top of rail (33 cm) 
equals to a coding of C410. 

Modernized flat and special wagon (see Table 12) brought into the market made it possible 
to “gain” coding points since their loading platform for semi-trailers or the carriage level for 
containers and swap bodies was lower than the respective reference lines. In these cases 
the  wagon  got  markings  which  indicated  the  difference,  e.g.  “6”  for  the  pocket  wagon 
“T3000”. 

From Figure 8 above it gets clear that the critical units are basically wide semi-trailers and 
high cube containers as well as wide and high swap bodies. It is also evident that the “P400” 
profile is the standard requested by the market parties for rail lines relevant for intermodal 
transport since it will allow the transport of the highest semi-trailers allowed for cross border 
transport in Europe (4 m total height when driving on road). 

Thirdly the illustration indicates why on certain lines it may be suitable to use “lower wagon” 
rather than enlarging the infrastructure gauge. Those issues are dealt with in chapter  4 - 
Establish EU and Switzerland intermodal network data. 

Table 27: Minimum necessary loading gauge on route per rail wagon and loading unit combination 
(2550 wide boxes/2500 mm wide Semi-Trailers) 

N° 

Rail wagon 
type 

Loading 
height 
(mm) 

Wagon 
Compati-
bility 
Code* 

Type of loading unit, their height (mm) and Compatibility Code 

ISO-
Container 

HC-
Container 

Swap Body 

Semi-
Trailer 

Full 
vehicle 

2450 

C 00 

2900 

C 45 

2670 

3000  3150  4000 

4000 

C 22 

C 55  C 70  P 70 

n/a 

1 

Sdggmrss 
“TWIN” 

1155 

 C +20 

270 

 P +6 

C 00 

n/a 

C 25 

C 02  C 35  C 50 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 64 

n/a 

n/a 

2  Sgnss 60' 

1155 

 C +20 

C 00 

C 25 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

3 

Sggmrrss-y 
2 x 60' 

1155 

 C +20 

C 00 

C 25 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

4  Sggrss 80’ 

1155 

 C +20 

C 00 

C 25 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

5  Sggmrss 104’  1155 

 C +20 

C 00 

C 25 

C 02  C 35  C 50 

n/a 

n/a 

6 

Sffggmrrss 
"Megafret" 

825 

 C +35 

C 00 

C 10 

C 00  C 20  C 35 

n/a 

n/a 

7  Sggmrss 90’ 

1155 

 C +20 

C 00 

C 25 

C 02  C 35  C 50 

n/a 

n/a 

8  T3000e 

9 

Flexiwagon 
SW 

1155 

 C +20 

270 

 P +6 

C 00 

n/a 

C 25 

C 02  C 35  C 50 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 64 

n/a 

n/a 

230 
(180 
when 
loaded) 

 P +10 
tbc 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 390 

69 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

N° 

Rail wagon 
type 

Loading 
height 
(mm) 

Wagon 
Compati-
bility 
Code* 

Type of loading unit, their height (mm) and Compatibility Code 

ISO-
Container 

HC-
Container 

Swap Body 

Semi-
Trailer 

Full 
vehicle 

2450 

C 00 

2900 

C 45 

2670 

3000  3150  4000 

4000 

C 22 

C 55  C 70  P 70 

n/a 

10 

Low floor 
wagon 
(Saadkms) 

410 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

route 
specific 

11 

Sdkmss 
„CargoBeamer 
JetModule“ 

210 
(when 
loaded) 

 n/a ***** 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 
54**** 

n/a 

12  Lohr "UIC 2" 

213 

 P +12 
tbc 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 58 

n/a 

based 

KombiConsult 

knowledgebase 

Source: 
* subject to country specific adjustment; tbc = to be confirmed, n/a = not applicable 
** due to Wagon Adapter Unit placed between wagon and loading unit during rail transport; semi-trailer generally not possible 
*** due to specifically designed platform placed between wagon and loading unit during rail transport; container or swap body 
generally not possible 
**** Limitation calculation according UIC leaflet 502 with measuring exact corner height and loading height prior to each train 
departure allows to transport "4-m semi-trailer" on routes coded "P384" (equivalent P54 for narrow semi-trailers) such as the 
Gotthard-Route in Switzerland according to CargoBeamer. 

manufacturers 

50596-6 

data; 

IRS 

and 

on 

Table 28: Minimum necessary loading gauge on route per rail wagon and loading unit combination 
(2550 wide boxes/2600 mm wide Semi-Trailers) 

N° 

Rail wagon 
type 

Loading 
height 
(mm) 

Wagon 
Compati-
bility 
Code* 

Type of loading unit, their height (mm) and Compatibility Code 

ISO-
Container 

HC-
Container 

Swap Body 

Semi-
Trailer 

Full 
vehicle 

2450 

C 00 

2900 

C 45 

2670 

3000  3150  4000 

4000 

C 22 

C 55  C 70  P 70 

n/a 

1 

Sdggmrss 
“TWIN” 

1155 

 C +20 

P 330 

P 355 

P 332 

270 

 P +6 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 
365 

n/a 

P 
380 

n/a 

n/a  P 394 

n/a 

n/a 

2  Sgnss 60' 

1155 

 C +20 

P 330 

P 355 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

3 

Sggmrrss-y 
2 x 60' 

1155 

 C +20 

P 330 

P 355 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

4  Sggrss 80’ 

1155 

 C +20 

P 330 

P 355 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

5  Sggmrss 104’  1155 

 C +20 

P 330 

P 355 

P 332 

6 

Sffggmrrss 
"Megafret" 

825 

 C +35 

P 330 

P 340 

P 330 

7  Sggmrss 90’ 

1155 

 C +20 

P 330 

P 355 

P 332 

P 
365 

P 
380 

P 
350 

P 
365 

P 
380 

P 
380 

P 
365 

P 
365 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

1155 

 C +20 

P 330 

P 355 

P 332 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a  P 394 

8  T3000e 

9 

Flexiwagon 
SW 

270 

 P +6 

230 
(180 
when 
loaded) 

 P +10 
tbc 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 390 

70 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

N° 

Rail wagon 
type 

Loading 
height 
(mm) 

Wagon 
Compati-
bility 
Code* 

Type of loading unit, their height (mm) and Compatibility Code 

ISO-
Container 

HC-
Container 

Swap Body 

Semi-
Trailer 

Full 
vehicle 

2450 

C 00 

2900 

C 45 

2670 

3000  3150  4000 

4000 

C 22 

C 55  C 70  P 70 

n/a 

10 

Low floor 
wagon 
(Saadkms) 

410 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

route 
specific 

11 

Sdkmss 
„CargoBeamer 
JetModule“ 

210 
when 
loaded 

 n/a 
 **** 

12  Lohr "UIC 2" 

213 

 P +12 
tbc 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

P 384 
**** 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a  P 388 

n/a 

based 

KombiConsult 

knowledgebase 

Source: 
* subject to country specific adjustment; tbc = to be confirmed, n/a = not applicable 
** due to Wagon Adapter Unit placed between wagon and loading unit during rail transport; semi-trailer generally not possible 
*** due to specifically designed platform placed between wagon and loading unit during rail transport; container or swap body 
generally not possible 
**** Limitation calculation according UIC leaflet 502 with measuring exact corner height and loading height prior to each train 
departure allows to transport "4-m semi-trailer" on routes coded "P384" such as the Gotthard-Route in Switzerland according 
to CargoBeamer. 

manufacturers 

50596-6 

data; 

IRS 

and 

on 

As explained above the coding system was designed for easy guidance in daily operations. 
It considered that the built infrastructure may differ from the planned, that building margins 
are  also  relevant  for  wagon  and  loading  units,  that  wear  and  tear,  and  tolerances  are 
impacting the figures. In particular the system is static, that means it captures a light, empty 
semi-trailer on a new built pocket wagon with the same value as a fully loaded one on a 
wagon with almost worn wheel diameter and suspension. The first needs a top clearance 
while the latter “sits almost on the rails”. A weighing of the loading units before loading is 
thus not needed and the maximum height above rail surface can be measured with a simple 
meter measure stick without a detailed limitation calculation for each loading unit and wagon 
combination. 

However, CargoBeamer explained that they are making the limitation calculation according 
to  the  UIC  leaflet  502-1 which  requires to measure  the  exact  corner  height  of  the  semi-
trailer and the loading platform height prior to each train departure. With that it was possible 
to transport semi-trailers with a total height of “4-m” when driving on road within the limits 
of a “P 384” loading profile on the Gotthard Route through Switzerland. We have therefore 
used their value rather than the figure of P 388 or P391 calculated according to IRS 50596-
6. 

When looking at specific transhipment technologies which use additional equipment on the 
wagon the minimum necessary loading gauge might be impacted. 

For the ContainerMover, the wagon adapter unit placed between wagon and loading unit 
during rail transport has a height of 15 cm and thus reduces the wagon compatibility code 
points by 15.  

In a similar way the r2L 2.0 technology used for semitrailers reduces the wagon compatibility 
code points by 5-6 points due to the specifically designed platform placed between wagon 
and loading unit during rail transport which has a height of 5.4 cm. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 29: Minimum necessary loading gauge on route per rail wagon and relevant transhipment 
technology combination 

KombiConsult 

Source: 
* subject to country specific adjustment; tbc = to be confirmed, n/a = not applicable 
** due to Wagon Adapter Unit placed between wagon and loading unit during rail transport; semi-trailer generally not possible 
*** due to specifically designed platform placed between wagon and loading unit during rail transport; container or swap body 
generally not possible 

knowledgebase 

manufacturers 

50596-6 

based 

data; 

and 

IRS 

on 

72 

ContainerMoverr2L 2.0- Semi-Trailer-15 code points**n/an/a- 5-6 code points***2Sgnss 60'n/an/a3Sggmrrss-y2 x 60'n/an/a4Sggrss 80’n/an/a5Sggmrss 104’-15 code points**n/a6Sffggmrrss "Megafret"n/an/a7Sggmrss 90’-15 code points**n/a-15 code points**n/an/a- 5-6 code points***9Flexiwagon SWn/an/a10Low floor wagon (Saadkms)n/an/a11Sdkmss „CargoBeamer JetModule“n/an/a12Lohr "UIC 2"n/an/a1Sdggmrss “TWIN”8T3000eImpact of transhipment technologiesRail wagon typeN° 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

3.3 Regulatory 

framework/procedures 

for 

introducing 

a 

new 

Loading 

Unit/Transhipment Technology 

3.3.1  Procedure and regulatory framework for Loading Units 

Every  LU  that  is  put  on  the  market  needs  to  comply  with  relevant  regulation,  specific 
standards  where  they  exist  and  pass  quality  assurance  tests  (certification).  In  order  to 
acquire a better understanding of the process to be followed to put newly constructed LUs 
on  the  EU  market,  we  have  been  able to  get  in  contact  with  a  representative  of  Bureau 
Veritas. LU used in rail have to be further codified and most LU in rail and all LU in maritime 
transport have to be identified. In order to acquire additional information on the codification 
and  identification  of  LUs,  we  have  conducted  a  dedicated  interview  with  a  codification 
agency (ANSFISA49).  

Certification 

There are several certification agencies operating in the European Union territory, whose 
work is to check newly created LUs before they can be legally marketed – that is that they 
fulfil all existing regulatory requirements and mandatory standards. Some examples of such 
agencies are, among others, Bureau Veritas, RINA and Certifer: the first two mainly operate 
in the maritime sector and thus certify newly constructed containers, while the latter is rail 
oriented.  Certification  of  loading  units  is  a  paid  service  from  certification  agencies  upon 
request of the manufacturer. 

Rules for safety structural build of Loading Units 

This  section  is  linked  to  task  1.1  and  is  meant  to  give  more  detail  concerning  the  set  of 
standards regulating the constructions of LUs.  

Containers 

The  main  standard  for  intermodal  transport  containers  is  the  ISO  668.  This  document 
establishes  a  classification  of  series  1  freight  containers  based  on  external  dimensions, 
specifies  the  associated  ratings  and,  where  appropriate,  the  minimum  internal  and  door 
opening dimensions for certain types of containers. 

ISO  668  also  specifies  the  respective  associated  gross  weight  ratings  and  includes 
requirements  for  load  transfer  areas  in  the  base  structures  of  containers.  A  separate 
standard, ISO 1496-1, is set for the required stacking strength, or 'maximum superimposed 
mass' (MSM) for standard containers.  

Swap bodies 

Swap  bodies  are  standardised  in  the  norm  EN  284  for  class  C  (“short”  swap  bodies  of 
7.15m, 7.45m and 7.82m external length, though C715 are no longer included in the edition 
of the standard DIN EN 284: 2007-01), and EN 452 for class A (“long” swap bodies with 
length between 12.5m and 13.6m). There are two main types of swap bodies: bodies with 
a hard surface, which may be stackable up to three layers, and bodies with curtains and 
tarpaulins. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Semi-trailers 

As  described  above  in this  document,  type  approval  regulation  establishes requirements 
for all different types of vehicles, thus including semitrailers.  

To this extent, Directive 96/53/EC lays down dimension and weight limits for road vehicles 
in international traffic; in its amended version, it also establishes maximum dimensions for 
vehicle  combinations,  setting  de  facto  limits  on  semi-trailer  size  to  be  used  in  EU.  The 
amendment of Directive 96/53/EC intended to, among other things: 

• 

• 

facilitate the use of 45-foot containers in intermodal transport without the need for 
special permits 
increase the maximum weight of  road vehicles taking part in intermodal transport 
operations to 44 tons 

Craneable  semi-trailers,  in  compliance  with  road  vehicle  regulation  (13.60m  -  maximum 
allowed  on  the  road),  are  loaded  onto  wagons  by  means  of  gantries  or  mobile  cranes 
equipped with pincers; this requires a handling zone on each side of the vehicle. 

CEN EN 16973:2017 standard describes the railway-specific requirements relating to semi-
trailers  which  are  transported  by  rail  with  pocket  wagons.  For  this,  the  semi-trailers  are 
meant to be suitable for handling by crane. They are handled by gantry cranes or mobile 
transhipment  equipment  by  the  grappler  pockets  using  grabs  and  lifted  into  the  pocket 
wagons. The semi-trailers rest with their wheels on the sunken loading area (pocket) of the 
wagon and at the front with the fifth-wheel plate on the jack. The king pin is locked in the 
jack and is responsible for the fixing of the semi-trailer in all directions and hence also for 
withstanding the relevant forces.  

Codification 

In  order  to  be  transported  on  the  European  rail  network  all  the  loading  units  must  be 
“codified” by means of a yellow plate giving information about the dimensions and shape of 
the unit. The capital letters “C” for the containers and swap bodies and “P” for the semi-
trailers in the pocket wagons, allow differentiation between the loading units. Codification is 
mostly  provided  by  national  entities  of  the  European  Member  States  and  is  valid  on  all 
European network (including Switzerland). 

The codification is needed to avoid checking for each and every LUs measures and shape 
before allowing a train on a specific line; coded traffic means that each container is coded, 
so  that  the  entire  train  made  up  of  coded  containers  is  itself  coded.  Codification  is  also 
mandatory  for  a  LU  to  be  granted  access  to  some  major  European  ports,  such  as 
Rotterdam.  

All  unaccompanied  freight  units  transported  by  rail  must  thus  be  codified  to  guarantee 
gauge-wagon-unit load combination compatibility on a specific track/route - for use in any 
specific  section  of  the  railway  network,  the  loading  unit  parameters  in  combination  with 
wagon  and  network  parameters  have  to  ensure  compatibility  with  loading  gauge  of  that 
section ensuring a safe train passage.  

The  legal  basis  for  this  requirement  derives  from  Directive  2016/767,  establishing  the 
essential  requirements  for  railway  network safety,  based  on  which the  network technical 
specifications are set in TSI INF. Within these specifications, the choice for the applicable 
standard  relies  with  the  infrastructure  manager,  who  establishes  his  decision  within  the 
network statement.  

Network  statements  are  controlled  by  MS  bodies  under  the  Rail  Safety  Directive,  which 
impose  that  every  train  that  circulating  on  the  network  has  to  be  in  compliance  with  the 

74 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

network  statement.  Railway  Undertakers  have  thus  the  obligation  to  check  the  route 
compatibility, which is achieved based on information about loading unit parameters on the 
codification plate, wagon technical specifications (set in TSI WAG) and network statement. 
Normally the first check is carried out by terminals before setting up a load plan, meaning 
that no loading unit can in fact travel in unaccompanied normal rail transport in EU without 
codification.  

Identification  

To  be  put  on  the  market,  LUs  ownership  needs  to  be  unequivocally  identifiable.  To  this 
respect,  two  uniform  type  of  owner  identification  of  loading  units  is  now  applied:  the 
worldwide BIC-Code for freight containers, which means ISO container but also containers 
and swap bodies according to CEN norms, and the ILU-Code for European loading units. 
For maritime transport, where ISO containers are used, owner identification is part of the 
BIC code and is mandatory according to IMO rules.  

The ISO 6346 covers the coding, identification and marking of freight containers: the BIC 
code. The BIC code, managed by the International Container Bureau (BIC) is made of an 
owner code, a product group code, a registration number and a check digit. 

Table 30: Syntax of a marking of container 

ABCD 123 456 7 
ABC 
Owner code 
Assigned by B.I.C. 

D 
Product group code 

123 456 
Registration number 
Assigned by owner 

7 
Check digit 
Calculated 

In 2011 the European Union approved EN 13044-1, a standard compatible with the world-
widespread  BIC-codes.  The  standard  EN  13044-1  introduces  an  owner-code  for  the 
identification  of  European  intermodal  loading  units  (e.g.  swap-bodies,  semi-trailers),  the 
ILU-Code, which is compatible with the worldwide BIC-Code used for containers according 
to ISO 6346. 

This  European  Standard  provides  a  system  for  the  identification  and  presentation  of 
information about the Intermodal Loading Unit (ILU). The identification system is intended 
for  general  application,  for  example  in  documentation,  control  and  communications 
(including automatic data processing systems), as well as for display on an ILU and other 
non-ISO containers (i.e. which dimensions and testing parameters differ from those defined 
by the applicable ISO standards) used in European transport. 

This European Standard specifies: 

•  an ILU identification system with an associated system for verifying the accuracy of 
its use, having mandatory marks for the presentation of the identification system for 
visual interpretation, and 

•  a coding system for data on ILU size and type, with corresponding marks for their 

display; 

•  mandatory operational marks; 
•  physical presentation of the marks on the ILU. 

The syntax of the ILU code is similar to the ISO-code. The standard names the International 
Union  of  Combined  Road-Rail  transport  companies,  UIRR  (based  in  Brussels)  as  the 
Administrator of the Code. Like the BIC for containers the UIRR manages the assignment 
of ILU owner code to applicants. The owners are then responsible for marking the single 
units by the registration numbers according to the stands EN 13044-1. 

75 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Given that the identification is for the owner and not for the LUs, there still are many semi-
trailers in EU that are not identified by any code, thus not allowing for a precise counting of 
LUs in circulation in the EU territory.  Not being identified by either does not allow using 
photo  gates  if  used  in  intermodal  transport,  even  if  used  only  on  road  legs.  In  addition, 
neither BIC nor UIRR can count the number of loading units that are marked accordingly 
and there is no data collected from the loading unit owners about how many loading units 
are actually marked by them. 

3.3.2  Regulatory framework 

Among the most relevant European laws regulating the multimodal transport market, with 
particular reference to the procedure to put new LUs on the EU market, there are Directive 
2016/797 and Regulation 2018/545. The Directive establishes the conditions to be met to 
achieve interoperability within the Union rail system in a manner compatible with Directive 
(EU) 2016/798, while laying up in conditions concerning design, construction and placing 
on  the  market  of  vehicles  and  LUs,  while  Regulation  2018/545  establishes  practical 
arrangements for the  railway  vehicle  authorisation  and railway vehicle type  authorisation 
process under Directive (EU) 2016/797. 

Directive (EU) 2016/797 

This Directive concerns the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union, 
enabling  citizens  of  the  Union,  economic  operators  and  competent  authorities  to  benefit 
fully from the advantages deriving from the establishment of a single European railway area. 
In order to do so, this Directive aims at improving the interlinkage and interoperability of the 
national rail networks and access to those networks, as well as implementing any measures 
that  may  be  necessary  in  the  field  of  technical  standardisation,  thus  concerning,  among 
others, loading unit technical standards: in fact, the quality of rail services in the Union also 
depends  on  excellent  compatibility  between  both  the  characteristics  of  the  network  and 
those of the vehicles (including the on-board components of all the subsystems concerned). 
Specifically, the conditions laid out in this Directive concern the design, construction, placing 
on the market, placing in service, upgrading, renewal, operation and maintenance of the 
parts  of  that  system  as  well  as  the  professional  qualifications  of,  and  health  and  safety 
conditions applying to, the staff who contribute to its operation and maintenance. 

The Directive does not consider public transport systems such as metros, trams and other 
light  rail  systems,  as  those  are  usually  subject  to  local  technical  requirements  in  their 
respective Member States, and therefore not subject to licensing within the Union. 

With  respect  to  the  introduction  on  the  market  of  new  vehicles,  Art.  21  of  the  Directive 
“Vehicle authorisation for placing on the market” lays out the specific parameters, while Art. 
22 “Registration of vehicles authorised to be placed on the market” covers the registration 
phase of the newly marketed vehicles.  

According to Art. 21, the applicant for a new vehicle to be placed on the market shall specify 
the area of use of the vehicle and include evidence that the technical compatibility between 
the vehicle and the network of the area of use has been checked. Moreover, the application 
shall  be  accompanied  by  a  file  concerning  the  vehicle  or  vehicle  type  and  including 
documentary evidence of:  

• 

• 

the  placing  on  the  market  of  the  mobile  subsystems  of  which  the  vehicle  is 
composed  in  accordance  with  Article  20,  on  the  basis  of  the  ‘EC’  declaration  of 
verification;  
the  technical  compatibility  of  the  subsystems  referred  to  in  point  (a)  within  the 
vehicle, established on the basis of the relevant TSIs, and where applicable, national 
rules;  

76 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

• 

• 

the  safe  integration  of  the  subsystems  referred  to  in  point  (a)  within  the  vehicle, 
established on the basis of the relevant TSIs, and where applicable, national rules, 
and the CSMs referred to in Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/798;  
the technical compatibility of the vehicle with the network in the area of use referred 
to  in  paragraph  2,  established  on  the  basis  of  the  relevant  TSIs  and,  where 
applicable,  national  rules,  registers  of  infrastructure  and  the  CSM  on  risk 
assessment referred to in Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/798. 

All matters concerning railway vehicles type and authorisation process are also laid out in 
Reg (EU) 2018/545, detailed below.  

Regulation (EU) 2018/545 

This Regulation establishes practical arrangements for the railway vehicle authorisation and 
railway vehicle type authorisation process under Directive (EU) 2016/797. It emphasizes, 
among other things, the need to keep the time frames of vehicles authorisation as short as 
possible in order to reduce length and cost of the process, and, based on the experience of 
National Safety Authorities, recognizes “pre-engagement” (early contact with the applicant 
in  the  form  of  coordination)  as  a  good  practice  to  facilitate  the  development  of  the 
relationship between the parties involved in the vehicle authorisation process. 

This Regulation introduces the concept for which, in order to achieve economies of scale 
and reduce administrative burdens, vehicle type authorisation should enable the applicant 
to produce a number of vehicles of the same design and facilitate their authorisation; in this 
setup, the vehicle type identifies the design that will be applied to all vehicles corresponding 
to that type. Each new vehicle type should follow the authorisation process and a new type 
should only be created if authorised.  

Following  on  the  precedent,  the  concepts  of  variant  and  version  of  a  vehicle  type  are 
introduced  in  order  to  provide  the  possibility  of  identifying  options  for  configuration  or 
changes during the life cycle of the vehicle within an existing type. The difference between 
variants and versions is that variants require an authorisation while versions do not.  

This Regulation also mandates that the European Union Agency for Railways should set 
up guidelines describing, and where necessary, explaining the requirements set out in it. 

Specific regulation on Loading Units and concerning shipment 

In addition to Regulation (EU) 2018/545 and Directive (EU) 2016/797, other standards and 
rules are laid out in different pieces of legislation and literature. This section will provide a 
list of the most relevant ones, dividing them in three main categories – containers, cranes 
and shipment.  

Containers 

Convention for Safe Containers 

In 1972, a conference jointly convened by the United Nations and IMO was held to consider 
a  draft  convention  prepared  by  IMO  in  cooperation  with  the  Economic  Commission  for 
Europe. 

The 1972 Convention for Safe Containers (CSC 1972) adopted by that conference aims at 
maintaining a high level of safety of human life in the transport and handling of containers 
and facilitating the international transport of containers by providing uniform international 
safety regulations, equally applicable to all modes of surface transport. Among others, this 
document regulates the following areas of container transport: 

77 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Approval of new containers by design type 
•  Approval of individual containers 
•  Approval of existing containers 
•  Approval of new containers not approved at time of manufacture 
•  Approval of modified containers 

IACS Unified Interpretations 

Unified  Interpretations  are  adopted  resolutions  on  matters  arising  from  implementing  the 
requirements of IMO Conventions or Recommendations. Among the ones relevant to the 
purpose of this study are the following: 

•  SC84: Purpose Built Container Space 
•  SC109: Open Top Container Holds - Water Supplies 
•  SC110: Open Top Container Holds - Ventilation 
•  SC111: Open Top Container Holds - Bilge Pumping 
•  SC200: Container storage arrangement for equivalent fixed gas fire extinguishing 

systems 

•  SC270: Fire pumps in ships designed to carry five or more tiers of containers on or 

above the weather deck 

The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and its 2016 and 2020 updates 

The  International  Convention for  the  Safety  of  Life at  Sea,  1974 (SOLAS),  as amended, 
deals  with various  aspects  of  maritime  safety  and  contains  in chapter  VII  the  mandatory 
provisions governing the carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form. It includes a wide 
set of rules and provisions relevant to the scope of this study, concerning different normative 
areas, among which: 

•  General provisions for the use of multiple-element gas containers (MEGCS) 
•  Container/vehicle packing certificate 
•  Segregation of cargo transport units on board container ships 
•  Shore-side fumigation operations - fumigated containers 
•  Safe  stowage  and  securing  of  cargo  units  and  other  entities  in  ships  other  than 

cellular containerships 

•  Container packing certificates/vehicle packing declarations 
•  Guidelines for the approval of offshore containers handled in open seas 
•  Guidelines for partially weathertight hatchway covers on board containerships 
• 
Inspections of containers/vehicles carrying packaged dangerous goods 
•  Provisions for the design, construction and approval of bulk containers  
•  Provisions for the use of sheeted bulk containers  
•  Container/vehicle packing certificate 
•  Provisions for the design, construction, inspection and testing of freight containers  
•  Requirements  for  the  design,  construction,  inspection  and  testing  of  flexible  bulk 

containers  

•  Container/vehicle packing certificate 
•  Provisions  for  the  design,  construction  and  approval  of  BK1,  BK2and  BK3  bulk 

containers other than freight containers 

Code of safe practice for cargo stowage and securing code (CSS code) 

IMO adopted the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing (CSS Code) in 
November 1991. The purpose of the CSS Code is to provide an international standard to 
promote the safe stowage and securing of cargoes, and it includes rules on the following 
topics: 

78 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Cargo stowed in open containers, on platforms or platform-based containers 
•  Guidelines  on  the  safe  stowage  and  securing  of  cargo  units  and  other  entities  in 

ships other than cellular containerships 

•  Specialized container safety design 
•  Container securing dimensions 

Cranes 

Directive 2006/42/EC  

Directive 2006/42/EC, also known as the “Machinery Directive”, concerns machinery and 
certain parts of machinery, thus including cranes. Its main intent is to ensure a common 
safety level in machinery placed on the market Member States, and to ensure freedom of 
movement  within  the  European  Union  by  granting  that  machinery  complying  with  the 
Directive will have free access to the EU market, and that Member States shall not prohibit, 
restrict or impede the placing on the market and/or putting into service of said machinery in 
their territory. 

Overview of EU standards 

In  the  framework  of  CEN  standardisation  activities,  Technical  Committee  CEN/TC  147 
developed  a  set  of  standards  to  define  the  development  and  maintenance  of  safety 
standards for the design, manufacture and information to be provided for: 

1.  cranes 
2.  equipment for the lifting of persons on/with certain cranes;  
3.  power driven winches and hoists, and their supporting structures;  
4.  hand-powered lifting machines;  
5.  non-fixed load lifting attachments; 6. manually controlled load manipulating 

devices.  

Among these standards, the following are related to cranes.  

EN 12999  

This standard specifies minimum requirements for design, calculation, examinations 
and tests  of  hydraulic  powered loader  cranes  and  their mountings  on  vehicles or 
static foundations. This document applies to loader cranes designed to be installed 
on: - road vehicles, including trailers, with load carrying capability; - tractors (road or 
agricultural), where only a towed trailer has capability to carry goods; - demountable 
bodies to be  carried  by any  of  the  above;  -  other  types of  carriers  (e.g. separate 
loaders, crawlers, rail vehicles, non-seagoing vessels); - static foundations. 

EN 13000  

This standard is applicable to the design, construction, installation of safety devices, 
information  for  use,  maintenance  and  testing  of  mobile  cranes50.  Examples  of 
mobile crane types are given in Annex A.  

EN 13001 1, EN 13001 2 and EN 13001 3 

•  EN 13001 “Part 1: General principles and requirements” specifies general 
principles and requirements to be used together with EN 13001 2 and the 
EN 13001 3 series of standards, and as such they specify conditions and 

50 As defined in ISO 4306 2 

79 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

requirements  on  design  to  prevent  mechanical  hazards  of  cranes,  and  a 
method of verification of those requirements. 

•  EN  13001  “Part  2:  Load  Actions”  specifies  load  actions  and  load 
combinations  for  the  calculation  of  load  effects  as  basis  for  the  proof  of 
competence of a crane and its main components, and it is intended to be 
used  together  with  the  other  generic  parts  of  the  EN  13001  series  of 
standards. 

•  EN 13001 Part 3 is composed by 6 different sub standards: 
o  Limit states and proof competence of steel structure 
o  Limit states and proof of competence of wire ropes in reeving 

systems 

o  Limit states and proof of competence of wheel/rail contacts 
o  Limit states and proof of competence of machinery – Bearings 
o  Limit states and proof of competence of forged and cast hooks 
o  Limit states and proof of competence of machinery - Hydraulic 

cylinders 

EN 13135 

This  standard  specifies  requirements  for  the  design  and  selection  of  electrical, 
mechanical,  hydraulic,  and  pneumatic  equipment  used  in  all  types  of  cranes  and 
their  associated  fixed  load  lifting  attachments  with  the  objectives  of  protecting 
personnel from hazards affecting their health and safety and of ensuring reliability 
of function.  

EN 13155 

This standard specifies safety requirements for the following non-fixed load lifting 
attachments for cranes, hoists and manually controlled load manipulating devices:  

•  plate clamps  
•  vacuum lifters:  

o  self-priming  
o  non-self-priming (pump, venturi, turbine) 

• 

lifting magnets:  

o  electric lifting magnets (battery fed and mains-fed)  
o  permanent lifting magnets  
o  electro-permanent lifting magnets  

lifting beams  

• 
•  C-hooks  
• 
•  clamps  
• 

lifting forks  

lifting insert systems for use in normal weight concrete 

EN 13557 

This  standard  specifies  health  and  safety  design  requirements  for  controls  and 
control stations for all types of crane. In particular, this standard limit its coverage to 
specific hazards which could occur during the use of controls and control stations. 

EN 13586 

This standard specifies design requirements for non-powered access installed on 
cranes, and specifically covers means of access to control stations and all access 
required for maintenance and for certain erection and dismantling operations. 

80 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

EN 15001 

This standard applies to bridge and gantry cranes able to travel by wheels on rails, 
runways or roadway surfaces, and to gantry cranes without wheels mounted in a 
stationary  position.  In  particular,  this  document  specifies  requirements  for  all 
significant hazards, hazardous situations and events relevant to bridge and gantry 
cranes when used as intended and under conditions foreseen by the manufacturer. 

EN 15056 

This  standard  specifies  safety  requirements  for  spreaders  used  with  cranes 
designed for the purpose of handling ISO containers based on ISO 668, including 
other lengths such as 45 ft. The connection between the spreader and the container 
is  made  by  the  use  of  twistlocks  that  engage  into  the  container’s  upper  corner 
castings. The standard deals with all significant hazards, hazardous situations and 
events relevant to container handling spreaders, when used as intended and under 
conditions foreseen by the manufacturer. 

MODU code 

The  purpose of  the  Code for  the Construction  and  Equipment  of Mobile Offshore  Drilling 
Units  (MODU  code),  2009,  is  to  recommend  design  criteria,  construction  standards  and 
other safety measures for mobile offshore drilling units. In its 1979, 1989 and 2009 editions 
it includes sections on cranes.  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

4. Establish  EU  and  Switzerland  intermodal  network 

data 

Task 3 aims at identifying the intermodal terminals as well as TEN-T core network corridors 
infrastructure and corresponding capacity limitations for each combination of transhipment 
technologies and loading unit. Furthermore, measures to overcome the existing limitations 
will  be  researched  and  analysed  to  make  the  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  suitable  for 
using  the  respective  loading  units.  An  estimate  of  the  costs  related  to  overcoming  the 
criticalities  highlighted  in  the  analysis  will  start  from  the  study  of  projects  currently 
implemented by the different states involved; an estimate for terminal handling and network 
capacity for the year 2030 will follow,  considering the measures to remove infrastructure 
limitations.  

4.1 Number of terminals handling intermodal loading units in EU today 

There  are  several  sources  of  information  to  capture  the  number  of  terminals  handling 
intermodal  loading  units  in  Europe.  However,  in  accordance  with  the  Directive  (EU) 
2012/34/EU  and  with  reference  to  the  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2177/2017  the 
European Commission has set-up the Rail Facilities Portal (RFP)51. Among other facilities 
the  RFP  lists  also  “intermodal  terminals”  including  their  location  and  characteristic.  To 
analyse this data, the operator of the portal provided us with the data in a database/table 
format.  The  RFP  covers  different  types  of  “intermodal  terminals”:  rail-road  terminals, 
maritime ports, inland ports, short sea shipping ports, ferry ports, etc. However, what it does 
not cover facilities without any rail connection. Therefore, further analyses have been made 
by evaluating the intermodal-map of SGKV52 with reference to intermodal terminals listed 
under  the  category  “water-road  terminals”.  The  underlying  data  base  was  not  available, 
therefore after applying the respective filters in the web application the terminals per country 
were manually counted to provide information on the number of IWW and SSS terminals 
per country. The intermodal-map as a source is considered trustworthy since it had also 
been used to provide input data for the Rail Facilities Portal in the respective DG MOVE 
project.  By combining the two sources we are able to provide the data shown in Table 31 
below about the number of terminals handling intermodal loading units per country in the 
EU and Switzerland.  

Table 31: Number of intermodal terminals in the EU and Switzerland per country 

Countries (EU and 
Switzerland) 
Germany 
France 
Sweden 
Italy 
The Netherlands 
Belgium 
Spain 
Switzerland 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Czechia  
Hungary 

Number of intermodal terminals 

RFP database 
201 
99 
92 
69 
28 
39 
48 
47 
42 
29 
27 
22 
21 

Intermodal-map 
17 
20 
4 
7 
41 
16 
3 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 

Total 
218 
119 
96 
76 
69 
55 
51 
47 
42 
31 
27 
22 
21 

51 https://railfacilitiesportal.eu/ 
52 http://www.intermodal-map.com/ 

82 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Number of intermodal terminals 

Countries (EU and 
Switzerland) 
Austria 
Finland 
Slovakia 
Denmark 
Croatia 
Bulgaria 
Greece 
Ireland 
Lithuania 
Estonia 
Latvia 
Slovenia 
Malta 
Luxembourg 
Cyprus 
Subtotal EU27 
Switzerland 

Intermodal-map 
0 
3 
0 
5 
1 
2 
2 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
129 
0 
129 
Source: Rail Facilities Portal and Intermodal Map (May 2021), KombiConsult research 

RFP database 
21 
18 
16 
11 
14 
13 
7 
7 
7 
7 
6 
5 
0 
2 
0 
851 
47 

Total 

898 

Total 
21 
21 
16 
16 
15 
15 
9 
9 
8 
7 
6 
5 
3 
2 
1 
980 
47 
1 028 

In total there are 851 intermodal terminals currently listed in the Rail Facilities Portal for the 
European Union  countries and 47  for  Switzerland,  898 in total.  To  gain this  number,  we 
filtered the database according to the following criteria: 

• 
• 
• 

“facility type“ with the keyword “intermodal terminal” (key = 2); 
“facility operation status” with status “in operation” (key = 1); 
“country” with EU-countries and Switzerland (self-defined key = “EU”). 

Adding the 129 intermodal terminals without rail infrastructure gathered from the intermodal-
map a total of 1 028 intermodal terminals in the EU and Switzerland could be identified. 
With 218 intermodal terminals, Germany has by far the highest number, followed by France 
with 119 intermodal terminals and Sweden with 96 intermodal terminals. With the highest 
number  in  Germany  (218  terminals)  and  the  lowest  number  in  Cyprus  (one  terminal),  in 
average there are about 37 terminals per country in operation. 

intermodal 

itself  operates  an 

internet  database  on 

terminals 
KombiConsult 
(www.intermodal-terminals.eu/database)  and  recently  carried  out  a  study  on  intermodal 
terminals in Germany. The database and study revealed that in 2019 about 149 terminals 
were in operation in Germany. But this number concentrates on intermodal terminals for the 
transhipment  of  intermodal  loading  units  from  road  to  rail  and/or  inland  waterway  in 
intermodal transport. Thus, 201 terminals in the RFP database seem to be a reasonable 
number,  as there  are  other  facilities  listed  as  intermodal terminals  in the  RFP  database, 
such  as  seaports,  for  instance.  Nevertheless,  after  a  quick  check  of  the  201  German 
facilities in the RFP database, we identified entries of intermodal terminals with the following 
issues: 

• 

intermodal terminals that are closed, not in operation or do not provide intermodal 
services anymore (e.g. Saarbrücken), although they are marked with the key “in 
operation”; 

83 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

intermodal terminals that are closed, but already substituted by new existing 
terminals, thus are counted twice (e.g. Forst, substituted by Kodersdorf; both are 
still included as “in operation”); 
intermodal terminals that will be substituted by new terminals that are still in 
planning or in construction phase, thus, both the existing ones and the new 
planned ones are in the RFP database as “in operation” (e.g. Augsburg, 
Osnabrück); 
intermodal terminals that are still in the planning phase or under construction (e.g. 
Duisburg Gateway Terminal) included as “in operation”; 
intermodal terminals with slightly different names and quality of parameters (e.g. 
Berlin Wustermark), though they are the same intermodal terminal; 
intermodal terminals with old and obsolete information, such as operating 
companies not existing anymore (e.g. MCT in Mannheim and SCT in Stuttgart, 
now operated by DP World); 

•  missing intermodal terminals although in operation, e.g. Megahub Lehrte. 

We can only assume that also for the other countries there may be such irregularities and 
there may be less than the 898 intermodal terminals listed in the RFP database as currently 
in operation in the EU and Switzerland. A quick check showed that 14 terminals are included 
twice in the database with the same name. There are then 884 intermodal terminals (898 
minus 14) listed in the database with the same name. However, as we cannot assess which 
of the double entries are correct or not, the small number of 14 are neglected and we will 
still use the characteristics of 898 intermodal terminals in the further analysis. 

As concerns the transhipment technology, the RFP portal makes no distinction between the 
different transhipment technologies other than “gantry crane” and “mobile crane”, but even 
this parameter is not given for all listed intermodal terminals (see also Task 3.2). The RFP 
does  not  define  mobile  cranes  in  any  more  detail,  so  for  the  purposes  of  further  data 
analysis we will assume that they are reach stacker devices. 

In order to compensate for this deficit, we asked the technology providers and analysed for 
some  of  the  transhipment  technologies  the  technology  providers’  websites  and  other 
sources such as the selected transport relations and named terminals. An overview of the 
respective use of different transhipment technologies in intermodal terminals is presented 
in the following Table 32: 

Table 32: Overview of the use of the different transhipment technologies 

Transhipment Technology 

Place of use in EU 

1 
2 

3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Gantry crane 
Reach Stacker 
Hydraulic Material Handling 
Crane 
Mobile Harbour Crane 
RoRo Ramp to/from Ship 

Sidelifter 

BOXMover 

Mobiler (Rail Cargo Austria) 

Container Mover 3020 
(Innovatrain) 

Widely used in Europe 
Widely used in Europe 

Widely used in ports 

Widely used in ports 
Widely used in ports 
Used in different European 
countries, but low prevalence in 
intermodal transhipments 
Used in different European 
countries, but low prevalence in 
intermodal transhipments 
 Mainly used within and to/from 
Austria and EU relations 
Used by Railcare on selected 
locations in Switzerland: 
Carouge, Aclens, Bern, Brig, 
Gwatt, Schafiheim, Balerna, 

Number of 
Terminals 
345* - 875* 
375* - 905* 

< 100 

<100 
100 - 200 

n/a 

n/a 

< 10 

11 

84 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment Technology 

Place of use in EU 

Number of 
Terminals 

10 

Cargo Beamer next generation 
(Cargobeamer AG) 

11 

Modalohr UIC (Lohr Industrie, 
VIA) 

12 

Nikrasa 

13 

ISU (ÖBB Rail Cargo Austria 

14 

RoLa Ramp 

15 

Flexiwaggon 

16 

r2l 2.0 road rail link (VEGA) 

Castione, Domat/Ems and by 
Smart Rail Logistics between 
Dresden and Emden 
Used on selected terminals in 
Europe: Domodossola, 
Perpignan, Calais, 
Kaldenkirchen, Duisburg, Poznan 
Used on selected terminals in 
Europe with own installations: 
Aiton, Bettembourg, Calais, Le 
Boulou, Orbassano, Poznan; but 
wagons are also used in relation 
with other intermodal terminals 
where “vertical” lifting is provided 
Used on selected terminals in 
Europe: Bettembourg, Budapest, 
Herne, Padborg, Triest, Verona 
Mainly used to/from Austria and 
EU relations 
Used on selected connections in 
Europe. The focus of the 
connections is on transalpine 
freight traffic: Brennersee, 
Freiburg im Breisgau, Maribor, 
Novara, Trento, Wels, Wörgl 
Currently no use 
Used in selected terminals in 
Europe: Karlsruhe, Rheine, 
Triest, Verona 

6 

6 

6 

< 10 

7 

0 

4 

Source: KombiConsult analysis; * from RFP; estimated 

As concerns the number of intermodal terminals per type of loading unit, the RFP database 
provides information on the acceptance of “container”, “swap body”, “trailer” and “truck + 
trailer  (RoLa)”.  For  some  of  these  types  of  loading  units  the  RFP  database  further 
distinguishes  between  different  subtypes,  for  instance  for  containers  there  are  three 
selections possible: “1 = ISO containers accepted, “2 = continental containers accepted” 
and “3 = all container types accepted”. But when applying the filter “1 = ISO containers”, the 
RFP database shows only two intermodal terminals that would accept ISO container. As 
this can obviously not be the case since at least all the seaports and most inland ports (need 
to) accept ISO containers, we refrain from further analysis of these subcategories. 

As can be seen in Table 33, 200 of the 898 intermodal terminals in the RFP database do 
accept all three types of intermodal loading units of container, swap body and trailer. The 
largest share of terminals accepts “containers” followed by swap bodies and trailers. Only 
33 terminals are said to accept “truck + trailer (RoLa)” which is – again – astonishing since 
RoLa services are offered only in the seven terminals listed in Table 32. In the RFP possibly 
also terminals in which RoLa ramps are potentially available are listed, or RoRo terminals 
in seaports are included since truck and trailer combinations are regularly handled there. 

Table 33: Number of terminals per accepted loading units 

Container 

Swap body 

Trailer 

Container, 
Swap body 
Trailer 

Truck + trailer 

730 

253 

248 

200 

33 

Source: KombiConsult analysis; * from RFP; estimated 

85 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

When combining Table 32 concerning the number of terminals per technology and Table 
33 concerning the number of terminals per accepted loading units, the following Table 34 
is generated showing the number of terminals per technology and loading unit combination.  

Table 34: Number of terminals per technology and accepted loading unit combination 

Transhipment 
Technology 

Type of loading unit 

Containers 

Swap Bodies 

Semi-Trailers 

Full vehicles 

1  Gantry Crane 

332 - 875 

145 - 559 

119 - 533 

2  Reach Stacker 

363 - 905 

179 - 592 

151 - 564 

3 

Hydraulic Material 
Handling Crane  

< 100 

< 100 

4  Mobile Harbour Crane 

<100 

<100 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

185 

185 

185 

5 

RoRo Ramp to/from 
Ship 

6  Sidelifter 

7  BOXMover 

Mobiler (Rail Cargo 
Austria) 

8 

9 

185 

n/a 

n/a 

<10 

- 

- 

- 

Container Mover 3020 
(Innovatrain) 

11 

11 

10 

Cargo Beamer next 
generation 
(Cargobeamer AG) 

11  Modalohr UIC 

12  Nikrasa 

13 

ISU (ÖBB Rail Cargo 
Austria) 

14  RoLa Ramp 

15  Flexiwaggon 

16 

r2l 2.0 road rail link 
(VEGA) 

Source: KombiConsult analysis and RFP 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

6 

6 

6 

<10 

- 

- 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

7 

0 

- 

The data is based on the available data from the RFP for the gantry crane and reach stacker 
technologies and on information obtained from the technology providers and other sources 
for the other technologies. For the gantry crane and the reach stacker technology a lower 
as well as an upper bound is provided per technology and LU combination based on the 
RFP data. The lower bound is directly gathered from the available data, by filtering for both 

86 

 
  
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

the availability of the respective technology and the acceptance of the respective types of 
LUs. The Upper bound is established under the following assumptions: 

• 

the total number of intermodal terminals in the EU is 1.028 (as shown in Table 31: 
Number of intermodal terminals in the EU and Switzerland per country). 

•  All terminals using either gantry cranes or mobile cranes are technically able to 

handle containers. 

•  There are 123 intermodal terminals with information only on the number of gantry 
cranes but not mobile cranes which are reducing the total possible number of 
mobile crane terminals by this number. 

•  There are 153 intermodal terminals with information on only the number of mobile 
cranes (without gantry cranes) which are reducing the total possible number of 
gantry crane terminals by this number. 

•  All terminals entered as accepting containers but not as accepting swap bodies 

reduce the possible number of terminals handling swap bodies by this number for 
both technologies. 

•  All terminals entered as accepting containers but not as accepting swap bodies as 

well as all terminals entered as accepting swap bodies but not as accepting semi-
trailers reduce the possible number of terminals handling semi-trailers by this 
number for both technologies. 

•  All 129 terminals gathered from the intermodal-map for IWW and SSS are likely to 

only handle containers in vertical transhipment and therefore reduce the possible 
number of terminals handling swap bodies and semi-trailers by this number for 
both technologies. 

For the hydraulic material handling crane and the mobile harbour crane the ranges provided 
are rough estimates as unfortunately no exact data is available for these technologies. For 
the  Mobiler  and  the  ISU  technologies  the  ranges  provided  are  also  estimates,  however 
based on the data available from the providers of the technologies the estimates provide a 
narrower range.  

For the total number of RoRo-terminals, the provided number has been gathered in desk 
research from previous studies done as part of the motorways of the sea program.53 It is 
assumed that all types of loading units can technically be handled in all RoRo-terminals. 

For all other technologies the numbers have been gathered from the technology providers 
or from information published by them. 

It  is  important  to  note,  that  the  numbers  of  terminals  per  technology  and  loading  unit 
combination cannot be added up to calculate the total number of terminals per technology 
or loading unit. Terminals which accept multiple types of loading units per technology or are 
using  more  than  one  transhipment  technology  are  consequently  counted  multiple  times, 
once for each applicable technology and loading unit calculation.  

4.2 Today’s terminal handling capacity (maximum units per annum) in EU 

In the framework of task 3.2 today’s terminal handling capacity in the EU and Switzerland, 
expressed  in  loading  units  per  annum  shall  be  provided  and  it  was  offered  to  base  this 
information also on the Rail Facilities Portal, since recital 12 of the Implementing Regulation 
(EU)  2177/2017  stipulates  that  the  handling  capacity,  is  also  presented  in  the  RFP  web 
portal. The RFP database contains entries with the information on available capacity with 
status: “no capacity information”, “Sufficient capacity to accommodate any kind of request”, 

53 https://vayla.fi/documents/25230764/0/Final-II-MoS-study-2018-2+Annex.pdf/9cbe31a9-afde-4c79-9370-
394bc864ffa5 ; 25.08.2021. 

87 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

“Limited  remaining  capacity”,  and  “Facility  is  full”.  An  analysis  showed  that  for  879 
intermodal  terminals  from  the  898  intermodal  terminals  (98%)  it  is  marked  “no  capacity 
information”. Even if these characteristics were provided for the intermodal terminals listed 
in the RFP, it is not possible to get a figure for the annual handling capacity in loading units. 

However, the RFP database contains information on the number of gantry or mobile cranes 
as  the  most  used  transhipment  technologies,  and  the  terminal’s  opening  times.  This 
information makes it possible to roughly calculate the annual handling capacity for these 
transhipment technologies. 

The analysis of the 898 intermodal terminals showed the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

there are 498 intermodal terminals with information either on the number of gantry 
cranes, or the number of mobile cranes, or both; 
thus, on the contrary, there are 400 intermodal terminals with no information on the 
number of cranes at all; 
there are 222 intermodal terminals with information on the number of both gantry 
cranes and mobile cranes, thus containing both types of cranes; 
there  are  123  intermodal  terminals  with information  only  on  the  number of  gantry 
cranes (without mobile cranes); 
there are 153 intermodal terminals with information on only the number of mobile 
cranes (without gantry cranes); 
there are 345 intermodal terminals with information on the number of gantry cranes, 
thereof 

o  195 intermodal terminals with the number of gantry cranes and information 

on opening times; 

o  150  intermodal  terminals  with  the  number  of  gantry  cranes  and  no 

information on opening times. 

• 

there are 375 intermodal terminals with information on the number of mobile cranes, 
thereof 

o  219 intermodal terminals with the number of mobile cranes and information 

on opening times; 

o  156  intermodal  terminals  with  the  number  of  mobile  cranes  and  no 

information on opening times. 

•  one intermodal terminal with irregularities on the opening times, in particular Berlin 

Westhafen (Behala) terminal with opening times from 22:00-24:00. 

For the estimation of the annual handling capacity we applied the calculation for our model 
terminal  handling  capacity.  For  a  gantry  crane  container  terminal  with  two  cranes  the 
capacity is therefore as shown in Table 35 below. 

Table 35: Methodology for calculation of the annual handling capacity (example Gantry Crane) 

Subject 
Nr. of handling equipment 
∅ handling capacity per 
hour/crane 
Handling capacity per hour 
Operating hours (opening times) 
per day 
Moves per day 
Operating days per year 
Handling capacity per year 
Handlings per LU 
Handling capacity per year 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

Gantry crane 
2 

30 

60 

14 

840 
250 
210 000 
2 
105 000 

Unit 
nr. 

moves/crane 

moves/hour 

hours/day 

moves/day 
days/year 
moves/year 
moves/LU 
LU/year 

88 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For 195 intermodal terminals with gantry cranes and 219 intermodal terminals with mobile 
cranes we could use information on the terminal opening times from the RFP database. For 
the remaining entries with information on the number of gantry cranes and/or mobile cranes 
we used an average of 14 hours that a terminal is opened per day. For the actual calculation 
of the total capacity, the number of handling equipment per terminal is used. Each unit of 
handling equipment listed in the RFP database therefore contributes to the total handling 
capacity. One gantry crane for example provides a handling capacity of 52 500 per year 
(half of the handling capacity calculated above for a terminal with two gantry cranes). 

After applying the calculation for each of the 498 intermodal terminals using gantry cranes 
and  mobile  cranes,  we  obtain  a  total  operational  handling  capacity  of  about  144  million 
loading units per year. This makes a capacity of about 289 000 loading units per year and 
intermodal terminal. 

Table 36: Handling capacity per type of crane, and in total (498 intermodal terminals in loading unit per 
year) 

Subject 

Gantry crane 

Mobile crane 

Unit 

Handling capacity (entries with 
opening times) 
Handling capacity (entries without 
opening times) 
Operational handling capacity 
per year 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

56 145 000 

35 288 000 

LU/year 

34 493 000 

17 771 000 

LU/year 

143 697 000 

As  mentioned  above,  the  necessary  information  on  the  type  and  number  of  cranes  and 
opening times is available for only 498 intermodal terminals (~ 55%) of the 898 intermodal 
terminals.  If  we  assume  that  for  the  remaining  400  intermodal  terminals,  where  this 
information is missing in the RFP, the average parameters for the number of cranes and 
opening times would be the same, we would obtain a total capacity  of about 261 million 
loading units per year. 

Table 37: Handling capacity for cranes in all intermodal terminals in loading units per year 

Subject 

Handling capacity 
(LU/year) 

Handling capacity with information 
on cranes 
Handling capacity with no 
information on cranes 
Operational handling capacity 
per year 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

143 697 000 

117 570 000 

261 267 000 

Share (%) 

55% 

45% 

100% 

This number is likely to overestimate the actually available terminal handling capacity, the 
reasons for which are likely the following: 

• 

• 

the underlying calculation of the handling capacity assumes a full utilization of the 
transhipment  equipment  within  an  efficient  and  specialized  terminal  environment 
without unplanned waiting times, downtimes and additional loading unit handlings 
within the terminal.   
resulting from the characterisation in the RFP, deep sea terminals with rail access 
are  also  included  as  intermodal  terminals  in  this  calculation.  Seaport  terminals 
generally  have  a  larger  number  of  cranes  for  all  services,  the  seaside,  rail  and 
storage, and with mostly opening times of 24 hours a day and seven days a week 
they can easily provide handling capacities over a million loading units per year and 
terminal.  The  RFP  does  not  distinguish  the  number  of  cranes  per  section  and 
connected  mode  of  transport  in  the  terminals  although  it  should  –  by  its  own 

89 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

definition – focus on the “rail” facility within a (seaport or inland port) terminal. For 
instance, in 2019 the main ports in the European Union handled about 107 million 
TEU54. Converting this number with 1.7 TEU per loading unit, it is about 63 million 
loading  units they  handled  in this  particular  year.  The  capacity  of these terminals 
might  be  higher,  as  we  assume  that  not  all  seaports  reached their  full  utilisation. 
Thus,  seaports  alone  account  for  a  large  part  of  the  calculated  capacity  which  is 
used also for deep sea shipping and not for short sea shipping alone. 
In many cases where both Gantry Cranes and Mobile Cranes (Reach stacker) are 
available  in  an  intermodal  terminal,  the  Mobile  Cranes  have  a  rather  supportive 
character, by serving e.g. external interim storage areas. Thus, in those cases the 
capacity of Mobile Cranes does not add to the total intermodal handling capacity of 
the terminal. 

• 

•  Based  on  the  data  from  the  RFP  database  the  handling  capacity  of  intermodal 
terminals was estimated on the number and type of cranes and opening times. In 
praxis the capacity may be limited by other factors such as the use of – particularly 
for mobile cranes – also depot handlings, the total length of handling rail tracks and 
their arrangement, the buffer space, or other local criteria as well. 
In the RFP data about the terminal handling equipment (and opening times) might 
be more likely to be available for larger and more well-known terminals. If this is the 
case, the average terminal handling capacity of about 289 000 loading units per year 
calculated  for  the  498  terminals  with  handling  equipment  entries  would  not  be 
representative of the 400 terminals without handling equipment entries. 

• 

For the reasons explained above the data obtained from the rail facilities portal appears to 
be  unsuitable  to  estimate  the  available  handling  capacity  for  different  technology  and 
loading  unit  combinations  in Europe.  An estimate  based  on  our model  terminal  handling 
capacity per technology and LU combination and the number of terminals per technology 
and LU combination determined in task 3.1 and shown in Table 34 is provided in Table 38 
below. The estimate has been calculated by multiplying the assessed number or range of 
terminals by the assumed terminal handling capacity per technology and LU combination, 
taking into account the data from the RFP about the type, but not the amount of, terminal 
handling  equipment  per  terminal.  For  technologies  where  the  model  terminal  handling 
capacity had been calculated to be different for varying container sizes (e.g. 20’ and 40’), a 
value  roughly  in the middle between  the  two  calculated terminal  handling  capacities  has 
been used.  

It  is  important  to  note,  that  the  handling  capacity  per  technology  and  loading  unit 
combination cannot be added up to calculate the total handling capacity per technology or 
type of loading unit. Terminals which accept multiple types of loading units per technology 
or which use more than one transhipment technology consequently appear multiple times 
with their full capacity in the calculation, once for each applicable technology and loading 
unit calculation. 

54 https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/28764/umfrage/containerumschlag-in-der-eu-27/ 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 38: Handling capacity per technology and LU combination in Europe 

Transhipment 
Technology 

1  Gantry Crane 

2  Reach Stacker 

Containers 

Swap Bodies  Semi-Trailers 

Full vehicles 

Type of loading unit 

34 860 000 – 
91 875 000 

15 225 000 - 58 
695 000 

16 660 000 - 74 
620 000 

14 201 856 - 35 
406 831 

7 003 119 - 23 
161 154 

5 668 123 - 21 
171 003 

3 

Hydraulic Material 
Handling Crane 

< 4 307 568 

< 4 307 568 

4  Mobile Harbour Crane 

< 2 372 649 

< 2 372 649 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

25 900 000 

25 900 000 

32 375 000 

32 375 000 

5 

RoRo Ramp to/from 
Ship 

6  Sidelifter 

7  BOXMover 

n/a 

n/a 

Mobiler (Rail Cargo 
Austria) 

< 334 884 

- 

- 

- 

Container Mover 3020 
(Innovatrain) 

365 787 

365 787 

8 

9 

10 

Cargo Beamer next 
generation 
(Cargobeamer AG) 

11  Modalohr UIC 

12  Nikrasa 

13 

ISU (ÖBB Rail Cargo 
Austria) 

14  RoLa Ramp 
15  Flexiwaggon 

16 

r2l 2.0 road rail link 
(VEGA) 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

359 646 

342 994 

840 000 

< 600 000 

- 

- 

560 000 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

476 757 

0 

- 

Using the approach described above, the values shown in the table can be provided as a 
rough estimate of the technically feasible current terminal handling capacity per technology 
and  loading  unit  combination.  The  following  comments  are  intended  to  provide  a  better 
understanding  of  the  figures  presented,  especially  with  regard  to  the  quality  and 
completeness of the available data: 

• 

terminals  using  both,  the  gantry  crane  and  the  reach  stacker  technology  are 
included in the gantry crane and the reach stacker numbers, as it is impossible to 
determine how the two technologies are used in the actual terminal operation from 
the available data (e.g. whether they are both used for intermodal transhipments or 
if one is used for other operations within the terminal).  

91 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Some  of  the  terminals,  especially  for  technologies  like  Nikrasa,  ISU  and  r2l,  are 
likely  already  included  in  the  gantry  crane  or  reach  stacker  terminals,  as  these 
technologies are used to enhance the capabilities of already existing terminals to 
tranship  not  only  craneable  but  also  non-craneable  semitrailers.  Furthermore,  for 
these technologies, factors like the available necessary additional equipment could 
not be taken into account, therefore the shown terminal handling capacity for these 
technologies  is  the  total  handling  capacity  based  on  crane  capacity  of  terminals 
involving these technologies.  

•  For  all  technology  and  LU  combinations  full  terminals  specialised  on  the  specific 
technology  and  loading  unit  combination  were  assumed.  As  already  mentioned, 
terminals  might  use  not  only  one  but  two  or  more  different  transhipment 
technologies,  might  tranship  different  types  of  loading  units,  are  exposed  to 
unproductive  times  not  taken  into  account  at  this  point  (e.g.  due  to  set-up  times, 
waiting  times,  disruptions  and  other  factors)  or  might  have  a  different  number  of 
terminal equipment available to them than assumed for the model.  

For the reasons stated above, the figures shown do provide an estimate of the potential 
orders of magnitude for the various technology and loading unit combinations, without being 
able to accurately reflect the actual handling capacity in Europe for each combination. For 
a  precise  determination  of  the  actual  available  capacity,  a  separate  study  would  be 
necessary,  in  the  context  of  which  contact  would  have  to  be  made  with  all  European 
intermodal terminals to correctly take into account the local characteristics. 

4.3 Today’s use of the particular technology (units carried/transhipped per annum) 

The data on today’s use of the particular transhipment technology and how many units they 
have  been  carried  /  transhipped  annually  should  be  also  determined  from  the  RFP 
database. However, the RFP database does not provide such figures. As mentioned before, 
it  does  not  even  distinguish  between  the  different  transhipment  technologies  other  than 
gantry and mobile cranes, but which are, of course by far the most used technologies in the 
intermodal business at present. 

As the RFP does not distinguish special technologies, nor provide any data on today’s use, 
the exercise was supplemented by interviews with the technology providers or users from 
task 1 and 2. When doing that, we had to agree upon a reference year, which should not 
be 2020 for two reasons: at the moment of data collection the business year might not be 
closed formally and secondly COVID-19 might have created a “non-normal” situation. We 
therefore proposed to use the year 2019 as a reference for all technologies that were in 
operation in the entire year and “a 12 month period” for all technologies which have started 
within or after 2019. Hereby, we identified the following issues: 

•  a separate assessment on how many units have been carried/transhipped for the 
technologies that are widespread and used all over the European Union and 
Switzerland was impossible. There is no such information available, how many 
loading units were carried/transhipped i.e. via Gantry crane, Reach stacker, 
Hydraulic material handling crane or Mobile harbour crane. 

•  For some of the technologies a separate assessment was not possible either, as 
they are integrated in and transhipped via other technologies (e.g. Nikrasa, ISU, 
transhipped via Gantry - and/or Mobile Crane technologies).  

In  order  to  overcome  the  first  issue,  for  this  task  the  standard  and  widespread  vertical 
transhipment technologies, i.e. Gantry crane, Reach stacker, Hydraulic material handling 
crane or Mobile harbour crane, will be grouped together as one element.  

The second issue has turned out to be relatively insignificant, as the handling figures for the 
non-standard vertical transhipment technologies are significantly lower than those for the 

92 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

standard vertical transhipment technologies and fall within the range of uncertainty included 
in our calculation of the handlings done by standard vertical transhipment technologies. 

Table 39: Overview of today's use of the particular technology and loading unit combination 

  Transhipment 
Technology 

Standard 
vertical 
transhipment 
technologies 
RoRo Ramp 
to/from Ship 

1 

2 

Containers 

Swap Bodies 

Semi-Trailers 

Full vehicles 

Type of loading unit 

63 453 329 

4 488 816 

4 284 779 

- 

Included in Semi-
Trailers number 

Included in Semi-
Trailers number 

<9 907 500 

<14 417 800 

3  Sidelifter 

Mainly support 
technology 

Mainly support 
technology 

No numbers 
available 

320 000 

4  BOXMover 

5 

6 

7 

Mobiler (Rail 
Cargo Austria) 
Container 
Mover 3020 
(Innovatrain) 
Cargo Beamer 
next 
generation 
(Cargobeamer 
AG) 

8  Modalohr UIC 

9  Nikrasa 

10 

ISU (ÖBB Rail 
Cargo Austria) 

11  RoLa Ramp 

12  Flexiwaggon 

13 

r2l 2.0 road 
rail link 
(VEGA) 

Source: KombiConsult analysis 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Included in 
Containers 
number 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

17 000 

102 000 

8 000 

No numbers 
available 

- 

- 

12 000 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

512 440 

n/a 

- 

Table 39 above shows the values calculated or obtained for today’s use of the technology 
and loading unit combination. 

Some  values  were obtained directly from the technology  providers  whereas  others  were 
calculated from different sources: 

The values for Standard vertical transhipment technologies include values for all mode of 
transport  combinations  as  shown in  more  detail below.  For  this  group  of  technologies,  a 
calculation of today’s use was done based on the analyses of transported volumes done in 

93 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

the 2020 report on combined transport55 for rail and Eurostat data for IWW and SSS.56 The 
breakdown per connected mode of transport is shown in Table 40 below. 

Table 40: Overview of today's use of vertical technologies per mode of transport 

Standard vertical 
transhipment 
technologies 

Type of loading unit 

Containers 

Swap Bodies  Semi-Trailers 

Full vehicles 

Rail 

IWW 

SSS 

Total 

16 370 976 

4 488 816 

4 284 779 

8 400 000 

38 682 353 

- 

- 

- 

- 

63 453 329 

4 488 816 

4 284 779 

- 

- 

- 

0 

For rail, the 2020 report on combined transport provides a total of 24.8 m TEU transported 
in 2019 in European unaccompanied rail-road intermodal transport, from which the values 
for transports between and with non-EU countries (except for Switzerland) are subtracted. 
Further information is provided on the share of these volumes between different types of 
LUs, based on which the total transported TEU per LU-type was calculated. Assuming two 
transhipments  of  the  LU  within  the  transport  chain  and  on  average  1.7  TEU  per  LU  for 
containers and swap bodies and 2.2 TEU per semitrailer the estimated LU-handlings in rail-
road intermodal transport per LU type is calculated. 

For IWW and SSS vertical technologies it is assumed, that only containers are transhipped. 
In chapter 2.1.6 a figure of around 4.2 million containers transported on IWW was already 
assessed based on the Eurostat database. Assuming two transhipments per transported 
container the shown value is calculated. 

Eurostat provides a value for the volume (in TEU's) of containers transported to/from main 
ports in Europe in short sea shipping for 2019.Again assuming 2 transhipments per loading 
unit and assuming 1.7 TEU per loading unit the shown value is calculated. 

The  other  values  are  obtained from  information provided or  published  by  the technology 
providers,  with  the  noteworthy  exception  of  the  RoRo  technology,  which  is  another 
widespread technology with no single provider. 

The RoRo volumes were also deduced from the available Eurostat data. There are factors 
that limit the informative value and accuracy of the figures given: 

• 

the Eurostat data differentiates between mobile self-propelled units and mobile non-
self-propelled  units  for  which  information  about  the  gross  weight  of  goods 
transported to/from main ports in Europe is provided. 

o  The  category  mobile  self-propelled  units  not  only  include  road  goods 
vehicles and accompanying trailers which are relevant for this study, but also 
passenger  cars,  and  buses,  accompanying  trailers/caravans,  motorcycles, 
trade vehicles (including import/export motor vehicles), live animals on the 
hoof as well as other mobile self-propelled units. 

o  The  category  mobile  non-self-propelled  units  not  only 

includes 
unaccompanied road goods trailers, semi-trailers and Shipborne port-to-port 
trailers carrying intermodal loading units which are relevant for this study but 

55 2020 Report on Combined Transport in Europe, November 2020. The Report aims to provide an 
assessment of the entire European combined transport market 
(https://uic.org/spip.php?action=telecharger&arg=3200). 
56 Eurostat.eu. 

94 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

also  unaccompanied  caravans  and  other  road,  agricultural  and  industrial 
vehicles,  rail  wagons,  shipborne  barges  engaged  in  goods  transport  and 
other mobile non-self-propelled units. 

•  The share of these different types of transported units in the total goods weight is 
unknown.  Due  to  the  inclusion  of this  unknown  share of  different  types  of mobile 
self-propelled and non-self-propelled units in the data only an upper bound for the 
number of handlings of intermodal loading units in RoRo transport can be provided. 
•  As  containers  and  swap  bodies  on  port-to-port  trailers  (called  roll  trailers  and 
cassettes in this study) cannot be differentiated from semi-trailers in the data, only 
figures for the LU types of full vehicles (based on mobile self-propelled units’ data) 
and semi-trailers (including containers and swap bodies; based on mobile non-self-
propelled units’ data) are provided for the RoRo technology. 

To calculate the upper bounds for the actual transhipment of full vehicles and semi-trailers 
an average gross weight of goods of 20 tons per transported loading unit was assumed. 
Therefore, the number of LUs can be calculated by dividing the total gross goods weight 
per  unit  category  by  the  20  tons  of  goods  assumed  per  loading  unit.  Like  before  one 
transported loading unit is assumed to be transhipped twice during one transport, therefore 
the resulting number of LUs is multiplied by two to calculate the LU handlings. 

The RoLa handlings come from the UIRR statistic about RoLa transports, again assuming 
two transhipment per transport.57. One thing that is noticeable is, that the value for today’s 
use of the RoLa technology is higher than the value provided for today’s handling capacity. 
One likely reason for this is, that the existing RoLa connections run for far lower distances 
than the  450 km/  850  km  assumed for  this  study. On  short  RoLa  distances like Wörgl  – 
Brenner the wagon sets can be used for multiple round trips per day, thereby eliminating 
the need for a separate wagon inspection before each transport. This in turn leads to the 
train having a shorter stay in the terminals and increases the handling capacity per terminal 
by reducing throughput time.  

4.4 TEN-T  corridors,  or  parts  of  TEN-T  corridors,  where  terminals  with  particular 

transhipment technology are available 

Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 geographically defines the TEN-T Corridors 58. 

The  TENtec  portal  and  its  interactive  viewer59  are  the  graphical  visualisation  of  the 
comprehensive and core network and the TEN-T corridors. The Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 
does not name “intermodal terminals”, but “Maritime Ports”, “Inland Ports” and “Rail Road 
Terminals (RRT)” as the nodes in which different modes of transport are connected. The 
following maps illustrates the alignment of the TEN-T Corridors and the RRT listed in the 
TENtec portal. 

57 http://www.uirr.com/de/media-centre/annual-reports/annual-reports/mediacentre/1582-uirr-annual-report-
2019-20.html. 
58  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1153  establishing  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  for  the  period  2021-2027 

adopted in July 2021. 

59 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html 

95 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 9: TEN-T Corridors and Rail-Road-Terminals (RRT) 

Source: KombiConsult analysis based on TENtec Viewer (23.06.2021) 

Under this point, a list was prepared showing the individual TEN-T core network corridors, 
and the various transhipment technologies available along the corridors. The TENtec portal 
formed the basis of the list, mainly for the widespread technologies, and was supplemented 
by  data  from  the  RFP  database,  where  it  is  marked  if,  and  if  yes,  on  which  Rail  Freight 
Corridor60  an  “intermodal terminal”  is  located  as  well  as  interviews  with  other technology 
technologies  and/or 
providers  and  users  of  specific  loading  unit  /  transhipment 
combinations.  Still,  the following  analysis  is  only  able to  combine  data  from  a few  select 

60 The Rail Freight Corridors are established under Regulation (EU) 913/2010. Rail Freight Corridors and 

TEN-Corridors are generally aligned, despite several routing differences.  

96 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

sources and is therefore unlikely to provide complete information on all terminals along the 
TEN-T Corridors. 

From  the  data  in  the  TENtec  Portal,  only  nodes  with  categories  “Ports”  and  “Rail/road 
terminals” were available. The analysis of the data from the TENtec portal also revealed 
that there is no distinction between different transhipment technologies used in the Ports 
and Rail/road terminals. Under the assumption that at least one of the widespread Crane 
and  Reach  Stacker  technologies,  in  particular  Gantry  Crane,  Reach  Stacker,  Hydraulic 
Material  Handling  Crane,  and Mobile  Harbour  Crane,  is  used in every  port  and rail  road 
terminal listed in the TENtec portal, we could identify the following numbers of terminals on 
each of the respective core network corridors.  

Table 41: Number of TEN-T Ports and TEN-T RRT (according to TENtec OMC) & number of terminals 
according to RFP 

TEN-T corridor / RFC corridor 

TENtec OMC 

Baltic Adriatic / RFC 5 
North Sea – Baltic / RFC 8 
Mediterranean / RFC 6 
Orient / East – Med / RFC 7 
Scandinavian – Mediterranean / RFC 3 
Rhine – Alpine / RFC 1 
Atlantic / RFC 4 
North Sea Mediterranean / RFC 2 
Rhine – Danube / RFC 9 
Total* 

Ports 
11 
32 
19 
23 
29 
23 
22 
32 
26 
141 

RRT 
20 
24 
20 
19 
23 
13 
14 
12 
20 
108 

Total 
31 
56 
39 
42 
52 
36 
36 
44 
46 
249 

RFP 

Total 
78 
100 
77 
81 
82 
141 
50 
88 
20 
324 

Source: KombiConsult analysis based on TENtec OMC (22.06.2021; filtered by core network) and RFP; * Total is not the sum 
of all TEN-T / RFC corridors 

Apart from the Crane and Reach Stacker transhipment technologies, we could identify the 
following  TEN-T  core  network  corridors,  where  terminals  with  a  particular  transhipment 
technology  handling  certain  types  of  loading  units  are  available.  As  for  task  3.3  we  are 
combining the standard vertical transhipment technologies into one item carrying that name. 

  Transhipment 
Technology 

1 

Standard 
vertical 
transhipment 
technologies 

2 

RoRo Ramp 
to/from Ship 

Table 42: Transhipment technologies per TEN-T corridors 

Type of loading unit 

Containers 

Swap Bodies 

Semi-Trailers 

Full vehicles 

All TEN-T corridors 

- 

All TEN-T corridors (coastal areas only), not necessarily for transports 
between two terminals on the same corridor 

3  Sidelifter 

Used as support 
technology 

4  BOXMover 

Used as support 
technology 

5 

Mobiler (Rail 
Cargo Austria) 

Could not be 
accurately 
determined, 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

97 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

  Transhipment 
Technology 

6 

7 

Container 
Mover 3020 
(Innovatrain) 

Cargo Beamer 
next 
generation 
(Cargobeamer 
AG) 

8  Modalohr UIC 

9  Nikrasa 

10 

ISU (ÖBB Rail 
Cargo Austria) 

11  RoLa Ramp 

12  Flexiwaggon 

13 

r2l 2.0 road 
rail link 
(VEGA) 

Type of loading unit 

Swap Bodies 

Semi-Trailers 

Full vehicles 

Containers 
identified 
relations to/from 
Austria: probably 
BAC, OEM, RD 

NSB: Emden, Dresden 
OEM: Dresden 
RALP; Switzerland 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

RALP: 
Domodossola, 
MED: Perpignan, 
NSM: Calais, 
BAC, NSB: 
Poznan 
NSM: 
Bettembourg, 
Calais 
MED: Orbassano 
BAC, NSB: 
Poznan 
NSM: Bettembourg 
MED, OEM, RD: 
Budapest 
BAC, MED: Triest 
–SCAN-MED: 
Verona 
Could not be 
determined, with 
relations to/from 
Austria: probably 
BAC, OEM, RD 

- 

- 
BAC, MED: Triest 
NSM: 
Bettembourg; 
NSB, RALP: Köln 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

RD: Wels, 
RALP, NSM: 
Freiburg im 
Breisgau, 
MED, RALP: 
Novara, 
SCAN-MED: 
Brenner, Wörgl, 
Trento, 
BAC, MED: 
Maribor 
Currently no use 

- 

Source: KombiConsult analysis based on TENtec OMC (22.06.2021) and analysis of the technology provides; abbreviated 
names of the nine core network corridors 

4.5 Type  of  upgrade  needed  per  TEN-T  corridor  to  use  loading  unit/transhipment 

technology 

This section describes the different types of structural interventions required to enlarge the 
railway clearance gauge to allow for the transit of the previously analysed LUs. No other 
infrastructure limitations related to rail or inland waterways or roads were analysed as part 
of this study. 

98 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For the analysis reference was mainly made to the “Measuring and upgrading the clearance 
gauge  of  railway  lines:  market  study  and  feasibility  study”  commissioned  in  2016  by  the 
European Commission.  

Clearance gauge  

The codified clearance gauge of a given railway section is defined according to the most 
limiting height and width profile encountered in the length of the section. For a given section 
of line, the limiting profile may be related to a tunnel in the section, but it can also depend 
on features such as over-bridges, station platforms and overhead or lineside equipment. It 
is therefore a single local element that determines the limiting profile of the line.   

for 

the  Technical  Specification 

the 
Commission  Regulation  (EU)  1299/2014  on 
Interoperability relating to the “Infrastructure” subsystem of the rail system in the European 
Union  (“Infra  TSI”)  amended  by  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2019/776  lays  down  the 
technical specifications of the rail infrastructure and includes in an Annex the so called TSI 
Categories of Line. Parameters are, according to Annex table 3 for freight traffic the traffic 
code, gauge, axle load, line speed and train length. The gauge or structure gauge (TSI point 
4.2.3.1) defines the space in relation to the reference track that shall be cleared of all objects 
or  structures  and  of  the  traffic  on  the  adjacent  tracks,  to  allow  safe  operation  on  the 
reference  track.  It  is  defined  on  the  basis  of  the  reference  contour  by  application  of  the 
associated rules. The Infra TSI differentiates the Gauges GC, GB, GA, G1, S and IRL1. The 
Infra TSI does not further specify these values but refers to their definition in the European 
Standard DIN EN 15273-3. 61 The standard defines three types of structure gauges, namely 

- 

- 

- 

the structure verification limit gauge, which is the space not to be encroached upon 
at any time which sets the limit for normal operation 
the structure installation limit gauge, space not to be encroached upon taking into 
account a maintenance allowance and the 
structure  installation  nominal  gauge,  which  is  the  space  to  be  cleared  of  any 
structure  to  enable  train  operations  and  track  maintenance  by  incorporating 
allowances for safety, maintenance as well as reserve allowances defined by the 
person responsible for the infrastructure. 

With respect to DIN EN 15273-1 it further defines the reference profile and associated rules. 
The  gauge  is  generally  split  into  two  parts:  its  upper  parts  and  its  lower  parts.  The  limit 
between the two parts shall be defined for each gauge. There are specific rules associated 
with each part.  
The reference profile is normally determined for a straight, flat, nominal gauge, cannot-free 
track. The profile considers the vehicle envelope and certain displacements. The reference 
profile is an intermediate profile that is part of the agreement but that shall not be confused 
with the construction gauge nor the structure gauge (on straight track or other).  
Generally added to this profile is widening according to the line (radius, cannot) and speed 
(cannot  deficiency)  and  certain  allowances  to  cover  random  phenomena  and  to  ensure 
track  maintenance.  These  are  called  the  associated  rules.  Technical  interoperability 
conditions  are  defined  in  EN  15273-1:2013+A1:2016,  Annex  A.  The  application  of 
“international” or “reduced” interoperability gauges depends on international regulations or 
even bilateral or multilateral agreements. The gauge choice is fixed by each network. 

Annex C of the EN 15273-3 presents the details of the international gauges G1, GA, GB, 
and GC (of the upper part) and GI1, GI2 and GI3 for the lower part of the gauge. 

61  Railway applications – Gauges – Part 3: Structure gauges; English version EN 152733: 2013+A1:2016 

99 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 10: dimensions of Gauges G1, GA, GB and GC according to DIN EN 15273-3 

It’s  Annex  D  presents  the  details  of  the  gauges  for  multilateral  and  national  agreements 
such  as  G2, GB1  and GB2,  which are  national  variants  of the  international  gauges,  and 
other codes which are completely different, e.g. for broad gauge lines in Portugal, Spain or 
Finland.  

Calculations  of  the  structure  gauge  shall  be  carried  out  using  the  kinematic  model  in 
accordance with the requirements of sections 5, 7 and 10, Annex C and Annex D, Point 
D4.8 

Infrastructure TSI does however not indicate the Combined Transport Profile number as a 
parameter when defining the EU railways system. The CT profile number is resulting from 
IRS 20596-6, the system applied for several decades in order to ensure a safe operation of 
intermodal loading units loaded on compatible wagon when transported on codified lines 
(see Table 27 and Table 28). 

The P400 is the standard in use by the market that identifies rail lines with a gauge allowing 
the loading of  semi-trailers with a width of > 255 mm (and the equivalent P400 marking) on 
pocket  wagons.  This  nomenclature  indicates  that  the  maximum  height  at  which  a  semi-
trailer can be transported by rail is limited to 4 metres. This limit is set from the base of the 
wagon to the top of the semi-trailer, with the suspension being airless in order to comply 
with that height. The 4m height is a request from the road industry to make maximum use 
of the official European road and motorway dimensions, which set the height of trucks at 
4m62.  The  coding  of  intermodal  transport  lines  helps  establish  which  of  the  intermodal 
transport profiles, when loaded on a given wagon marked for intermodal transport, can be 
allowed to run along a given route. Unfortunately, not all lines across Europe are codified 
for intermodal transport and some of the codes are to be considered only informative: this 
means that the process of establishing which intermodal transport profile can be allowed to 
run along a route, requires specific checks. 

62 https://www.uirr.com/en/news/mediacentre/1846-intermodal-the-increasing-importance-of-p400.html 

100 

15401645355047001645136010905453250388040804110435014251120525162032503700401043101170400GCGBGAG1GaugesG1, GA, GB and GC accordingtoDIN EN 15273-3:2013+A1:2016 © KombiConsult GmbH 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Clearance gauge enlargement 

Typical  steps to  be  undertaken  to  remove  clearance gauge  restrictions and  upgrade the 
track to the P400 standard are the following: 

1.  Measuring of the tunnels and other structures along the track; 
2.  Re-codifications, if possible; 
3.  If re-codification is not possible the following further steps should be considered: 

- surveys for the executive design of interventions; 
- tunnel upgrade works;-.  

First of all, 3D measurements can be carried out on the selected line, in order to precisely 
assess the geometry of the obstacles faced on the line. This information makes it possible 
to identify which sections can potentially be coded P400 and which are not. Compatibility is 
determined through virtual overlapping of the current contours of the infrastructure with the 
dynamic envelope of a trailer-wagon system; this dynamic envelope has the dimensions of 
a  4m-high  trailer  loaded  on  a  33  cm-high  pocket  wagon,  as  the  P400  is  defined.  This 
procedure results in the identification of the sections in which the rolling stock profile and 
the infrastructure overlap.  

There  are  innovative  and  low  cost  laser  based  techniques  to  measure  the  current 
infrastructure contours. The measurement process can be done quite easily and it does not 
require to  stop  the  line.  The  required  equipment  includes  a  convoy  led  by  a  locomotive, 
followed by a train car containing the office for acquisition and registration, and by a second 
train car carrying the dynamic laser scanner device. The cost to measure could be less than 
100 euros per km (e.g. for the OEM CNC an estimation of 400 k€).  

The  application  of  this  procedure  on  the  railway  lines  of  interest  often  leads  to  the 
identification of a large gap between the current coding of the line and the actual gauge. 
Quite often lines that are not certified for the P400 profile can currently accommodate the 
passage  of  intermodal  trains  with  P400  profile.  For  these  lines,  network  upgrades  are 
therefore not necessary or much less expensive than the interventions described in the next 
sections. 

Where infrastructure restrictions are identified, most of the time they are in tunnels, or under 
over-bridges.  

Tunnels upgrade works include several types of interventions: 

• 
• 
• 

• 

• 
• 

tunnel vault works; 
trackbed lowering; 
replacing ballasted track with slab track, which leads to 

o  a) lower construction height of the track superstructure, 
o  b)  higher  stability  of  the  track  alignment  /  reduced  track  displacement 
(allowing reduced safety margins for definition of the clearance gauge) 

replacing  overhead  contact  line  with  rigid  conductor  rail,  which  reduces  the 
construction height of the catenary system; 
third track (this measure has temporary impact on the line capacity);  
replacement of double-track by single-track along the centre axis of a tunnel (this 
measure  has  a  permanent  impact  on  line  capacity  and  is  only  recommended  for 
lines / line section with low capacity utilisation)63  

63 One recent example, where this solution has been implemented is the Karawanken tunnel between 

Austria and Slovenia (Villach – Jesenice)) 

101 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  adjustment of one track in a double-track tunnel and operation of P400-train only on 
that track in both directions (measure puts high requirements on traffic management 
and may have certain impacts on capacity)64 

Restrictions due to low over-bridges can be addressed by: 

trackbed lowering; 

• 
•  powerless  overhead  line  sections  (possible  up  to  a  several  hundred  meters,  but 
often only needed on shorter sections; powerless sections should not be installed, 
where trains usually have to stop or run at very low speed).  

As an alternative to structural interventions, the use of lower pocket wagons can also be 
considered. 

Tunnel vault works 

Tunnel vault works consist in a punctual increase of the clearance gauge which intervenes 
only in the overlap section (mostly located in the upper corners of the transported trailer) 
and therefore does not envisage an overall widening of the tunnel. The complexity of the 
operation and consequently its cost strongly depends on the overlapping depth.  

The overlapping sections have been classified into 4 classes of depths which are: 

•  under 5 cm; 
• 
• 
•  over 20 cm.  

from 5 to 10 cm; 
from 10 to 20 cm; 

Considering large depths (over 20 cm) a deep lining repair is required. As the depth of the 
overlapping decreases, the structural intervention becomes less complex until, on the case 
of depths of less than 5 cm, a coating operation is enough to address the issue.  

Table 43: Vault works typology by overlapping depth 

Overlapping depth 

Type of works 

Over 20 cm 

From 10 to 20 cm 

From 5 to 10 cm 

Under 5 cm 

Type A - Deep lining repair 

Type B - Lining repair 

Type C - Shotcrete arch segment 

Type D - Coating operation 

Source: “Measuring and upgrading the clearance gauge of railway lines”, Final Report 2016 

Types A and B lining repairs will include also:  

• 
• 

installation of retaining anchorages; 
tunnel segment destruction. 

Instead, type C work will include: 

• 

installation and fixation of a reinforcing cage; 

64 One example, where this solution has been used for many years is the so-called 4-m-corridor on 

the Lötschberg pass line. 

102 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  shotcrete projection on the tunnel segment.  

Figure 11: Tunnel vault works 

Source: Adif, “Evaluation of rail motorway cost” 

Roadbed lowering 

Roadbed lowering is an alternative to clearance gauge widening, often cheaper and less 
impactful on train circulation as it offers, depending on the number of tracks, the possibility 
of alternating traffic on the line.  

However, this operation also requires: 

•  changes to the sewage and drainage systems;  
• 
•  and often additional underpinning.  

resolution of interference with technological sub-services; 

In comparison with tunnel vault works, roadbed lowering intervention is more appropriate 
for the following situations:  

•  short tunnels (< 500 m); 
•  gauges overlapping for more than the half of tunnel length; 
•  specific situation for which vault works are very expensive; 
•  no concrete apron to modify; 
•  no reinforced concrete sidewalls to modify; 
•  partial service interruption by direction.     

103 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 12: Platform lowering 

Source: Adif, “Evaluation of rail motorway cost” 

Third track 

A third alternative used to increase the clearance gauge of a tunnel is the construction of a 
third track laid in the middle of the tunnel – the Gemmenicher tunnel being a good example 
of this solution.  

The  Gemmenicher  tunnel  or  Botzelaar  tunnel  is  an  870m  long  three-track  rail  tunnel 
between the stations of Montzen, in Belgium, and Aachen-West, in Germany. A third, coiled 
track is installed in the centre of the tunnel for special transport exceeding the gauge of the 
other two tracks. The track can be used in both directions, but when using the coiled track, 
no other traffic can cross in the tunnel.  

In  2008  the  tunnel  was  electrified  with  electrified  busbars  on  the  tunnel  ceiling.  The 
conductor  rail  above  the  right-hand  track  in  the  direction  of  Aachen-Montzen  was  offset 
towards the tunnel axis, so that it can also be reached by pantographs from locomotives on 
the LU track. Train journeys exceeding the loading gauge, which must use the track loop, 
can also be carried out with electrical traction.  

Figure 13: Gemmenicher/Botzelaar tunnel  

Source: Adif, “Evaluation of rail motorway cost” 

104 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Lower pocket wagons 

Currently, the P400 parameter is the standard for intermodal transport. To comply with this 
standard, enlargement of the gauge to a P400 compatible infrastructure is a possibility, as 
seen above, and so is the use of lower pocket wagons in order to fit in lower tunnels.  

While the “standard” pocket wagon’s floor is 33 cm above the top of the rail, giving a total 
height of 433 cm for the system wagon-trailer, different pocket wagons are commonly used 
for trailer transportation. For instance, the following height of floor are commonly used: 

•  27 cm with a low-floor wagon; 
•  23 cm with the Modalohr wagon.  

For instance, with 27 cm wagons, a P394 gauge would be enough to run 4m high trailers 
on  trains.  Even more,  the  top  of  a  4-meter-high semi-trailer  stands  at  4.23 m  if  put  on a 
Modalohr wagon.  

Such low pocket wagons are getting more commonly used by intermodal operators and are 
nowadays  being  brought  forward  by  manufacturers,  since  they  can  enable  intermodal 
transport of semi-trailers on lines that comply with a lower standard, e.g.  P394.  

This  possibility  however  raises 
the 
responsibility  to  provide  for  the  possibility  to  run  trains  with  P400  profile,  and  the  costs 
thereof, from the infrastructure manager to railway and terminal operators.  

interoperability  questions. 

It  moreover  shifts 

Cost estimation for tunnel vault and roadbed lowering works 

The study “Measuring and upgrading the clearance gauge of railway lines: market study 
and feasibility study” carries out an accurate estimation of tunnel vault works and roadbed 
lowering work costs: work cost estimations are done considering the extent and the type of 
work proposed and distinguishing, in the case of vault work, among partial and total traffic 
interruption scenarios.  

The  study  analysed  the  costs  of  four  French  lines  (Paris-Metz,  Metz-Strasbourg,  Dijon-
Mulhouse  and  Paris-Marseille)  with  a  total  of  30  tunnels  to  be  upgraded  to  the  P400 
parameter.  

Starting from the data reported in the final report, it was possible to determine the range of 
variation of the unit cost per km of tunnel upgrading. 

Table 44: Cost range estimation for each technical solution and options [M€/km] 

Technical solution 

Vault work with partial 
traffic interruption 

Vault  work  with  total 
traffic interruption 

Roadbed 
works 

lowering 

Min 

16 

10 

18 

Max 

Average 

86 

56 

30 

49 

30 

22 

Source: PwC analysis based on “Measuring and upgrading the clearance gauge of railway lines: market study and feasibility 
study” 

As presented in Table 44 above, the most expensive intervention is that of vault works with 
partial  traffic  interruption.  Specifically,  the  vault  work  intervention  with  partial  traffic 
interruption varies from 16 M€/km to 86 M€/km, while the same intervention with total traffic 

105 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

interruption span from 10 M€/km to 56 M€/km. The average unit cost of roadbed lowering 
is less than that of the other interventions: with a range of costs from 18 M€/km to 30 M€/km, 
the average value is equal to 22 M€/km. It does not take into account the consequences 
and costs due to traffic interruption. 

However, the costs of these operations appear to be very specific to each tunnel studied, 
and can hardly be approximated using unit costs, in fact, the results reported in the study 
show  investment  costs  per  metre  of  operation  with  strong  disparity  in  the  results.  It  is 
important to note that each tunnel upgrade has unique characteristics related also to the 
morphology  of  the  area,  the  extension  of  the  intervention  as  well  as  the  orographic 
conditions.  

Review of safety margins for definition of the clearance gauge 

The  definition  of  the  clearance  gauge  for  intermodal  transport  of  semi-trailers  takes  into 
account safety margins for various aspects. Relevant aspects that are considered in setting 
safety margins are: 

settings in the roadbed sub-structure; 
changes in the rail profile due to rail wear; 
changes in the wheel profile due to wheel wear; 
lateral track displacement in curves; 

- 
- 
- 
- 
-  dynamic behaviour of the suspension in the rail running gear; 
-  deviations in the placement of the loading unit / semi-trailer on the rail wagon, 

when loading; 

-  dynamic movement of the loading unit / semi-trailer during the train run (including 
dynamic behaviour of the suspension system of the semi-trailers, when carried on 
a wagon). 

In some  cases,  reconsidering the  adopted  safety  margins  and  the  methodology  for  their 
calculation and application could possibly lead to the recoding of the line to allow for the 
loading of semitrailers on the wagons. For instance, a more frequent supervision of the track 
(especially of the track geometry) or automated measurements by mean of Intelligent Video 
Gates at the exit of intermodal terminals (or when entering critical line sections) could open 
for reducing certain safety margins. 

4.6 Kilometres/network  percentage  per  TEN-T  corridor  where  loading  units  can  be 

transported (loading gauge, bridges, water levels, etc.) 

The main objective of this task is to determine the kilometres and the percentage of TEN-T 
core network, including a breakdown per TEN-T corridor, allowing for the use of the loading 
units  handled  by  a  particular  transhipment  technology,  taking  into  account  the  different 
network limitations (rail loading gauge, bridges, water levels etc.) and mapping the blocking 
infrastructure elements. The process of mapping the entire network also makes it possible 
to  identify  the  most  critical  areas  for  intermodal  transport,  which  will  then  be  further 
investigated. 

We focused our analysis on the TEN-T core network corridors. With this purpose, we have 
first analysed the status of the TEN-T corridors as represented in the TENtec65 and RINF66 
databases67. The two databases map the status of the infrastructure with regards to several 
parameters,  but  among  these  only  the  “standard  combined  transport  profile  number  for 
semi-trailers"  is relevant  for  determining  the  network  limitations  related to the  intermodal 
transport.  The  two  databases  obviously  do  not  give  information  on  the  specific  blocking 

65 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html 
66 https://rinf.era.europa.eu/RINF/ 
67 To analyse this data, the operators of the portal provided us with the data in a database/table format 

106 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

infrastructure elements on a line section.  We have consulted other sources, which do not 
provide such information either. Moreover, the two databases and other consulted sources 
do not provide information on  other network limitations than the intermodal transport profile 
(for rail, inland waterway and road). As a consequence, this analysis will only concern rail 
and focus on the “standard combined transport profile”. 

The “standard combined transport profile number for semi-trailers" defines the compliance 
of the railway network with regard to the P400 gauge, which is the standard that identifies 
rail lines allowing the loading of P400 semi-trailers on pocket wagons.  

As  mentioned  above,  the  analysis  leverage  on  the  TENtec  and  RINF  databases.  RINF 
stands for Register of Infrastructure and is the main tool for describing the static rail network 
characteristics  and  capabilities  as  required  by  the  Directive  (EU)  2016/797  on  rail 
Interoperability,  including  all  the  relevant  information  for  the  Route  Compatibility,  the 
Network  Statement  and  the  Route  Book.  The  RINF  consists  of  a  centralised  database 
hosted and managed by the EU Agency for Railways (ERA), describing: Operational Points 
(OP) representing stations, junctions, sidings, etc.; Section of Lines (SoL) describing the 
characteristics of tracks which link Operational Points together. 

The methodology adopted to assess the most relevant intermodal transport bottlenecks – 
with respect to P400 compliance – is described below with respect to both databases.  

Overview of the status of compliance of the TEN-T network to P400 profile according 
to TENtec and RINF data 

The aim of this section is to investigate the rate of compliance with the P400 profile68 of the 
TEN-T core network corridors for each Member State. The analysis relies on data for year 
2017 (last year for which data are available) coming from both TENtec and RINF databases.  

As a preliminary finding it should be highlighted that – for both databases – data were not 
available for all sections of the TEN-T core network corridors. The part of the network for 
which data is not available is hereafter referred at as “N/A”. 

The table below summarises the compliance rate to P400 profile for each  Member State 
according to the RINF and TENtec databases.  

Table 45: Status of compliance of the TEN-T core network corridors to P400, RINF and TENtec 
databases 

Country 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Czechia  
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Italy 

RINF database 

TENtec database 

Non 
Compliance 
19% 
18% 
77% 
64% 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
1% 
39% 
N/A 
100% 
46% 

Compliance  N/A 

80% 
82% 
8% 
0% 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
67% 
0% 
N/A 
0% 
27% 

2% 
0% 
14% 
36% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
32% 
61% 
100% 
0% 
28% 

Non 
Compliance 
3% 
6% 
35% 
21% 
59% 
0% 
N/A 
100% 
N/A 
5% 
N/A 
69% 

Compliance  N/A 

97% 
88% 
7% 
79% 
20% 
96% 
N/A 
0% 
N/A 
94% 
N/A 
29% 

0% 
6% 
58% 
0% 
21% 
4% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
2% 
100% 
2% 

68 To assess the compliance status, all sections currently equipped with a P400 profile or higher were 

considered compliant, while lower profiles indicate a non-compliance status. 

107 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

RINF database 

TENtec database 

Country 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovak Republic 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
The Netherlands 
Hungary 
Ireland 

Non 
Compliance 
N/A 
29% 
59% 
20% 
N/A 
N/A 
100% 
50% 
N/A 
56% 
N/A 
N/A 
0% 
- 
- 

Compliance  N/A 

N/A 
0% 
31% 
79% 
N/A 
N/A 
0% 
0% 
N/A 
0% 
N/A 
N/A 
78% 
- 
- 

100% 
71% 
9% 
1% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
50% 
100% 
44% 
100% 
100% 
22% 
- 
- 

Non 
Compliance 
N/A 
N/A 
100% 
0% 
3% 
49% 
N/A 
0% 
52% 
74% 
0% 
46% 
0% 
0% 
N/A 

Compliance  N/A 

N/A 
N/A 
0% 
100% 
36% 
0% 
N/A 
99% 
48% 
0% 
61% 
43% 
46% 
100% 
N/A 

100% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
61% 
51% 
100% 
1% 
0% 
26% 
39% 
12% 
54% 
0% 
100% 

The  “compliance  map”  presented  below  was  developed  on  the  basis  of  TENtec  geo-
referenced data on the status of compliance of the TEN-T core network corridors to P400. 
Unfortunately RINF database currently does not provide for geo-referenced data. 

Figure 14: Status of compliance of the TEN-T core network corridors to P400, TENTec database 

Figure 15  shows the  different  compliance  rates for  each Member  State  according  to the 
RINF and TENtec databases.  

108 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 15: Comparison of TEN-T core network corridors compliance status to P400 parameter in RINF and TENtec database* 

100%

90%

80%

70%

8%

29%

20%

31%

48%

60%

80%

82%

79%

97%

88%

96%

7%

67%

27%

94%

79%

100%

99%

36%

43%

61%

78%

46%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

C
E
T
N
E
T

F
N
R

I

F
N
R

I

C
E
T
N
E
T

C
E
T
N
E
T

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech
Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovak
Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

The
Netherlands

*Hungary and Ireland are not shown in the graph as data are only available in the TENtec database and cannot be compared with RINF

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Selection of Member States for in depth analysis 

The  analysis  Figure  15  suggests  that  the  two  databases  are  strongly  in  contrast,  often 
presenting opposing compliance rates. It was therefore decided to enrich the analysis by 
directly consult the infrastructure managers. However, in consideration of budget and time 
constraints the consultation was limited to eight Member States in the period between May 
and September 2021.  

Initially, 18 Member States were shortlisted in consideration of their low rate of compliance 
or extensive lack of data with respect to the parameter “standard combined transport profile 
number for semi-trailers” as reported in the RINF and TENtec databases. These 18 Member 
States,  supposedly  presenting  low  compliance  of  their  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  to 
P400 standard are coloured in either green or blue in Figure 15.  

To shortlist the final eight Member States for in depth analysis, it was considered to prioritise 
countries  presenting  large  networks  and  being  strategic  for  the  EU  intermodal  transport. 
Finally,  it  was  also  considered  to  select  a  balanced  sample  of  Member  States  from  a 
geographic perspective. The eight shortlisted Member States are coloured in green in the 
EU map below (Figure 16). 

Figure 16: List of 8 Member Sates’ network to be further investigated in the present study 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

In-depth analysis of eight strategic countries for the intermodal transport in Europe 

To investigate the status of the network of the eight selected Member States a dedicated 
consultation  was 
Infrastructure  Managers.  The 
consultation,  supported  by  the  RFC  Managing  Directors,  was  aimed  at  collecting  the 
following information: 

launched  with  the  relevant 

local 

•  status of compliance of the network with respect to the "standard combined transport 

profile number for semi-trailers" parameter; 

•  blocking infrastructure elements on non-compliant lines; 
•  past and planned investments and related costs to overcome the limitation. 

Data on the status of compliance of the national infrastructure network have been collected 
for  the  Italian,  Czech,  French,  Spanish,  Slovenian  and  Bulgarian  railway  network.  For 
Romania  and  Poland  the  consultations  were  not  successful  and  therefore  there  is  no 
information available to share.  

In  addition,  infrastructure  managers  from  Italy,  Spain,  Czechia,  France  and  Bulgaria 
provided  some  information  with  regard  planned  investments  to  overcome  the  P400 
limitations  and their  costs.  However,  the  information  does  not  present  the  same  level  of 
detail for all countries. Specifically, for Italy and Spain, it was possible to carry out a more 
in-depth analysis thanks to the information shared  in relation to upgrade-only interventions 
at parameter P400. 

The following sections present the consultation outcome for the investigated countries. 

111 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Bulgaria  

For an in-depth analysis of the Bulgarian railway network, collaboration with the National 
Railway Infrastructure Company (NRIC) was started.   

Based on RINF and TENtec data, the Bulgarian rail network had compliance values of 
7% in the TENtec database and 8% in RINF, quite consistent data that show a critical 
situation for the Bulgarian network in terms of allowing P400 loading gauge. 

From  the  data  provided  by  the  infrastructure  manager,  the  critical  situation  is  fully 
confirmed,  showing  that  the  entire  network  is  currently  not  compliant  with  the  P400 
parameter. The TEN-T core network corridors are currently mainly equipped with P389 
and P364 parameters. Values below P400 indicate the inability to allow the passage of 
semi-trailers to be transported on standard 4m*4m pocket wagons. Figure 17 shows the 
level of compliance to P400 of the Bulgarian TEN-T core network corridors.  

Figure 17: Status of compliance of the Bulgarian TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2021 
(NRIC database) 

Currently, several modernisation works are planned by 2030 involving almost the entire 
Bulgarian  network.  These  interventions  include  also  upgrading  the  network  to  P400, 
bringing the compliance status of the network to 71% by 2030. Other projects concerning 
sections Brusartsi - Mezdra (2037), Mezdra - Sofia (2034), Radomir - Kulata (2034) and 
Ruse - Gorna Oryahovitsa – Dimitrovgrad (2034) are scheduled, but their completion is 
foreseen beyond 2030 and therefore not shown on the map.  

112 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 18: Status of compliance of the Bulgarian TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2030 
(NRIC database) 

2021 
2030 

Table 46: Compliance rates for Bulgaria to P400,  2021 – 2030 

Compliance 
0% 
71% 

Non-compliance 
100% 
29% 

Table  47  shows  the  compliance  rates  of  updated  data  for  Bulgaria  by  TEN-T  core 
network corridors. Bulgaria in particular is crossed only by the Orient/East-Med corridor 
which will therefore have a 100% non-compliance rate in 2021 and 29% in 2030. 

Table 47: Compliance rates for Bulgaria by TEN-T corridors, 2021 – 2030  

2021 
2030 

Corridors 

Orient/East - Med 

Compliance 
0% 
71% 

Non-compliance 
100% 
29% 

Taking into account the above information, Bulgaria's current status presents a low level 
of  compliance with the P400 standard (0%),  with  clear  improvements  by  2030  (71%). 
However, as noted in section 4.5, although many railway sections are not yet certified for 
P400,  they  nonetheless  have  all  the  technical  requirements  to  allow  for  the  transit  of 
intermodal  trains  with  P400  profile. In  this  sense,  a measurement  campaign  could  be 
sufficient  to  certify  compliance  with  the  parameter  "number  of  standard  combined 
transport  profile  for  semi-trailers".  As  proof  of  this,  information  gathered  from  industry 
stakeholders69 on the possibility to operate intermodal trains with a P400 profile shows a 
95% compliance rate on Bulgarian sections, clearly a different scenario. 

69 The European Commission received information from industry stakeholders on the possibility to operate intermodal trains 
with a P400 profile concerning 13 Member States. See Table 1 of Annex 3 where information received by the European 
Commission is summarized.  

113 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Czechia  

Similarly to what has been done for Bulgaria with NRIC, the Czech Rail Infrastructure 
Manager Správa Železnic was contacted to collect additional information on the national 
sections of the TEN-T network.  

Figure 19 shows the level of compliance of the Czechia TEN-T core network corridors.  

Figure 19: Status of compliance of Czechia TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2021 (Správa 
Železnic database) 

As per the updated data, 88% of the Czech sections of the TEN-T core network corridors 
are compliant with the parameter “equal to or greater than P400”. The analysis shows 
that  the  only  sections  that  are  currently  non-compliant  with  respect  to  the  parameter 
“standard combined transport profile number for semi-trailers” are the following: 

•  St. Kolin - Pardubice 
•  Hranice na Morave - Horni Lidec / Luky pod Makytou 
•  Praha Hla ni nadrazi - Praha Vrsovice 
•  Brno node (Modřice - Brno hlavní nádraží, Brno hlavní nádraží - Brno-Maloměřice 

st.6 and Brno-Černovice odbočk - Brno hlavní nádraží).  

From the information provided in the consultation phase with the Infrastructure Manager, 
it  was  indicated  that  the  Praha-Vršovice/Praha  hlavní  nádraží  line  is  scheduled  to  be 
upgraded to P400 by 2030. In addition, the TEN-T CNC 2021 Project List also includes 
a project for the construction of a new high-speed line on the Praha <--> Usti n. Labem 
II section. These additional interventions bring the compliance level of Czechia’s network 
to 89%. 

114 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 20: Status of compliance of Czechia TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2030 (Správa 
Železnic database) 

2021 
2030 

Table 48: Compliance rates for Czechia to P400, 2021 - 2030 

Compliance 
88% 
89% 

Non-compliance 
12% 
11% 

Table 49, show slightly different compliance rates values for Czechia’s sections of the 
TEN-T core network corridors. 

Table 49: Compliance rates for Czechia by TEN-T corridors, 2021 - 2030 

2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 

Corridors 

Baltic – Adriatic 

Orient/East-Med 

Rhine – Danube 

Compliance 
89% 
94% 
89% 
92% 
86% 
87% 

Non-compliance 
11% 
6% 
11% 
8% 
14% 
13% 

However, information received from industry operators70 suggest a 95% compliance rate 
for the Czech network on the possibility of running intermodal trains with a P400 profiled. 

70 The European Commission received information from industry stakeholders on the possibility to operate intermodal trains 
with a P400 profile concerning 13 Member States. See Table 1 of Annex 3 where information received by the European 
Commission is summarized.  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

France 

In order to further investigate the compliance status of the French network with respect 
to the P400 profile and identify the most critical areas of the network, a consultation was 
conducted with SNCF reseau, the company in charge of managing and maintaining the 
railway infrastructure in France. 

With the information provided, an analysis of the French TEN-T core network corridors 
was carried out, updating the data in the RINF and TENtec databases, which presented 
high percentages of N.A. sections for France (61% RINF and 100% TENtec), making it 
difficult to fully understand the current state of the French TEN-T core network corridors. 

Figure 21 shows the level of compliance of the French TEN-T core network corridors in 
2021.  

Figure 21: Status of compliance of the French TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2021 (SNCF 
reseau database) 

The processed data show a critical situation for the French network with only 25% of the 
sections  currently  compliant  with  the  parameter  “equal  to  or  greater  than  P400”.  The 
remaining 75% of the sections have a lower profile, making them non-conforming to the 
parameter “standard combined transport profile number for semi-trailers”. 

As can be seen from the image above, the only compliant sections are those listed below: 

•  Calais - Lille 
•  Lille - Somain 
•  Somain - Toul 
•  Toul – Lyon 
•  Lyon – Avignon 

116 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Avignon – Montpellier  
•  Montpellier – Narbonne 
•  Narbonne – Perpignan 
•  Perpignan – Border ES/FR.  

These  sections  amount  to  1  271  km  of  the  5.150  total  network  kilometres,  crossing 
France  from  North  to  South,  down  to  the  Spanish  border.  Other  compliant  sections 
belonging to the comprehensive network and therefore not considered in this analysis 
are  present,  but  always  in  proximity  of  the  sections  listed  above.  Although  the  entire 
central-western  part  of  France,  from  north  to  south,  is  unsuitable  for  the  intermodal 
transport of semitrailers having a profile not compliant with P400 standard, other sections 
of the French network are at least possibly compliant, as per studies made by Railway 
Undertakers of the North Sea Mediterranean CNC in collaboration with the engineering 
department  of  SNCF  Réseau.  The  scope  of  the  study,  which  included  collecting  data 
measures  for  6  French  tunnels  and  2  Swiss  tunnels,  was  to  check  the  real  gauge 
limitation  for  P394 and P400 trains  to circulate on  the  sections  between  Bettembourg 
and Basel. 

By 2030, the compliance status of the French TEN-T core network corridors will increase 
to 46% considering the construction of new railway lines and upgrading of existing ones 
planned on the network.  

In particular, the TEN-T CNC 2021 Project List includes plans for the construction of the 
line Saint Laurent de Mure – Border FR/IT II/Modane (Lyon – Turin) and for the upgrade 
of  the  Strasbourg JCT <-->  Border  F/D  II  /  Bundesgrenze  F/D  (project  to  improve  rail 
accessibility  in  Strasbourg  port).  In  addition,  under  the  assumptions  of  this  report,  all 
sections  planned  to  be  constructed  within  2030  –  for  which  the  compliance  status  is 
unknown – have also been considered compliant to P400. 

Figure 22: Status of compliance of the French TEN-T core network corridors to P400, in 2030 (SNCF 
reseau database) 

117 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

2021 
2030 

Table 50: Compliance rates for France to P400, 2021 - 2030 

Compliance 
20% 
37% 

Non-compliance 
80% 
63% 

Table 51 shows the compliance rates of updated data for France by TEN-T core network 
corridor. 

Table 51: Compliance rates for French by TEN-T corridors, 2021 – 2030  

2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 

Corridors 

Atlantic 

Mediterranean 

North-Sea 
Mediterranean 

Compliance 
2% 
14% 
48% 
66% 
49% 
52% 

Non-compliance 
98% 
86% 
52% 
34% 
51% 
48% 

118 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Italy 

With the aim of verifying the Italian railway network compliance status with respect to the 
parameter  “standard  combined  transport  profile  number  for  semi-trailers”,  Rete 
Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A. (hereinafter RFI) was contacted and an in-depth analysis was 
performed on the Italian TEN-T core network corridors. 

The analysis was carried out investigating the PIR database (Prospetto Informativo della 
Rete) - prepared by RFI - and comparing it with the data included in TENtec and RINF 
databases.  

Figure  23  shows  the  updated  level  of  compliance  of  the  Italian  TEN-T  core  network 
corridors in 2021.  

Figure 23: Status of compliance of the Italian TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2021 (RFI 
database) 

As depicted in the map, most of the sections are currently non-compliant with the P400 
parameter (57% of the network is equipped with a lower parameter). More specifically, 
the following consideration can be highlighted: 

• 

the whole Southern-Italy TEN-T core network corridors is non-compliant, except 
for the Napoli -Roma section; 

•  Central-Italy  also  has  a  critically  low  status  of  compliance.  Only  the  Livorno  -
Bologna and Ancona - Bologna sections are currently compliant with P400; 
•  North-Eastern Italy shows the highest percentage of compliance, with most lines 
already equipped with P400 or a higher profile. In particular, the sections Verona 
–  Vicenza  –  Padova  (conventional  line),  Bologna  –  Verona,  Venezia  –  Trieste 
(conventional line), Cervignano del Friuli - Austrian border and Verona – Fortezza 

119 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

• 

–      Brennero  are  currently  compliant  with  the  parameter  “standard  combined 
transport profile number for semi-trailers”; 
in  the  North-West,  the  lines  currently  compliant  with  P400  are  the  Verona  – 
Brescia – Milano (conventional line), Milano and Novara nodes, and the Milano – 
Novara – Torino line. 

•  As it can be seen from Table 52, the current compliance status of the Italian TEN-
T  core  network  corridors  is  around  40%  whereas  60%  of  the  network  is  still 
equipped with a profile lower than P400. The percentage of N/A sections, as a 
result of the consultation with the Italian Infrastructure manager, is now nil since 
information was collected for all the lines. 

Taking into consideration the “Piano Commerciale 2021”71 and the projects included in 
the TEN-T CNC Project List 2021, by 2030 the following lines will be updated, increasing 
overall Italian network compliance rate: 

•  Pisa – La Spezia (Livorno – La Spezia – Civitavecchia)  
•  Arona – Domodossola – (Gallarate)  
•  Bologna – Firenze  
•  Firenze node  
•  Bari – Taranto  
•  Salerno – Rosarno 
•  Milano – Tortona (Terzo Valico entrance)  
•  Ravenna Port railway connections  

The new construction lines that will be built with a profile equal to or greater than P400 
are: 

•  Treviglio – Verona Porta Nuova (High Speed) 
•  Vicenza – Padova (High Speed) 
•  Verona – Vicenza (High Speed) 
•  Orbassano – Avigliana 
•  Lyon – Turin railway line (cross border section) 
•  Napoli – Foggia – Bari 
•  Tortona – Genova (Terzo Valico) 

71https://www.rfi.it/content/dam/rfi/chi-siamo/piano-commerciale/edizione-feb 

2021/Piano%20Commerciale_ed_feb_2021.pdf 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 24: Status of compliance of the Italian TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2030 

As a result of the above-mentioned planned interventions, the compliance status of the 
Italian  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  will  increase  from  43%  to  81%,  with  a  clear 
improvement also in the southern part of the peninsula.  

2021 
2030 

Table 52: Compliance rates for Italy to P400, 2021 - 2030 

Compliance 
43% 
81% 

Non-compliance 
57% 
19% 

Table 53 shows the compliance rates of updated data for Italy by TEN-T core network 
corridor.  

Table 53: Compliance rates to P400 for Italy by TEN-T corridors, 2021-2030 

2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 

Corridors 

Baltic – Adriatic 

Mediterranean 

Scandinavian - 
Mediterranean 

Rhine – Alpine 

Compliance 
66% 
98% 
54% 
93% 
27% 
63% 
50% 
57% 

Non-compliance 
44% 
2% 
46% 
7% 
73% 
37% 
50% 
43% 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Slovenia 

The update procedure conducted for the other states was also repeated for Slovenia and 
was accompanied by cooperation with Slovenske železnice – Infrastruktura, the Slovenia 
Infrastructure Manager.  

The analysis of the RINF and TENtec databases revealed strongly conflicting data (RINF 
0%  compliance  and  100%  N/A,  TENtec  48%  compliance  and  0%  N/A),  which  did  not 
allow a correct understanding of the current situation on the Slovenian network. Further 
investigation was therefore necessary in view also of Slovenia's strategic position in the 
European network. 

The data collected and processed show that the Slovenian TEN-T core network corridors 
have a very good level of compliance with respect to the parameter “standard combined 
transport profile number for semi-trailers”, with a percentage of 100% which corresponds 
to 451 km of network. 

Figure 25 shows the level of compliance of the Slovenian TEN-T core network corridors.  

Figure 25: Status of compliance of the Slovenian TEN-T core network corridors in 2021 (Slovenske 
železnice – Infrastruktura database) 

The following lines are also planned to be completed by 2030 and will be equipped with 
a profile equal to or greater than the P400: 

•  Divaca - Koper 
•  Sezana (border IT/SLO) - Divaca 
•  Divaca - Postojna 
•  Postojna – Ljubljana 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 26: Status of compliance of the Slovenian TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2030 
(Slovenske železnice databases) 

2021 
2030 

Table 54: Compliance rates for Slovenia to P400,  2021 - 2030 

Compliance 
100% 
100% 

Non-compliance 
0% 
0% 

Table  55  shows  the  compliance  rates  of  updated  data  for  Slovenia  by  TEN-T  core 
network. 

Table 55: Compliance rates for Czechia by TEN-T corridors, 2021 – 2030  

2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 

Corridors 

Baltic – Adriatic 

Mediterranean 

Compliance 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

Non-compliance 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Spain 

The analysis of the RINF and TENtec databases described above showed a high level of 
criticality  for  the  Spanish  network  with  respect  to  the  parameter  “standard  combined 
transport  profile  number  for  semi-trailers”.  Both  databases,  accordingly,  reveal  a 
compliance rate of 0% and 44/26% of N/A sections. The use of different profiles from the 
standard  ones  is  very  frequent,  with  considerable  difficulties  of  integration  with  the 
European  network.  Considering  the  extension  of  the  railway  network,  the  Spanish 
infrastructure  manager  ADIF  was  contacted  to  collect  additional  information  on  the 
Spanish TEN-T core network corridors. 

The analysis of the collected data confirmed the low level of compliance of the Spanish 
TEN-T core network corridors, with only 300 km of network equipped with a profile equal 
to or higher than P400, corresponding to 6% of the total network. 

Figure 27 shows the level of compliance of the Spanish TEN-T core network corridors.  

Figure 27: Status of compliance of the Spanish TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2021 (ADIF 
database) 

Currently,  the  only  two  compliant  lines  are  the  Barcelona  (Morrot  and  Can  Tunis 
terminals) - French Border new line, passing through Girona, and the La Coruña – Vigo 
line, in the North-West of Spain. The latter line is completely isolated from the other P400 
lines but development plans for the Atlantic CNC alignment could bring connections to 
this line. 

By 2030, the conventional line Zaragoza – Algeciras passing through the Madrid node 
will be upgraded to P400. In addition, the new construction lines La Pola – La Seca (tùnel 
de Pajares) and Pantoja – Càceres – Badajoz will comply with the parameter “standard 
combined  transport  profile  number  for  semi-trailers”  by  2030.  This  will  increase  the 
compliance of the Spanish TEN-T core network corridors from 4% to 25%.  

124 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 28: Status of compliance of the Spanish TEN-T core network corridors to P400 in 2030 (ADIF 
database) 

2021 
2030 

Table 56: Compliance rates for Spain to P400, 2021 – 2030 

Compliance 
6% 
26% 

Non-compliance 
94% 
74% 

In  the  assessment  of  the  compliance  status  of  the  Spanish  network  in  2030,  only  the 
currently planned interventions have been considered. However, consultations with the 
infrastructure manager ADIF revealed that the ultimate goal remains to have a fully P400 
compliant  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  for  freight  transport  by  2030,  therefore  an 
investment plan aimed to overcome the limitations is currently under study. 

Table 57 shows the compliance rates of updated data for Spain by TEN-T core network 
corridor. 

Table 57: Compliance rates for Spain by TEN-T corridors, 2021 – 2030  

2021 
2030 
2021 
2030 

Corridors 

Atlantic 

Mediterranean 

Compliance 
5% 
31% 
6% 
34% 

Non-compliance 
95% 
69% 
94% 
66% 

Total kilometres of TEN-T Core network corridor sections that do not meet the P400 
standard  

After having analysed the RINF and the TENtec databases and having conducted a direct 
consultation  on  infrastructure  managers  of  eight  Member  States,  the  precise  number  of 
kilometres  of  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  to  be  upgraded  to  parameter  P400  remains 
unknown  and  difficult  to  estimate,  because,  as  shown  in  the  previous  sections,  data 
provided by different sources generally differs or is incomplete.  

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

However, for the purpose of this assignment, different considerations and assumptions can 
be made in order to come up with a rough estimation of the number of kilometres that would 
require to be upgraded to comply with the P400 parameter. 

On one hand, for Member States whose infrastructure managers were reached by the direct 
consultation, the level of compliance of the network and the corresponding kilometres to be 
upgraded  to  P400  were  determined  considering  accurate  data  validated  directly  by  the 
infrastructure managers.  

On  the  other  hand,  for  Member  States  that  were  not  involved  in  the  consultations  with 
infrastructure  managers,  the  level  of  compliance  of  the  network  and  the  corresponding 
kilometres to be upgraded to P400 were assumed to be as reported in the TENtec database. 
TENtec data was preferred to RINF data because the later does not provide information on 
the corridor to which each section belong. Finally, sections for which compliance to P400 is 
unknown were assumed to be not compliant.  

Table 58 below provides for the estimation of the number of kilometres of the TEN-T core 
network corridors that are not certified for the P400 profile.  

Table 58: Estimation of the kilometres of TEN-T core network corridors not codified for the P400 
profile or above 

Compliance analysis 

8 Member States 
involved in IMs 
consultation  

Other Member States 

Total 

Length of the 
corridors [km] 

Corridor length not 
codified for P400 
profile [km] 

Corridor length 
not codified for 
P400 profile [%] 

17 943 

24 297 

42 240 

12 694 

9 312 

22 006 

71% 

38% 

52% 

As presented in Table 58 above, there are 22 006 km of network that should be upgraded 
in order to be certified for the P400 profile. However, this figure is likely to be overestimated 
for  two  reasons.  Firstly, it  is  unknown if  all  of  these  sections for  which P400 compliance 
data is not available are actually not compliant. Secondly, it is the case that quite often lines 
that are not certified for the P400 profile are actually already in use by the rail industry for 
the operation of intermodal trains with P400 profile.  

Indeed, as explained in Task 3.5, many railway sections are not certified for P400, but have 
all the technical requirements to allow the passage of intermodal trains with P400 profile. In 
this  respect,  a  measurement  campaign  could  be  sufficient  to certify  compliance  with  the 
parameter “standard combined transport profile number for semi-trailers”.  

The  European  Commission  received  information  from  industry  stakeholders  on  the 
possibility to operate intermodal trains with a P400 profile concerning 13 Member States. 
This information was used to review the number of kilometres of the TEN-T core network 
corridors currently not codified for P400 profile.72. Table 59 below present the estimation of 
the  kilometres  of  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  not  allowing  the  operation  of  intermodal 
trains with P400 profile or above.  

72 Please see Table 1 of Annex 3 where information received by the European Commission is summarized.  

126 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 59: Estimation of the kilometres of TEN-T core network corridors not allowing the operation of 
intermodal trains with P400 profile or above 

Compliance analysis 

Length of the 
corridors [km] 

Corridor length not 
allowing the 
operation of P400 
profile trains [km] 

Corridor length 
not allowing the 
operation of P400 
profile trains [%] 

8 Member States 
involved in IMs 
consultation  

Other Member States 

Total 

17 943 

24 297 

42 240 

11 560 

3 319 

14 879 

64% 

14% 

35% 

As estimated in Table 59, there are 14 879 km of TENT core network corridors would require 
infrastructural works on some parts of their length (where blocking infrastructure elements, 
like tunnels, are located)  for allowing the operation of intermodal trains with a P400 profile. 
This figure is significantly lower than the 22 006 of kilometres of the TEN-T core network 
corridors that are not certified for the P400 profile (see Table 58). 

Still,  it  should  be  considered  that  the  length  of  network  actually  requiring  infrastructural 
upgrade  might  be  even  shorter  than  what  has  been  reported  in  Table  59,  because  the 
information received by the European Commission covered only 13 Member States out of 
the 27 presenting a rail network. 

Using the same information and assumptions as for the estimation reported on Table 59 
above,  it  is  possible  to  estimate  the  number  of  kilometres  of  each  TEN-T  core  network 
corridor  that  require  infrastructural  works  on  some  parts  of  their  length  for  allowing  the 
operation  of  intermodal  trains  with  a  P400  profile  (see  Table  60).  Sections  overlapping 
between two or more corridors have been included in the calculation of each corridor.  

Table 60: Estimation of the kilometres of TEN-T core network corridor not allowing the operation of 
intermodal trains with P400 profile or above by corridor 

TEN-T Corridor 

Length of the 
corridors [km] 

Corridor length not 
allowing the 
operation of P400 
profile trains [km] 

Corridor length 
not allowing the 
operation of P400 
profile trains [%] 

Atlantic   

Baltic - Adriatic 

Mediterranean 

North Sea - Baltic 

North 
Mediterranean 

Sea 

Orient/East - Med 

Rhine - Alpine 

Rhine - Danube 

Scandinavian 
Mediterranean 

- 

- 

5 762 

4 212 

7 858 

4 871 

4 461 

5 636 

3 258 

5 505 

8 756 

5 625 

413 

5 552 

291 

3 262 

1 043 

1 110 

360 

2 401 

98% 

10% 

71% 

6% 

73% 

19% 

34% 

7% 

27% 

As reported in Table 60, the Atlantic corridor is the one presenting the largest number of 
kilometres not allowing operation of intermodal trains.  

127 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Other  corridors  requiring  extensive  upgrade  of  their  infrastructure  are  the  Mediterranean 
corridor and the North Sea - Mediterranean corridor.   

4.7 Total  investment  to  remove  barriers/  blockades/  limitations  on  TEN-T  core 

network corridors for loading unit (taking into account current initiatives) 

The  aim  of this  section  is  to  estimate  the  cost  of  investment  needed to remove  barriers, 
blockades and other sort of limitations on the TEN-T core network corridors for allowing the 
operation of intermodal trains. For this study, it is proposed to be achieved by multiplying 
the  kilometres  of  network  not  allowing  the  operation  of  freight  trains  presenting  a  P400 
profile by a unit cost per kilometre.  

Ideally, the calculation should consider the specific type of limitations to be overcome on a 
line  section  requiring  upgrade,  as  well  as  specific  unit  costs  per  type  of  infrastructure 
limitation to be removed (taking into account that some limitations may be removed without 
substantial costs). However, the analysis carried out under Task 3.6 did not allow for the 
identification of the critical areas of the TEN-T core network corridors with specification of 
the infrastructure limitations (tunnels, bridges, water levels etc.). Nevertheless, as part of 
Task 3.6, it was roughly estimated that 14 879 km of corridor lines do not allow the operation 
of freight trains presenting a P400 profile.   

Hence, next sections will focus on the review of different sources of  information with the 
aim  of  collecting  materials  that  can  be  used  for  estimating  a  generalised  unit  cost  per 
kilometre for the infrastructural upgrade of network to allow for the operation of trains with 
a P400 profile.   

The upcoming section analyses the description and cost of projects included in the 2021 
Project List of the TENT core network corridors and upgrading the loading gauge. 

The  section  after  the  next  reports  on  relevant  loading  gauge  upgrade  projects  and  their 
costs collected through the consultation with infrastructure managers. 

Analysis of projects included in the 2021 TEN-T CNC Project List 

The  TEN-T  CNC  Project  Lists  (PLs)  are  the  main  tool  for  the  European  Commission  to 
monitor the  progress  of the  corridor  development.  Each  of  the  nine  TEN-T corridors  has 
elaborated  a  list  of  projects  that  are  relevant  to  complete  the  TEN-T  Core  network  in 
accordance with Reg. (EU) 2013/1315 and 2013/1316.  

The updating process of the nine PLs takes place once a year and requires the collaboration 
of infrastructure managers and Member State representatives. The information collected is 
then  consolidated  into  a  single  PL  for  all  nine  corridors  and  published  by  the  European 
Commission. 

For the purpose of this study, the latest available version of the TEN-T CNC Project List 
was used, which was published in May 2021. The overall list containing projects from all 
Member States was then filtered to highlight only those projects that insist on achieving the 
intermodal gauge parameter (P400 profile).  

Annex  3  summarises  the  main  information  of  the  36  projects  related  to  achieving  the 
compliance with the P400 profile, including project description, completion date and cost. 
Considering the projects presented in the annex a breakdown of costs by TEN-T corridor is 
presented in the Figure 31.  

128 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 29: Breakdown of network upgrade costs to P400 by TEN-T corridor [M€] 

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

28.756

19.949

11.977

d
e
M

t
s
a
E

-
t
n
e
i
r

O

8.243

7.020

i

-
n
a
v
a
n
d
n
a
c
S

i

n
a
e
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
e
M

i

e
n
p
A

l

-
e
n
h
R

i

50

c
i
t
n
a
l
t

A

50

-
a
e
S
h
t
r
o
N

n
a
e
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
e
M

e
b
u
n
a
D
-
e
n
h
R

i

891

c
i
t
a
i
r
d
A
-
c
i
t
l
a
B

0

c
i
t
l
a
B

-
a
e
S
h
t
r
o
N

n
a
e
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
e
M

The overall cost of those projects is 76 936 M€. However, this cost is of little use for the 
purpose  of  this  study  because  the  displayed  costs  by  corridors  in  most  cases  cover  for 
several interventions not only related to the P400 parameter. More specifically, only 4 out 
of the 36 projects are specifically focused on the upgrade of the infrastructure to the P400 
parameter. Hence, their cost can be specifically associated with the upgrade to the P400 
parameter. For the remaining projects the cost for upgrading to the parameter “standard 
combined transport profile number for semi-trailers” cannot be isolated. 

Analysis of projects collected during consultations with the infrastructure managers 

As  mentioned  above,  infrastructure  managers  from  Italy,  Spain,  Czechia,  France  and 
Bulgaria provided some information with regard planned investments to overcome the P400 
limitations and their costs. Nevertheless, only for Italy and Spain, it was possible to carry 
out a more in-depth analysis thanks to the information shared in relation to upgrade-only 
interventions at parameter P400. 

Italy:  The  project  concerns  the  Valico  Luino,  the  border  crossing  between  Italy  and 
Switzerland, with the reclassification from P/C 50 coding to P/C 80 coding of the entire line 
by 2021. 

Specifically, the lines involved are:  

•  Oleggio - Pino Tronzano (simple track) – 64 km; 
•  Laveno – Gallarate (simple track) – 31 km 
•  Sesto Calende - Gallarate - Busto Arsizio (double track) - 25 km 

Characteristics: 

•  94 km of the line is single track  
•  24 km is double track  
•  Electrified line. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 30: Lines under intervention

The project also includes:  

•  upgrading to 750m train  length at Ispra, Laveno, Luino, Porto Valtravaglia and 

Pino T 
implementation of ACC in Laveno, Luino, Maccagno and Pino T 

• 
•  Level Crossing suppression.  

Main interventions: 

•  22 single-track tunnels of which:  

o  N°9 < 500 m 
o  N°9 > 500 m  
o  N°2 > 1 000 m 
o  N°2 > 2 000 m  

lowering of the railway level 
rigid catenary on the Sesto Calinda bridge 

• 
• 
•  5-arch overpass at Busto Arsizio 
•  minor works.  

Planned costs: 205 million, of which 120 million for the PC80/410 profile.  
Time: 2015 - 2021 

Spain:  Since  December  2019,  Adif  is  analysing  the  following  corridors  in  relation  to  the 
costs of upgrading to the standard parameter for intermodal transport: 

•  Madrid – Valencia (300 km) 
•  Zaragoza – Madrid – Algeciras (730 km) 
•  Mediterranean Corridor (1 300km) 

130 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 31: Corridors under analysis 

Estimated costs: 

For  the  corridor  Zaragoza  –  Madrid  –  Algeciras,  the  analysis  took  into  account  the 
interference of the tunnels and overbridges present in the corridor, identifying the relevant 
interventions needed and the estimated costs. 

For  tunnels,  estimated  budget  considering  5  200€/m  of  interference  setting  a  minimum 
amount  of  500  000€/tunnel.  This  estimate  only  takes  into  account  civil  works,  therefore 
interventions to the signalling system, electrification and other works are not included. 

For  overbridges,  the  estimated  budget varies  between 200  000€  -  800  000  €/overbridge 
depending on: 

•  Platform lowering / bridge raising. 
•  Single track line / double track line. 

Specifically, there are many different types of interventions in tunnels to increase clearance 
gauge: 

•  Punctual increase of clearance (3 400 €/m according to SNCF Works - Poitiers 

tunnel).  

•  Platform lowering. Depending on the Depth and geotechnical conditions. 
•  Tunnel enlargement. Conventional methods (9 000 -12 000 €/m depending on 

traffic interruption time, 8 hours/day or 24 hours/day and other conditions). New 
methods TIT Tunnel in Tunnel method / TEM Tunnel Enlargement Machine (14 
000 €/m + 8mill € preliminary works at the frontal) 

•  Other systems affecting capacity; a third track laid on the middle of the tunnel. 

131 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

In  general  terms,  preliminary  cost  analysis  of  the  tunnel,  overbridges  and  stations 
interventions considering rigid catenary in some tunnel lead to an overall estimate for the 
upgrade operation according to the selected profile of: 

GEC16 
196 100 000 € 

AF 4.0 IP 
41 100 000 € 

GEB16 
26 100 000 € 

Czechia: With regard to the planned interventions in Czechia for upgrading the network to 
the P400 parameter, currently the only planned intervention concerns section Praha Hla ni 
nadrazi - Praha Vrsovice. The estimated cost for the overall reconstruction is 163.048.271 
€. However, it is not possible to isolate costs for P400 compliance. 

France:  For  France  a  total  raw  cost  of  upgrading  to  the  parameter  “standard  combined 
transport profile number for semi-trailers” was estimated at €1.6 billion for 130 tunnels. The 
length of the network that requires upgrade was not provided.  

Assessment of the total investment required to upgrade the TEN-T network to P400 
parameter 

The analysis of the 2021 TEN-T CNC Project List and of the projects collected throughout 
the consultation of the infrastructure managers allowed for the identification of three projects 
that can be used as input for calculating a generalised unit cost per kilometre to upgrade 
the  network  to  P400  level.  These  projects  were  selected  because  they  provide  for  the 
number of kilometres of line that need to be upgraded and specific cost of intervention for 
upgrading the infrastructure to enable the operation of trains with a P400 profile. The three 
projects are:  

•  The upgrade to P400 of the Valico Luino has a total cost of € 120 million. The 

section involved has a total length of 118 km, of which 94 km is single track and 24 
km double track. By dividing the total cost of the operation by the total kilometres, 
a unit cost per kilometre of 1 million €/km was obtained. 

•  The upgrade of the Zaragoza - Madrid - Algeciras corridor to the P400 has a total 
estimated cost of 196 million €, considering the length of the corridor of 730 km, 
the unit cost per km is equal to 268 000 €/km. 

•  The P400 loading gauge upgrade project on the railway access from Milan/Novara 

to Genoa has a total cost of 35 million €. The sections involved are Novara - 
Alessandria - Novi Ligure and Milano – Pavia – Tortona, with a total length of 166 
km. The unit cost per kilometres is therefore equal to 210 000 €/km 

Considering  the  above-mentioned  projects,  a  cost  range  between  210  000  €/km  and  1 
million €/km was derived. The cost range is particularly wide and is strongly influenced by 
the orographic condition, the morphology of the area, the number of tunnels and their length. 
As an example, the Valico Luino project presents a very high unit cost of 1 million €/km, 
due to the fact that it is a cross-border section with critical orographic conditions and around 
15 km of tunnel.  

These unit costs per kilometre of network to be upgraded were calculated with reference to 
the kilometres of the sections were the limitations (e.g. tunnels, bridges, shelters, etc.) are 
encountered. It is very important to note that, typically, not all kilometre of a section actually 
need to be upgraded.   

With  the  aim  of  estimating  the  total  investment  necessary  to  remove  the  identified 
limitations, three possible cost scenarios for the upgrade to P400 were established: 

132 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  210 000 €/km = low scenario 
•  344 000 €/km = medium scenario 
•  1 million €/km = high scenario 

The medium scenario was derived taking into consideration the weighted average of the 
cost values of the projects selected for cost estimation analysis against their length (km). 

For  each  of  the  three  scenarios,  the  total  costs  of  overcoming  the  criticalities  of  the  rail 
network  were  calculated  by  multiplying  the  respective  unit  cost  by  the  kilometres  of  the 
network to be upgraded previously identified in task 3.6.  

Considering  the  estimation  of  number  of  kilometres  not  allowing  the  operation  of  freight 
trains presenting a P400 profile (see Table 59 in Task 3.6), it is possible to calculate the 
expected overall investment cost to upgrade the entire TEN-T core network corridors (see 
Table 61). 

Table 61: Cost scenarios to upgrade the TEN-T CNC network to allow for the operation of trains with a 
P400 profile 

Low scenario 
Unit cost:  
210 000 €/km 

Medium 
scenario  
Unit cost  
344 000 €/km 

High Scenario 
Unit cost  
1 000 000 €/km 

Corridor length 
to be upgraded 
[km] 

Upgrading cost 
[M€] 

Upgrading cost 
[M€] 

Upgrading cost 
[m€] 

11 560 

2 428 

3 977 

11 560 

8 Member States 
involved in IMs 
consultation 

Other Member 
States 

3 319 

697 

Total 

14 879 

3 124 

1 142 

5 118 

3 319 

14 879 

According to these calculations an estimate of the total costs of upgrading the entire TEN-
T  core  network  corridors  to  allow  for  the  operation  of  trains  with  a  P400  profile  ranges 
between 3 124 M€ and 14 879 M€. According to the Medium scenario the overall cost would 
be equal to 5 118 M€. These cost estimations should be used cautiously because they are 
based on the assumption that each kilometre has to be upgraded. Moreover they are based 
on  unit  costs  derived  from  a  very  limited  number  of  projects.  The  availability  of  cost 
information on a larger number of relevant project could improve significantly the reliability 
of the calculated unit costs. 

Furthermore, it is important to underline that projects collected in the consultation phase 
with  the  infrastructure  managers  regards  cases  of  hard  infrastructure  upgrade  to  P400 
standard. However, in some cases, lighter interventions, such as repositioning of signals or 
shelters, or limited to few kilometres affected by blocking elements, or even re-codification, 
might be sufficient. Unfortunately, information on the cost of this type of intervention was 
not identified, therefore the unit cost ranges provided above might be excessive if applied 
to network sections that require light interventions. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

4.8 Overview  of  TEN-T  core  network,  including  breakdown  per  TEN-T  corridor  or 

parts of it, where network capacity problems exist today 

While  precise  information  on  capacity  problems  for  the  core  network  does  not  exist  in  a 
comprehensive  source,  the  Work  Plans  of  the  European  Coordinators  for  the  nine  Core 
Network  Corridors  and  in  particular  the  corresponding  Corridor  Studies  are  expected  to 
include such analysis for the different modes per corridor. The results of the analysis of the 
Corridor Study update 2 of spring 2021 is presented in Annex 2. 

The  individual  corridor  studies  have  approached  the  question  in  differing  ways  and  to 
different extents and the results have been processed differently. Furthermore, the capacity 
of linear infrastructures is only a minor aspect of these studies, therefore, a comprehensive 
and comparable analysis of the different corridors is difficult, however, the following general 
statements can be derived regarding the most impactful and critical capacity constraints: 

•  The largest capacity limitations exist on the north-south corridors crossing the 

Alps, and their access lines.  

•  Additionally, in the hinterland of Belgian, Dutch and German seaports freight trains 

are suffering from capacity constraints of the rail infrastructure.  

•  Finally, within urban nodes, where far distance passenger trains, regional and 

commuter trains as well as freight trains are using almost the same infrastructure 
capacity problems exist and require careful consideration of the competing 
priorities between passenger and freight transport. 

Most analysis focused on rail, while also road capacity limitations exist in urban areas for 
the same reason. Capacity issues for inland waterway and short sea shipping, the two other 
modes of transport relevant for this study, are mentioned only at very specific places where 
locks need to be improved. 

For many of those issues corresponding infrastructure upgrades or new built projects have 
already been identified and are included in the Work Plans of the European Coordinators. 

4.9 Total  cost  of  removing  network  limitations  per  TEN-T  corridor  (terminals, 

infrastructure, etc.) 

The main objective of this task is to estimate the total cost of removing network limitations 
per  each  TEN-T  corridor  by  considering  both  the  costs  of  upgrading  the  Core  Network 
Corridors  to  P400  parameter  and  the  costs  for  the  upgrade  and  construction  of  new 
terminals. This task builds on the outcomes of Task 3.4 and Task 3.7. 

Investment into the upgrading of the infrastructure 

The cost of upgrading the TEN-T Core Network Corridors to allow the operation of P400 
profile  trains  can  be  estimated  by  multiplying  the  number  of  kilometres  not  allowing  the 
operation of freight trains presenting a P400 profile (see Table 60 in Task 3.6) by the unit 
cost per kilometre for the low, medium and high cost scenarios (see Table 61). However, in 
this section of the report only the Medium unit cost scenario is considered.  

Table 62 shows the costs of upgrading the rail network to allow the operation of intermodal 
trains broken down by TEN-T corridor according to the Medium unit cost scenario.  

134 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 62: Total cost of upgrading each TEN-T Core Network Corridor to allow the operation of P400 
profile trains 

TEN-T Corridor 

Corridor length to 
be upgraded [%] 

Corridor length to 
be upgraded [km] 

Upgrading Cost [M€] 

Atlantic  

Baltic-Adriatic  

Mediterranean  

North Sea-Baltic  

North Sea-
Mediterranean  

Orient/East-Med  

Rhine-Alpine  

Rhine-Danube  

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

98% 

10% 

71% 

6% 

73% 

19% 

34% 

7% 

27% 

5 625 

413 

5 552 

291 

3 262 

1 043 

1 110 

360 

2 401 

1 935 

142 

1 910 

100 

1 122 

359 

382 

124 

826 

The  Atlantic  corridor  rail  network  is  the  one  currently  requiring  the  highest  upgrade 
investment cost to comply with the parameter “standard combined transport profile number 
for semi-trailers”; the Atlantic Corridor runs through Spain and France, countries with low 
compliance  rates.  It  is  closely  followed  by  the  Mediterranean  Corridor,  which  runs  from 
Spain  to  Hungary  via  northern  Italy,  and the  North  Sea  -  Mediterranean  Corridor,  which 
crosses Europe north to south from Belgium and the Netherlands to southern France. 

Investment into new terminals 

This second part of the analysis aims at identifying the investment costs associated with 
the construction of new intermodal terminals to make each technology fully operational in 
all TEN-T Core Network Corridors.  

A  mapping  of  intermodal  terminals  by  type  of  transhipment  technology  in  Europe  is 
presented  in  Task  3.4.  Specifically,  Table  42  identifies  the  Corridors  of  the  TEN-T  Core 
Network where terminals with specific transhipment technologies handling certain types of 
loading units are available. The following considerations can be made from the results of 
this analysis: 

•  Vertical  transhipment  technology  are  currently  present  in  all  corridors.  Therefore, 
these technologies  are  considered  to  be  fully  operational  and the  construction  of 
new dedicated terminals equipped with such transhipment technology is considered 
not necessary for the network operation. The same consideration can be made for 
RoRo Ramp to/from Ship.  
It is currently not possible to map the exact location on TEN-T corridors of Sidelifter 
and BOXMover transhipment technologies. These technologies are mainly used as 
supporting  equipment  in  intermodal  terminals  and not  as the  main  technology  for 
rail-road transhipment. Therefore, there is no need for dedicated terminals as these 
technologies can be easily integrated into existing intermodal terminals.   

• 

•  Terminal equipped with Mobiler (Rail Cargo Austria) are not exactly located, though 
this technology appears to be available in the Baltic-Adriatic, Orient/East - Med and 
Rhine-Danube Corridors. Therefore, for the remaining Corridors the integration of 
this technology is required in existing intermodal terminals or in the construction of 
new terminals. 

135 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Container  Mover  3020,  Cargo  Beamer  next  generation  and  Modalohr  UIC  are 
currently  only  present  in  few  Corridors.  For  the  remaining  Corridors,  specific 
dedicated terminals are required to make the technology fully operational. 

•  Helrom technology was removed from our analysis and therefore the construction 

of dedicated terminals will not be explored further. 

•  The Flexiwaggon technology does not require dedicated terminals and can be easily 

integrated within the existing intermodal terminals network.  

•  Finally, the Nikrasa, ISU and r2l 2.0 technologies, although not currently present in 
all corridors, do not require the construction of new terminals, but can be integrated 
into existing intermodal terminals where vertical technologies such as gantry cranes 
and or reach stackers are in use. 

In order to roughly estimate the minimum investment needed in new terminals, the following 
assumption were adopted:  

• 

• 

It was assumed that at least two terminals per corridor per each technology should 
be  present.  This  requirement  is  the  minimum  condition  to  make  each  technology 
fully operational in all TEN-T Core Network Corridors. According to this requirement 
it  is  therefore  foreseen  that  in  corridors  that  are  not  yet  equipped  with  a  specific 
technology, as minimum two dedicated terminals are built at the beginning and at 
the end of the corridor.  
It was furthermore assumed that per each technology a terminal should be available 
every 850km of corridor.73  

Based on these assumptions, Table 63 provides for the minimum number of terminals per 
technology that each TEN-T corridor should have. Overall, a minimum of 68 terminals per 
technology are required.  

Table 63: Minimum number of terminals required per technology and per TEN-T corridor.  

TEN-T Corridor 

Atlantic  

Baltic-Adriatic  

Mediterranean  

North Sea-Baltic  

North Sea-Mediterranean  

Orient/East-Med  

Rhine-Alpine  

Rhine-Danube  

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

Total  

Length of the network 
[km] 

Minimum number of 
terminals per 
technology 

5 762 

4 212 

7 858 

4 871 

4 461 

5 636 

3 258 

5 505 

8 756 

- 

8 

6 

10 

7 

6 

8 

5 

7 

11 

68 

73 Under Task 1.2 two intermodal chain scenarios are proposed. The second scenario implies that a 
typical door-to-door intermodal chain is 1000 km long, which can be further split into one leg of 
850km by train and two last mile legs by road of 75km each. 

136 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

As  regards  the  technologies  to  be  implemented,  the  following  four  transhipment 
technologies are not available in each corridor and should therefore be provided by building 
new dedicated terminals: 

•  Mobiler; 
•  Container Mover 3020; 
•  Cargo Beamer; 
•  Modalohr UIC; 

Overall  terminals  cost  is  composed  of  the  construction  of  a  new  terminal  including 
infrastructure and superstructure: to calculate it, the unit cost from sub-task 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 
are  considered  and  multiplied  with  the  number  of  new  terminals.  Table  64  identifies  the 
number of new terminals required per each corridor and transhipment technologies and the 
associated unit investment cost per terminal type.  

Table 64: Investment costs into new terminals 

Corridors to be improved 

Number of 
new terminals 

Building unit 
costs [M€] 

Transhipment 
Technologies 

Mobiler 

Container 
Mover 3020 

Atlantic,  North  Sea-Med,  Mediterranean, 
Rhine-Alpine, North Sea Baltic, Scan-Med 

Atlantic,  Baltic-Adriatic,  Mediterranean, 
North  Sea-Med,  Rhine-Danube,  Scan-
Med 

Cargo Beamer  Atlantic, Orient East-Med, Rhine-Danube, 

Scan-Med 

Modalohr UIC 

Atlantic,  Orient  East-Med,  Rhine-Alpine, 
Rhine-Danube, Scan-Med 

Total 

47 

49 

34 

39 

169 

6 

6 

38 

19 

- 

As per the results of the analysis above, 169 new terminals for a total investment cost of 
roughly 2 617 million of € is needed. 

Summing up the construction costs of the new terminals with those of upgrading the entire 
TEN-T  Core  network  corridors  for  the  operation  of  P400  profile  trains,  leads  to  a  total 
investment cost of almost 8 billion of €. This investment is necessary to upgrade the entire 
network of intermodal transport in Europe, in order to overcome the existing criticalities – in 
terms of P400 compliance – and allow the operation of all kind of LUs in circulation.  

Table 65: Total investment costs for the upgrade of the network and building of new terminals 

Costs 

Upgrading costs TEN-T core network corridors 

New terminals building costs 

Total  

[M€] 

5 118 

2 617 

7 735 

137 

 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

4.10  2030 potential terminal handling capacity in EU 

Following the estimation previously carried out in Task 3.2 concerning the assessment of 
today’s  handling  capacity  for  each  loading  unit  and  transhipment  technology,  the  main 
purpose of Task 3.10 is to estimate the trend to the year 2030.  

The analysis was developed around: 

•  a stakeholder’s consultation with technological providers and terminal operators; 
•  analysis of the TEN-T CNC Project List 2021; 

However, since during the consultation phase no useful information about expansion plans 
or construction of new terminals has been collected, the implementation of this Task largely 
relies on the analysis of the projects included in the TEN-T CNC Project List 2021.  

Analysis of the number of projects included in the 2021 TEN-T CNC Project List 

The  TEN-T  CNC  Project  List  2021  includes  837  projects  classified  as  “multimodal”  or 
“maritime”.  Among  these  108  are  specifically  related  to  the  upgrade,  expansion,  or  the 
construction of new terminals. 

Among the 108 selected projects, 23 projects concern the construction of new terminals74.  

85  further  projects  concern  expansion  or  upgrade  works  of  existing  terminals.  Some  of 
these refer to the same terminal but are divided into several phases of work. These projects 
were grouped and counted only once. As a result, expansion or upgrade works are currently 
planned for 64 terminals in total.  

For the remaining 87 projects focusing on the construction of new terminals (23 projects) or 
on  the  expansion  of  capacity  (64  projects),  the  “end  date”  parameter  was  analysed  to 
understand if the capacity increase is expected before or after 2030. It was found that: 52 
projects  are  planned  for  completion  in  the  target  period;  25  projects  have  already  been 
completed, as their end date is before the year 2021; 4 projects have a completion date 
after 2030; finally, 6 projects do not provide for this information. Figure 32 below shows the 
distribution of the 52 projects by year of completion.  

74 In particular the construction of the following terminals is planned: 1 in Austria (Wien), 3 in Bulgaria (Plovdiv, 
Vidin, and Ruse), 1 in Denmark (Copenhagen Malmö Port), 1 in Czechia (Ostrava), 1 in France (Marseille), 3 
in  Germany  (Hannover,  Duisburg  and  Lübeck),  1  in  Greece  (Thriasio),  3  in  Spain  (Antequera,  León  and 
Terragona), 1 in Hungary (Budapest), 1 in Italy (Verona), 1 in Poland (Port of Świnoujście), 2 in Portugal (Port 
of Lisboa and Port of Sines), 2 in Romania (Timisoara and Craiova), 1 in Sweden (Göteborg) and 1 in Slovakia 
(Zilina).  

138 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 32: Temporal distribution of the projects selected for the report 

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

9

8

5

5

3

4

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025
2026
End Date

2027

2028

2029

2030

Expansion projects

New construction projects

Looking at the time distribution of projects, it is clear that most projects are planned to be 
completed in the first five years (37 projects in total of which 28 expansion projects and 9 
new construction projects, or 71% of the total), while only 15 projects (13 expansion projects 
and 2 new construction projects, or 29% of the total) have a completion date between 2026 
and  2030.  Therefore,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  over  the  next  years  other  terminal 
projects  with  planned  completion  date  on  the  period  2026-2030  will  be  developed  and 
added  to  the  TEN-T  CNC  Project  List.  Specifically,  for  the  purpose  of  this  exercise  it  is 
assumed that the number of projects planned for completion in the time period 2026-2030 
will  be  increased  from  15  projects  to  37.  Hence,  over  the  entire  period  2021-2030,  it  is 
expected  that  56  terminals  on  the  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  will  undergo  capacity 
upgrading or expansion works and 18 new terminals will be built.  

As reported in Task 3.4 there are 249 intermodal terminals (RRTs + maritime terminals) the 
TEN-T  core  network  corridors.  Based  on  our  analysis  and  assumptions,  by  2030,  56 
intermodal  terminals  out  of  249  (22%)  will  increase  their  capacity.  In  addition,  18  new 
terminals will be built resulting on 7% increase on the overall number of terminals.  

Analysis of the capacity increases resulting from projects included in the 2021 TEN-
T CNC Project List 

Unfortunately, several of the identified projects are poorly described and lack information 
on actual and planned capacity. This is the case for all of the 23 projects concerning the 
building of new terminals. The same applies to for 54 out of 64 projects concerning terminal 
upgrading or expansion in terms of capacity. However, for 10 terminal projects information 
on capacity increase is available (see Table 3 in Annex 3). 

By analysing the 10 projects, the following estimates of capacity growth can be derived.  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 66: Capacity growth trend analysis 

Actual 
handling 
capacity 
[TEU/year] 

Future 
capacity 
[TEU/year] 

Start 
year 

End 
year 

Cost 
[m€] 

Capacit
y ∆% 

230 000 

500 000 

2018 

2026 

72.44 

117% 

- 

450 000 

2017 

2023 

122.9 

- 

350 000 

400 000 

2018 

2022 

8.8 

14% 

50 00 

75 000 

2019 

2023 

10.5 

50% 

- 

- 

2019 

2021 

2.59 

5% 

210 000 

315 000 

2022 

2023 

19.6 

50% 

576 641 

662 347 

2021 

2038 

122 

15% 

- 

1 200 000 

2019 

2021 

187 

- 

600 000 

900 000 

2016 

2018 

65 

50% 

- 

2 500 000 

Unkn
own 

Unknow
n 

157.81 

- 

Project name 

Terminal Graz Süd 
Expansion 
Trimodal Port of Linz - 
Rail connection and port 
enhancement 
Investing in the upgrade 
of the RSC terminal 
Rotterdam servicing 
combined transport 
operations across 
Europe 
Extension of the 
combined transport 
terminal Clésud 
Miramas. 
Shunting locomotives  
purchase for the 
intermodal terminals in 
Kutno, Brzeg Dolny and 
Gliwice 
Upgrade Cargo Center 
Wien South - Phase 2 
Increase the efficiency 
of current Alcantara 
container terminal 
Enlargement of the 
container terminal at 
quay VII increasing the 
potential up to a 
maximum of 1 200 000 
TEU (dimension 200m, 
18m depth) 
Container berth upgrade 
in the Port of Dunkerque 
Expansion of Deepwater 
Container Ter minal 
DCT Gdansk - 
Construction of T2 
Terminal 

As it can be seen in Table 66, the capacity growths for the 10 selected projects are very 
different from each other and for some of them the current handling capacity is not available. 
However,  by  considering  the  6  projects  for  which  complete  information  is  available,  it  is 
observed that the growth in terminal handling capacity ranges between a maximum value 
of 117% and a minimum of 14%, with an average value of 49%.  

140 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Estimation of terminal handling capacity in 2030 

As described earlier it is expected that by year 2030, 22% of the intermodal terminals in the 
TEN-T core corridors network will undergo capacity related works. Assuming that each of 
these terminals will benefit from an average capacity increase of 49% it is expected that the 
total  handling  capacity  of  existing  terminals  in  the  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  will 
experience an overall capacity increase of 11% by 2030. Similarly, it can be assumed that 
roughly 22% of all existing EU terminals will be upgraded or expanded in terms of capacity 
allowing for an overall handling capacity increase of 11% by 2030. 

In  addition,  it  is  assumed  that  18  new  terminals  will  be  built  in  the  TEN-T  core  network 
corridors.  Handling  capacity  of  new  terminals  is  unknown,  but,  for  the  purpose  of  this 
exercise, it is assumed that it will be equivalent to the average capacity of existing terminals. 
Therefore, it can be estimated that the 249 terminals in the TEN-T core network corridors 
will  increase  by  18  units  (+7%)  and  by  7%  in  terms  of  handling  capacity.  Similarly,  it  is 
assumed that the total handling capacity of all EU terminals will increase by 7% by 2030 
thanks to the construction of new terminals. 

Therefore, according to our analysis and assumptions it is estimated that based on current 
plans  the  overall  EU  terminal  capacity  will  increase  by  18%  by  2030  for  effect  of  both 
upgrade and expansion of existing terminals and construction of new terminals. 

Today’s  terminal  handling  capacity,  expressed  in  terms  of  LU/year,  was  previously 
calculated in Task 3.2. resulting in a total value for Europe and Switzerland of  261 267 000 
LU/year.  By  applying  the  growth  rate  of  18%  to  2030  an  estimated  potential  terminal 
handling capacity of 308 295 060 LU/year is obtained.  

However,  for  the  same  considerations  outlined  in  Task  3.275,  this  figure  is  likely  to 
overestimate the 2030 terminal handling. Therefore, this estimate does not provide a solid 
basis for further analysis. 

4.11 

 2030 network capacity in comparison to terminal handling capacity 

The objective of Task 3.11 is to compare the TEN-T core network corridors capacity per 
loading  unit  and  transhipment  technology  per  mode  in  2030  with  the  terminal  handling 
capacity for each loading unit and transhipment technology in 2030.  This comparison aims 
at identifying those loading units and transhipment technologies for which the network and 
terminal capacity are expected to be balanced and those for which either the network or the 
terminal handling capacity would need to be adjusted in order to better match the other.  

To accomplish this goal, this document makes use of findings from previous Tasks: potential 
terminal handling capacity in 2030 was investigated in Task 3.10, while Task 3.8 assessed 
the TEN-T core network corridors capacity and related capacity problems; in addition, Tasks 
3.5 and 3.9 identified the necessary network upgrades to P400 and the construction of new 
terminals with the necessary investment costs.  

However, due to the limited information gathered from the infrastructure managers and the 
scarce availability of corridor studies exploring the subject in depth, for both the previous 
tasks (Task 3.8 and 3.10) it was not possible to break down this estimate by loading unit 

75 As explained in Task 3.2, the calculation estimate of current terminal handling capacity was made on the 
basis of the information reported in the (RFP) Rail Facilities Portal, which only provides information on the 
number of gantry or mobile cranes as the most used transhipment technologies, and the terminal’s opening 
time.  In  addition,  the  necessary  information  on  the  type  and  number  of  cranes  and  opening  times  is 
available  for  only  498  intermodal  terminals  (~  55%)  of  the  898  intermodal  terminals.  Therefore,  this 
information made it possible only to roughly calculate the annual handling capacity, but did not provide a 
solid basis for further analysis. 

141 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

and transhipment technologies.  For  this  reason, the  main  outputs  of  Tasks  3.8  and  3.10 
were considered to set up a general comparison of the estimates to 2030.  

The following considerations can be made: 

•  as regard TEN-T core network corridors capacity, based on Task 3.8 analysis of the 
main capacity bottlenecks currently existing in the TEN-T corridors, it is expected 
that the EU core transport network will not reach full capacity by 2030.  

•  with  regards  to  potential  terminal  handling  capacity  in  2030,  according  to  the 
analysis  carried  out  in  Task  3.10,  the  general  growth  trend  is  estimated  equal  to 
+18% by 2030. This capacity increase is driven by the construction of new terminals 
as well as the expansion of existing terminals.   

Based  on  the  outcomes  reported  above  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  proper  comparison 
between  the  expected  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  capacity  and  the  terminal  handling 
capacity in 2030. However, in this context, it should also be considered that the Sustainable 
and Smart Mobility Strategy76 by the European Commission set as the target that the rail 
freight traffic should increase by 50% by 2030. If this target will be met, the expected growth 
in terminal handling capacity by 18% by 2030 would not be sufficient.  

5. Comparative  analysis  of  different 

transhipment 

technologies 

Based  on  the  results  of  tasks  1  –  3  which  looked  at  the  transhipment  technologies 
separately,  this  task  provides  the  comparative  analysis  of  the  previously  assessed 
transhipment technology and loading unit combinations for different modes of transport. 

Overall,  25  distinct  technology  and  loading  unit combinations  used  in  either rail, IWW  or 
SSS and road intermodal transport were described and analysed in the previous tasks. Of 
these combinations six are used for all modes of transport, two more are used in rail-road 
as  well  as  IWW-road  intermodal  transport,  three  are  used  exclusively  for  SSS-road 
intermodal  transport  and  14  are  used  exclusively  in  rail-road  intermodal  transport.  This 
results in a total of 39 different technology, loading unit and mode of transport combinations 
to be analysed and compared in this task (22 for rail-road, eight for IWW-road and nine for 
SSS-road). 

Table 67: Technology, loading unit and mode combination matrix 

Transhipment 
Technology 

1  Gantry Crane 
2  Reach Stacker 

3 

4 

5 

Hydraulic Material 
Handling Crane  
Mobile Harbour 
Crane 

RoRo Ramp 
to/from Ship 

6  Sidelifter 
7  BOXMover 

Mode of transport road and … 
… Rail 
Ct 20’, Ct 40’, ST 
Ct 20’, Ct 40’, ST 

… IWW 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 
Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

… SSS 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

ST, 
Rolltrailer, 
Cassettes 

Ct 40’ 
Ct 40’ 

76 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE  AND  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  REGIONS 
Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy  –  putting  European  transport  on  track  for  the  future. 
COM/2020/789 final 

142 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment 
Technology 
Mobiler (Rail Cargo 
Austria) 
Container Mover 
3020 
Cargo Beamer next 
generation  

Mode of transport road and … 
… Rail 

… IWW 

… SSS 

Ct 30’ 

Ct 20’, Ct 40’ 

ST non-craneable 

Modalohr UIC 

ST non-craneable 

Nikrasa 

ST non-craneable 

ISU  

ST non-craneable 

RoLa Ramp 

ST & Truck 

Flexiwaggon 

ST & Truck 

r2l 2.0 road rail link  ST non-craneable 

8 

9 

1
0 
1
1 
1
2 
1
3 
1
4 
1
5 
1
6 

Number of Analysis 

Source: KombiConsult analysis; 

22 

8 

39 

9 

The comparative evaluation in all subtasks of task 4 is based on the previously described 
model  assumptions.  Changing  one  or  more  of  the  underlying  assumptions  (e.g.,  loaded 
goods weight, weight per loading unit, transport distance, share of road distance, …) could 
significantly  change  the  results  of  the  comparison  of  the  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations. This is especially important when considering a shipper’s perspective, who 
must consider a bunch of different factors in their choices which are highly unlikely to be 
fully consistent with the assumptions made here.  

5.1 Total system costs 

Task 4.1 aims to establish the total system costs for a typical 600 km and 1 000 km door-
to-door intermodal transport chain for the transport of one loading unit carrying 20t (or less 
if technology restrictions apply), including main regional differences, if any. The total system 
costs  per  transhipment  technology  and  loading  unit  combination  in  our  model  transport 
chain  of  600  km  and  1  000  km  distance  have  already  been  established  as  comparative 
costs in the individual fact sheet. Included in the costs shown in the fact sheets are costs 
for the two road legs of 75 km each, the costs for the main leg of 450 km or 850 km distance, 
the  costs  for  two  transhipments,  the  loading  unit  costs  as  well  as  the  intermodal 
organizational costs. Depending on the circumstances other cost factors not included in our 
analysis might be relevant in practice. These cost elements were chosen in order to enable 
the  specific  comparison  between  different  transhipment  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations as well as between different intermodal modes of transport for a 600 km and 
1 000 km door-to-door transport. 

To allow a more realistic and feasible comparison with road-only transport and to comply 
with information  of  previous  study  results for task  4,  we  have  now adjusted  the road leg 
transport costs for the different intermodal transport chains in agreement with DG MOVE. 

Rather than calculating the road transport costs between the shipper and the terminal based 
on the individual material and operational costs we have now applied a lump sum for the 
road leg transport that in addition to the driving time also takes into account the loading or 
unloading of the loading unit at the “door”. It is assumed that this lump sum varies depending 
on  the  type  of  loading  unit  as  these  vary  in  the  equipment  and  processes  required.  For 

143 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

containers the lump sum is assumed to be 175 € and for semi-trailers it is assumed to be 
150  €  per  road  leg.  For  the  technologies  used  in  accompanied  intermodal  transport  the 
previous detailed calculation based on material and operational costs will still be applied, 
however an additional hour for the time spent at the shipper will be considered for the time-
based cost elements. This approach is the same as for the road-only alternative because 
the  road  legs  in  accompanied  intermodal  transport  should  not  differ  from  road-only 
transport. Consequently, the road-only transport is also calculated using the assumptions 
already described for the technology fact sheet elements and an additional hour each for 
the loading and unloading at each end of the transport chain. These additional times will 
only be used for the cost comparison. The comparison of the total transport duration will not 
include these processes at the shippers but only the driving and terminal times for the road 
legs. 

In the fact sheets both, the costs for the transport of all LUs on the assumed train, barge or 
ship as well as the costs per loading unit are provided. From here on we will conduct the 
further analysis on the loading unit cost basis only. 

The comparative costs per LU will also be compared to the costs of road-only transport, the 
total costs of which have been determined based on the same costs and assumptions used 
for determining the road leg costs which are described in chapter 3.2.3. As the road-only 
vehicle and LU a truck and semi-trailer combination was chosen for the comparison with all 
technology  and  loading  unit  combinations.  For  the  600km  road-only  transport  the 
comparative costs were calculated to be 636 € per LU. For the 1 000 km road-only transport 
the comparative costs were calculated to be 1.021 € per LU. Full capacity utilization was 
assumed for road-only transport due to the assumed truck carrying only one LU. 

The  comparative  costs  for  the  600  km  transport  chain  for  all  technology  and  LU 
combinations as well as road-only transport are shown in Figure 33 and the comparative 
costs for the 1 000 km transport chain for all technology and LU combinations as well as 
road-only  transport  are  shown  in  Figure  34.  The  blue  (600  km)  and  orange  (1  000  km) 
columns  show  the  comparative  costs  calculated  for  the  full  transport  chain  for  each 
technology and loading unit combination. The horizontal grey (600 km) or yellow (1 000 km) 
line shows the constant costs for road-only transport over the same distance. 

144 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 33: Total system costs for the 600 km model transport chain per LU 

145 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 34: Total system costs for the 1 000 km model transport chain per LU 

146 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

We will first analyse the 600 km transport distance in more detail. As can be seen in Figure 
33  for  the  600  km  transport  chain,  all  the  intermodal  transport  chains  have  higher 
comparative costs than the road-only variant assumed for this study. 

One fact that immediately becomes noticeable is that the two technologies for accompanied 
intermodal transport are also the two technologies with the highest comparative costs. One 
explanation  for  this  a  comparatively  low  transport  efficiency.  Because  the  loading  unit 
consists of the semitrailer as well as the truck, additional dead weight from the trucks own 
weight as well from the rail wagons for providing additional loading length for the truck and 
the club car for the truck drivers is being transported on the main leg. Both technologies 
have the lowest share of loading units as well as loaded goods compared to the total train 
weight.  Furthermore, the  full  vehicle  loading  unit,  because  of  the  included truck,  has the 
highest  cost  per  hour  of  all  loading  unit  types  which  further  increases  the  comparative 
system costs. The same arguments can be made for the SSS RoRo technologies which 
also  show  relatively  high  prices,  especially  compared  to  SSS  vertical  transhipment 
technologies. 

One other fact about the loading units is also apparent. As can be seen, the smaller and 
less complex a loading unit is, the lower the comparative costs of the transport chain are 
likely to be. This is especially apparent for technologies used to tranship different types of 
loading units like the gantry crane or the reach stacker. In all these cases the comparative 
costs for the 20’ container are lower than for the 40’ container which in turn has lower cost 
than  the  semi-trailer.  The  highest  comparative  costs  can  then,  as  have  previously  been 
discussed,  be  observed  for  technologies  transhipping  full  vehicles.  This  observed  cost 
curve for the different transhipment and loading unit combinations is a direct consequence 
of the assumption of equal payload weights for each of the different loading unit types. Not 
only are the smaller and less complex loading units cheaper in their own investments and 
maintenance than the larger and more complex ones, but also more of them can be loaded 
on the train, barge or ship. This has a big impact on the comparative costs per loading unit, 
as  the  available  capacity  is  more  efficiently  utilized  and  the  fixed  transport  costs  are 
distributed over more loading units.  

If instead of the loaded goods weight the loaded goods volume were the determining factor 
in  allocating  the  goods  to  loading  units,  the  order  of  comparative  costs  per  loading  unit 
would be different. For example, a 40’ container has twice the volume of a 20’ container. 
For low density goods where weight is not an issue throughout the transport chain, instead 
of one 40’ container two 20’ containers might be necessary to transport the same volume 
of goods. Not only would this lead to an increase in loading unit costs, but also the number 
of  required  loading  unit  handlings  and  associated  costs  would  double.  Furthermore, 
depending on the main leg characteristics, it might not be possible to transport double the 
amount  of  20’  containers  than  40’  containers  on  the  same  train,  barge  or  ship,  thereby 
necessitating more main leg trips and further increasing transport costs. All these effects 
would cause the total transport costs of the same amount of goods to be higher for smaller 
loading units than for larger loading units which is in clear contrast to the observations made 
in our model. It is therefore important to note that the choice of the most efficient, cheapest 
or otherwise best suited type of loading unit for a specific transport depends strongly on the 
characteristics of the transported goods (and other external factors), the variety of which 
was impossible to include for this model analysis. Thus, we did not reply to the question 
which  loading  unit  technology  combination  is  the  best  to  transport  20  tons  of  cargo,  but 
demonstrated the cost differences for different type of loading unit technology combination. 

In  this  context  it  is  important  to  note,  that  the  weight  per  loading  unit  is  lower  for  the 
ContainerMover (20’: 13.3 t; 40’: 11.7 t) and the hydraulic crane (20’: 19.8 t; 40’:18.2 t) due 
to the  lower  maximum  transhipable  weight  for  these  technologies.  Because  of  the  lower 
load weight, and the weight having been the limiting factor to capacity without reaching full 
train length, more loading units can be transported on the main leg and the main leg costs 

147 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

are  accordingly  distributed  over  more  loading  units,  effectively  lowering  the  comparative 
transport costs  per  loading  unit. When  not  using  number  of  loading  units  but  the  loaded 
goods weight as the basis for comparison more loading units are consequently necessary 
to transport the same loaded goods weight as with other technologies which would thereby 
increase costs as explained above. 

When  comparing  the  three  different  main  leg  modes  of  transport  based  on  the  six 
technology and LU combinations which are used for all modes, for each combination SSS 
sits at first place offering the lowest comparative costs. For 20’ containers and the gantry 
crane with 40’ containers rail comes second and IWW third and for the mobile harbour crane 
and the hydraulic crane with 40’ containers IWW is second and rail third when comparing 
the costs per LU. SSS having the lowest comparative costs per LU of the modes of transport 
for  the  vertical  transhipment  technologies  used  on  all  modes  can  easily  be  explained, 
because the ship offers a larger LU capacity than the train or barge, thereby allowing for 
greater transport efficiency on the main leg. 

The  higher  load  capacity  of  a  barge  compared  to  a  train  also  has  an  impact  on  the 
comparison between rail and IWW, however this impact is smaller, especially for the 20’ 
container, because the gap in the load capacity in number of loading units is smaller than 
in comparison with the ship. In our model environment the barge offers less than double the 
LU-capacity compared to the train for 20’ containers, due to weight limitations, which is one 
explanation why the train has lower comparative costs in this instance. For 40’ containers 
however, the  barge capacity  is  more than  double  the  train capacity  and we can  see  the 
costs gap getting smaller when observing the gantry crane for both modes of transport and 
40’ containers compared to the 20’ containers.  

For the mobile harbour and hydraulic crane another effect also becomes noticeable when 
comparing  the  costs  differences  for  20’  and  40’  containers  on  different  modes  for  these 
technologies. Although they have higher comparative costs for transhipping 20’ container 
in IWW transport compared to rail transport, their comparative costs for 40’ containers in 
IWW transport compared to 40’ containers in rail transport are lower. They have a limited 
reach (~60 m radius) and must be relocated more often during the loading/unloading of a 
long  train (length  ~500 m)  than during the  loading/unloading  of  a  compact  barge  (length 
~100  m).  Within  one  relocation  cycle  they  can  tranship  less  40’  containers  than  20’ 
containers,  due  to  the  larger  loading  length  of  the  40’  container  compared  to  the  20’ 
container. Relocation therefore has a larger per unit impact on the total transhipment times 
and costs for longer LUs. Because of this noticeable effect these two technologies show 
lower comparative costs per loading unit for transhipping 40’ containers to IWW compared 
to rail.  

For  the  600  km  and  the  1  000  km  intermodal  transport  chain  the  road  legs  and 
transhipments are the same and the difference is only in the main leg distance and duration.  

When now looking at the comparative costs for the 1 000 km transport chain in Figure 34 
some technology and loading unit combinations fall below the comparative costs of road-
only transport. Only nine entries show higher comparative costs than the road-only transport 
alternative  compared  to  all  technology  and  loading  unit  combinations  for  the  600  km 
transport  chain.  These  nine  technologies  and  loading  unit  combinations  already  showed 
high comparative costs for the 600 km transport chain.  

Almost all technologies could lower the difference in comparative costs from the intermodal 
to the road-only transport when increasing the transport distance from 600 km to 1 000 km. 
Only  for  the  technologies  used  in  accompanied  intermodal  transport  the  difference  in 
comparative costs between intermodal and road-only transport increases. 

Because the difference between the transport distances only impacts the main leg duration 
and  costs,  it  can  be  concluded,  that  in  our  model  these  technologies  would  profit  from 

148 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

shorter main leg distances as every main leg kilometre has slightly higher comparative costs 
than  a  kilometre  in  road  transport.  When  comparing  our  model  assumptions  to  the  use 
cases of accompanied intermodal transport in Europe, the actual distances are often times 
lower than in our model (e.g. Wörgl – Brennersee 96 km; the Freiburg – Novara route being 
an  exception  with  close  to  450  km  transport  distance).  Furthermore,  accompanied 
intermodal  transport  is mainly  deployed on routes on  which  natural  or  artificial  obstacles 
and/or  organizational  restrictions  impair  or  prevent  road-only  transport.  Examples  are 
transports  between England  and  mainland  Europe  or  across  the  Alps through  Austria  or 
Switzerland. In conclusion, it can be noted that our model assumptions set unfavourable 
framework  conditions  for  accompanied  intermodal  transport  and  that  these  differ  greatly 
from the real operational areas and conditions of the respective technologies. 

In line with the observations on the loading unit types for the 600 km transport chain, it can 
be observed that smaller and less complex loading units benefit more from the increase in 
the main leg distance than larger and more complex loading units. The reasons for this have 
already been described in detail and again are due to the better capacity utilization on the 
main leg means of transport of smaller loading units given our assumption of equal payload 
weight, where technically possible, for each loading unit type. 

For  Figure  35  the  transhipment  cost  ranges  determined  for  the  different  technology  and 
loading unit were incorporated into the comparative costs for the 600 km transport chain. 
The blue block shows the upper and the lower bound of the cost range for each technology 
and loading unit combination with the horizontal black line showing the comparative road-
only costs. The figure shows, that in five cases the comparative costs for road-only transport 
fall into the comparative cost range of the technology and loading unit combination. In these 
cases, regional differences can therefore have a decisive influence on the financial decision 
for  or  against  the  specified  technology  and  loading  unit  combination  when  compared  to 
road-only transport.  

In all other cases the costs range is entirely above the comparative road-only costs. 

The comparative costs including the transhipment cost range for the 1 000 km intermodal 
transport chain is shown in Figure 36. Here the orange blocks provide the information about 
the  upper  and  the  lower  bound  of  the  cost  range  per  technology  and  loading  unit 
combination.  Again,  the  black  line  shows  the  comparative  costs  for  the  road-only 
alternative.  With  the  increase  in  transport  distance,  only  seven  technologies  can  be 
observed for which the road-only alternative falls within the comparative cost range. 

Five  technologies,  the  two  technologies  analysed  for  accompanied  intermodal  transport, 
the CargoBeamer as well as the SSS RoRo transport of semitrailers and of containers on 
cassettes are located above the road-only comparative costs with their full comparative cost 
range. The remaining 28 of the 39 analysed technology and loading unit combinations have 
their full comparative cost range fall below the road-only comparative costs.  

149 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 35: Cost range for the 600 km model transport chain per LU based on transhipment cost range 

150 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             o                     o                                                                                o                      o          o                                 o   o      o                                       o               o         o                  o         o                                    o                                                               o        o             o        o                           o               o                                                                                                     o         o                  o         o                                                                                                            o         o                  o         o                                                                  o o                o o    o           o o                            o         fo                        o        o                o         o    o     o                 o          o    
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 36: Cost range for the 1 000 km model transport chain per LU based on transhipment cost range 

151 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      o                     o                                                                                o                      o          o                                 o   o      o                                       o               o         o                  o         o                                    o                                                               o        o             o        o                           o               o                                                                                                     o         o                  o         o                                                                                                            o         o                  o         o                                                                  o o                o o    o           o o                            o         fo                          o        o                           o                  o               o                     o    o     o                   o          o    
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

5.2 Competitiveness for shippers/clients for a typical 600 km/1 000 km door-to-door 

operation 

In  this  task  today’s  competitiveness  of  the  technology  and  loading  unit  combinations  for 
shippers/clients  for  a  typical  600  km/1  000  km  door-to-door  operation  was  evaluated  by 
means of a weighted scoring model. The weighted scoring model was chosen as different 
quantitative but also qualitative criteria with different degrees of influence are used when 
evaluating the competitiveness of each technology and loading unit combination. For this 
goal  the  weighted  scoring  model  has  advantages,  as  it  makes  it  possible  to  compare 
different types of influencing criteria based on a points system. Furthermore, the influencing 
criteria are assigned different weights, between 0 % and 100 %, which enables the inclusion 
of varying degrees of influence in the evaluation.  

In  the  weighted  scoring  model  used  for  this  task,  each  technology  and  loading  unit 
combination as well as the road-only alternative will be scored for each criterion in whole 
numbers from 1 to 25, with 25 being the best possible score. The scored points per criteria 
will then be multiplied by the weight of the criteria and summed up in order calculate the 
total competitiveness score for the technology and loading unit combination. Although the 
scoring values will be whole numbers, the results might not be and will be shown with two 
decimals. The weights for all criteria together sum up to 100%, therefore the total score for 
each technology and loading unit combination will also be between 1 and 25 points with 25 
being the best possible score. 

Although  the  weighted  scoring  model  aims  to  establish  some  degree  of  objectivity  in  its 
results, it is also important to be aware of the subjectivity that feeds into the model and the 
evaluation at various points. This applies to the definition of the criteria, the weighting of the 
criteria and the scoring of points for the qualitative criteria. 

The  selected  criteria  -  cost,  delivery  time,  availability  and  network  coverage  -  were  pre-
selected by DG MOVE for evaluating the competitiveness and the choice is therefore not 
influenced by the authors' personal biases.  

The allocation of the weight per criterion followed three principles which were decided upon 
beforehand to reduce potential subjective influences. These were, that no single criterion 
should have majority over the others, all criteria should have at least 10% weight and the 
less sound and objective the basis for the scoring of the criterion is, the less weight should 
be allocated to it. Based on these principles the weights were allocated as follows: 

•  Cost: 

45% 
This criterion assesses the costs for the transport of one loading unit in our model 
transport  chains.  In  our  experience  cost  is  amongst,  if  not  the  most  important 
criterion  in  logistics  and  is  therefore  allocated  the  highest  weight  of  45%. 
Furthermore,  the  comparative  costs  per  technology  and  loading  unit  combination 
were  established  in  detailed  research  and  based  on  standardized  guidelines  and 
are therefore highly objective. 

•  Delivery 

time: 

25% 
This criterion assesses the delivery time for one loading unit in our model transport 
chains. Although delivery time is not as influential as costs in most cases, it can be 
very  important  and  we  therefore  decided  to  place  it  behind  cost  with  the  second 
highest weight of 25%. As for cost, the transport duration for each technology and 
loading unit combination was previously established in detail based on standardized 
guidelines and is therefore an objective criterion. 

•  Availability: 

15% 
This  criterion  assesses  the  availability  of  terminals  for  a  specific  technology  and 
loading  unit  combination  in  the  EU  and  Switzerland.  The  decision  on  how  the 

152 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

allocate weight  to  the  availability  criterion  was  quite difficult.  Availability,  or  better 
unavailability, of an option can be argued to be the most decisive criterion. Whether 
a  technology  and  loading  unit  combination  is  available  or  not  for  an  upcoming 
transport on both ends of the operation decides whether it is included in the further 
decision-making process at all. However, once availability has been confirmed this 
criterion  might  have  no  further  direct  impact  on  the  choice  between  multiple 
available technology and loading unit combinations. The fact that we award points 
for this criterion  based on the available terminals per technology and loading unit 
combination was ultimately decisive for the weighting of availability with only 15%, 
because  this  basis  is  less  sound  than  for  the  previous  criteria.  For  some 
technologies  and  loading  unit  combinations  the  number  of  terminals  or  a  range 
thereof could only be estimated due to an insufficient data basis and it was also not 
possible to reliably allocate the terminals for technologies used on different modes 
of  transport  to  these  modes.  We  therefore  had  to  rely  on  our  own  expertise  and 
judgement when scoring this criterion for the different technology and loading unit 
combinations. 

•  Network 

coverage: 

15% 
This criterion assesses the current network coverage (for the TEN-T core network 
corridors) of the technology and loading unit combinations. This criterion is likely to 
have a strong correlation with the availability criterion, because the more terminals 
for a specific technology and loading unit combination there are, the more likely it is 
for  the  terminals  to  cover  a  larger  part  of  the  TEN-T  core  network  corridors. 
Furthermore, the same issues regarding the objectivity of the scoring described for 
availability  apply  to  network  coverage  as  well.  It  is  therefore  allocated  the  same 
weight of 15 %. 

Because costs and delivery time have a high degree of objectivity, a sub score will be shown 
for these two criteria. The same will be done for the availability and the network coverage 
criteria before calculating the total score. 

The  scoring  for  the  cost  criterion  was  done  based  on  the  comparative  costs  already 
assessed  in detail for task  4.1.  From  the  calculated  comparative  costs for  all  technology 
and loading unit combinations for the 600 km distance first the highest and the lowest values 
were  determined.  Then  the  difference  between  these  two  values  was  divided  by  25,  to 
determine 25 cost intervals, one for each scoring value. The same was done for the 1 000 
km transport distance. The resulting min. and max. costs and the resulting interval-width 
are shown in Table 68. By basing the comparative cost score on mathematically determined 
intervals a high degree of objectivity is achieved.  

Table 68: Comparative costs scoring intervals 

Basis for cost intervals 

Transport 
distance 

600 km 

1 000 km 

Min. 

636 € 

697 € 

Max. 

1 073 € 

1.576 € 

∆ 

436 € 

879 € 

Interval width 

17 € 

35 € 

For the scoring of the second criterion, delivery time, we will use the values determined for 
the  total  duration  of  the  600  km  and  the  1  000  km  transport  chains  of  the  individual 
technology and loading unit combinations. An overview of the total duration of the 600 km 
transport chains is provided in Figure 37 and of the 1 000 km transport chains in Figure 38.  

153 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 37: Total duration of the 600 km transport chain 

154 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 38: Total duration of the 1 000 km transport chain 

155 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

As for the costs the provided durations were divided into equal intervals based on which the 
scoring is conducted. The basis for the scoring intervals is provided in Table 69. 

Table 69: Delivery time scoring intervals  

Basis for delivery time intervals 

Transport 
distance 

600 km 

1 000 km 

Min. 

10 h 

16.67 h 

Max. 

67.92 h 

89.03 h 

∆ 

Interval width 

57.92 h 

72.37 h 

2.32 h 

2.89 h 

For availability the results of Task 3.1 were used for the scoring. As the results of Task 3.1 
often only show ranges in which the actual number of terminals is estimated to be, further 
assumptions were necessary to estimate an upper bound for the highest scoring interval. 
The highest range of terminals identified in Task 3.1 was 363 to 905 terminals for the reach 
stacker and container combination. As reach stacker terminals are likely to mostly serve 
rail-road intermodal transport, the 129 terminals found  from the intermodal-map for IWW 
and SSS terminals were subtracted from the upper bound leaving a range of 363 to 776 
terminals for the (likely) most widely available technology and loading unit combination. We 
then decided the use the middle value (rounded 570) of this range as the upper limit of our 
highest availability interval. With the lower limit being 0 and using the approach from the 
cost  and  delivery  time  criteria,  the  scoring  intervals  were  calculated.  The  basis  for  the 
scoring intervals is shown in Table 70. The basis and the intervals are the same for both 
the 600 km and the 1 000 km transport chains. 

Table 70: Available number of terminals scoring intervals  

Basis for availability intervals 

Transport 
distance 

600 km 

1 000 km 

Min. 

0 

0 

Max. 

570 

570 

∆ 

570 

570 

Interval width 

22.8 

22.8 

Because the analysis of the data for Task 3.1 did not allow any reliable conclusions to be 
drawn as to how many of the terminals found serve which modes of transport and therefore 
no reliable figures were available, the final scoring for the technologies which serve different 
modes of transport was done based on our own judgement and expertise. 

For the last criterion, network coverage, we used the results from Task 3.4. Here, the TEN-
T Corridors, or sections of them, on which the technology and loading unit combinations 
are  deployed  were  identified.  Because  the  results  from  Task  3.4  are  qualitative  and  not 
quantitative, the scoring of points for this criterion was not based on calculated intervals as 
for the other criteria, but based on publicly available sources about current use cases and 
our own expert assessment. As for availability, the scores are the same for both the 600 
km and the 1 000 km transport distance 

For the availability and network coverage criteria road-only will not be part of building the 
scoring scale but will then be scored with the highest possible score for these criteria. If 
road were included for creating the scoring scale, it would not be possible to differentiate 
the intermodal technologies against this. 

With  the  procedure  described  above  for  all  four  criteria,  the  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations  were  scored.  The  results  of  the  scoring  procedure  for  all  technology  and 
loading unit combinations are shown in Table 71 for the 600 km transport chain and in Table 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

72 for the 1 000 km transport chain. Both tables include the individual scores per criterion, 
the sub scores for the costs and time criteria, the sub scores for the availability and network 
coverage criteria as well as the total score for competitiveness for all technology and loading 
unit combinations. 

Table 71: Weighted scoring model competitiveness for 600 km transport  

Tranship-
ment 
Technolo
gy 

e
d
o
M

Loading 
unit 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St 
(craneable) 
40’ Ct 

St with 
truck 
20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St 
(craneable) 
St with 
truck 
St (non-
craneable) 
40’ Ct 

St (non-
craneable) 
St (non-
craneable) 
20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St (non-
craneable) 
20’ 
Container 
40’ Ct 

Gantry 
Crane 

BOXmover 
Flexiwaggo
n  

Reach 
stacker 

RoLa 

CargoBea
mer 
Sidelifter 

Modalohr 

r2l 2.0 
trailer-use 
Mobile 
harbour 
crane 
NiKRASA - 
crane 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Container-
Mover 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

ISU 

Mobiler 

Gantry 
crane 

Reach 
stacker 

Mobile 
harbour 
crane 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Gantry 
crane 

Mobile 
harbour 
crane 

St (non-
craneable) 
30’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

l
i
a
R

W
W

I

S
S
S

Criteria and assigned weight 
Comparative 
costs 

Delivery 
time 

Sub 
Score 

45% 
24 

25% 
22 

21 

21 

16 

7 

21 

17 

17 

1 

15 

18 

15 

19 

16 

10 

20 

20 

15 

22 

18 

14 

20 

20 

19 

11 

10 

14 

13 

19 

19 

25 

24 

20 

19 

24 

22 

22 

17 

23 

20 

20 

21 

23 

23 

18 

22 

22 

18 

18 

22 

20 

20 

18 

20 

21 

20 

9 

10 

3 

5 

6 

8 

9 

10 

8 

10 

1 

4 

8 

23.29 

21.36 

21.36 

16.36 

12.71 

20.64 

18.07 

18.43 

8.86 

17.86 

18.00 

17.50 

20.07 

16.71 

12.86 

20.71 

20.00 

16.79 

20.57 

18.71 

16.50 

20.00 

16.07 

15.79 

7.50 

7.57 

11.14 

11.21 

15.43 

15.14 

18.93 

19.00 

13.21 

13.64 

18.29 

Availability 

15% 
24 

Network 
coverage 
15% 
25 

24 

12 

1 

1 

25 

25 

13 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

14 

14 

2 

2 

1 

25 

25 

1 

1 

25 

25 

25 

1 

3 

1 

3 

4 

8 

8 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

23 

23 

8 

8 

13 

13 

1 

1 

25 

25 

10 

10 

1 

Total 
score 

100% 
23.65 

22.3 

20.5 

11.75 

9.2 

21.95 

20.15 

18.6 

Sub Score 

24.50 

24.50 

18.50 

1.00 

1.00 

25.00 

25.00 

19.00 

1.00 

6.5 

2.00 

13.1 

1.00 

2.00 

12.9 

12.85 

2.50 

14.8 

5.00 

5.00 

2.00 

13.2 

10.5 

15.1 

1.00 

14.3 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

14.50 

14.50 

4.50 

4.50 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

1.00 

19.50 

19.50 

6.00 

6.00 

1.00 

12.05 

14.7 

13.4 

11.85 

14.3 

15.6 

15.4 

7.05 

7.1 

10.2 

10.25 

11.1 

11.35 

19.1 

19.15 

11.05 

11.35 

13.1 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

e
d
o
M

Tranship-
ment 
Technolo
gy 
Hydraulic 
crane 

RoRo 

RoRo - 
Rolltrailers 
RoRo - 
Cassettes 

d
a
o
R

None 

Loading 
unit 

40’ Ct 

St (non-
craneable) 
40’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St with 
truck 

Criteria and assigned weight 
Comparative 
costs 

Delivery 
time 

Sub 
Score 

45% 
23 

25% 
10 

11 

8 

16 

25 

20 

19 

18 

25 

18.36 

14.21 

11.93 

16.71 

9 

9 

9 

25.00 

25 

Availability 

15% 
1 

Network 
coverage 
15% 
1 

Sub Score 

1.00 

Total 
score 

100% 
13.15 

25 

20 

20 

25 

17.00 

15.05 

14.50 

12.7 

14.50 

16.05 

25.00 

25 

The  comparative  costs  have  been  discussed  in  detail  in  chapter  5.1  and  because  the 
scoring here follows the same patterns and assumptions, we will not repeat the deep dive 
at this point. 

When looking at the delivery times and the points scored, it is noticeable that the differences 
can  most  notably  be  observed between  the  modes  of transport.  The rail  technology and 
loading unit combinations are mostly faster than the  IWW and SSS ones.  One explanation 
for  this  are  the  assumed  average  speeds  per  mode  transport  with  rail  having  a  higher 
average transport speed than IWW and SSS. The fastest delivery time is achieved in road-
only transport which also has the fastest average speed of all modes of transport.  

The number of loading units on the train, barge or ship also has an influence, because a 
larger  number  of  loading  units  in most  cases  leads  to  a  longer  total  loading  time.  In  the 
comparison between IWW and SSS vertical technologies, SSS vertical technologies have 
significantly longer transhipment times due to the higher number of loading units, however 
IWW has considerably longer transport durations because it is only traveling at about half 
the speed. Both effects almost cancel each other out, resulting in very similar results for this 
criterion for both modes of transport. 

Having  the  same  scoring  intervals  for  all  modes  of  transport  enables  the  comparison 
between  the  different  modes  of  transport  but  leads  to  a  lower  informative  value  when 
comparing technologies for the same transport mode. When comparing the delivery times 
of the Flexiwaggon and the BOXmover technologies in Figure 37 it can be seen, that the 
Flexiwagon  has  the  fastest  delivery  time  overall  and  is  almost  twice  as  fast  as  the 
BOXmover, which has the slowest rail delivery time. However, in the scoring in Table 71 
they are only six points apart due to the generally high speed of rail compared to the other 
modes  of  transport.  Within  the  rail  technologies  generally,  the  technologies  transhipping 
semi-trailers  or  full  vehicles  have  fast  delivery  times  compared  to  those  transhipping 
containers. While in the case of vertical transhipment of semi-trailers (craneable and non-
craneable)  this  can  be  explained  by  the  lower  number  of  loading  units  per  train  and  the 
sequential transhipment of the loading units. For the horizontal transhipment technologies 
for  semi-trailers  and  full  vehicles  the  explanation  is  different.  These  technologies  can 
achieve a very fast transhipment time by enabling the simultaneous or nearly simultaneous 
transhipment  of  loading  units.  Nearly  simultaneous  transhipment  is  used  in  this  case  to 
describe the transhipment with the RoLa technology, where all trucks drive into the train 
directly  behind  each  other  and  each  additional  truck  (i.e.  each  loading  unit)  only  adds 
seconds rather than minutes to the total transhipment duration.  

Within the cluster of SSS technologies the RoRo technology combined with different loading 
units  stands  out,  because  it  can  achieve  delivery  times  comparable  to  the  slower  rail 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

technologies. This is due to the lower number of loading units transported on each main leg 
trip but also due to the loading units being transhipped more simultaneously. This follows 
the  same  explanation  provided  previously  for  the  difference  between  sequential  vertical 
transhipment  and  (nearly)  simultaneous  horizontal  transhipment  for  the  rail  mode  of 
transport. 

Regarding the criteria for availability and network coverage, it should be noted that only the 
status quo was used for the scoring, and factors such as the ease or flexibility of rolling out 
a particular technology were not taken into account. For the availability criterion the gantry 
crane and for rail also the reach-stacker technologies transhipping containers achieve the 
highest  scores  per  mode  of  transport.  These  technologies  have  been  in  use  for  a  much 
longer time, are dominating the market and the number of available terminals is accordingly 
many times larger than for the other technologies.   

Most  of  the  identified  terminals  for  task  3.1  have  rail  access,  which  is  why  the  same 
technologies have a higher score for rail than for the other modes of transport. As there are 
less geographical prerequisites for rail than for IWW or SSS terminals, which require the 
availability  of  shippable  rivers  (IWW)  or  coastal  access  (SSS),  this  is  a  plausible 
assumption. 

Although  there  is  a  high  correlation  between  the  availability  and  the  network  coverage 
criteria, the scores for network coverage are equal or higher than the availability score for 
each technology and loading unit combination. Even though the total number of terminals 
for the younger technology and loading unit combinations is much smaller, these terminals 
are usually placed in or near the dense parts of the TEN-T core network corridors in central 
Europe and in most cases are not packed in one place  and can thereby cover relatively 
long stretches of multiple corridors.  

Another issue came up when scoring the gantry crane technology for IWW and SSS as well 
as the RoRo and semi-trailer combination for SSS. Due to the geographical prerequisites 
for these modes of transport there are large parts of the TEN-T core network corridors which 
are not suitable for transport using these modes of transport. We therefore decided to score 
these technologies under the assumption, that they are used in terminals on most parts of 
the core network where they can reasonably be deployed. 

In  operational  practice  the  competitiveness  scores  per  technology  and  loading  unit 
combination and per mode of transport are likely to vary depending on the geographical 
region observed. This influences all four criteria. As has previously been explained, cost 
elements  along  the  transport  chain,  like  personnel,  electricity,  diesel  or  terminal  building 
costs can vary greatly depending on the European country.  

For the total delivery time, geographical differences are to be expected, especially for rail, 
since the train speeds that can be realized depend on general environmental conditions, 
which can vary greatly from region to region and even from route to route. 

The availability per country as well as the network coverage for the less common technology 
and loading unit combinations would likely show the strongest divergence between different 
geographical  regions  because  certain  technology  providers  focused  their  initial  main 
expansion on single countries and are not yet widely available outside of these countries. 
Examples  are  Modalohr  with  a  focus  on  France,  ContainerMover  with  a  focus  on 
Switzerland or Mobiler and ISU with a focus on Austria. These regional differences will not 
be taken into account in the following analyses and evaluations; instead, the focus will be 
entirely on the general European level.  

All these described effects and assumptions lead to the sub and the total competitiveness 
scores shown in the last column of Table 71 for the 600 km transport chain. 

159 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 72: Weighted scoring model competitiveness for 1 000 km transport 

Tranship-
ment 
Technolo
gy 

e
d
o
M

Criteria and assigned weight 
Comparative 
costs 

Delivery 
time 

Sub 
Score 

45% 

25% 

Availability 

15% 

Network 
coverage 
15% 

Sub Score 

Loading 
unit 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St 
(craneable) 
40’ Ct 

St with 
truck 
20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St 
(craneable) 
St with 
truck 
St (non-
craneable) 
40’ Ct 

St (non-
craneable) 
St (non-
craneable) 
20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

St (non-
craneable) 
20’ 
Container 
40’ Ct 

Gantry 
Crane 

BOXmover 
Flexiwaggo
n  

Reach 
stacker 

RoLa 

CargoBea
mer 
Sidelifter 

Modalohr 

r2l 2.0 
trailer-use 
Mobile 
harbour 
crane 
NiKRASA - 
crane 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Container-
Mover 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

ISU 

Mobiler 

Gantry 
crane 

Reach 
stacker 

Mobile 
harbour 
crane 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Gantry 
crane 

Mobile 
harbour 
crane 

Hydraulic 
crane 

St (non-
craneable) 
30’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

RoRo 

RoRo - 
Rolltrailers 

St (non-
craneable) 
40’ Ct 

l
i
a
R

W
W

I

S
S
S

23 

21 

19 

18 

4 

22 

19 

18 

1 

15 

19 

16 

17 

19 

15 

18 

21 

18 

23 

19 

16 

21 

22 

21 

17 

16 

19 

18 

21 

20 

25 

25 

23 

23 

25 

25 

13 

12 

21 

21 

22 

17 

22 

20 

20 

21 

22 

22 

19 

22 

22 

18 

18 

22 

20 

20 

18 

20 

21 

20 

5 

6 

1 

3 

3 

4 

5 

6 

9 

11 

3 

6 

9 

11 

19 

18 

22.29 

21.00 

20.07 

17.64 

10.43 

21.29 

19.36 

19.07 

8.50 

17.50 

19.00 

18.14 

18.79 

18.64 

16.07 

19.43 

20.64 

18.71 

21.21 

19.36 

17.79 

20.64 

15.93 

15.64 

11.29 

11.36 

13.29 

13.00 

15.29 

15.00 

19.29 

20.00 

15.86 

16.93 

19.29 

20.00 

15.14 

14.14 

24 

24 

12 

1 

1 

25 

25 

13 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

14 

14 

2 

2 

1 

1 

9 

9 

25 

25 

25 

1 

1 

25 

25 

25 

1 

3 

1 

3 

4 

8 

8 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

23 

23 

8 

8 

13 

13 

1 

1 

25 

25 

10 

10 

1 

1 

25 

20 

Total 
score 

100% 

22.95 

22.05 

24.50 

24.50 

18.50 

19.6 

1.00 

1.00 

25.00 

25.00 

12.65 

7.6 

22.4 

21.05 

19.00 

19.05 

1.00 

6.25 

2.00 

1.00 

2.00 

2.50 

5.00 

5.00 

2.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

14.50 

14.50 

4.50 

4.50 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

1.00 

19.50 

19.50 

6.00 

6.00 

1.00 

1.00 

17.00 

12.85 

13.6 

13.3 

13.9 

14.55 

12.75 

14.2 

14.75 

13.4 

15.15 

13.85 

12.75 

14.75 

15.5 

15.3 

9.25 

9.3 

11.7 

11.5 

11 

10.8 

19.35 

19.85 

12.9 

13.65 

13.8 

14.3 

15.7 

14.50 

14.25 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Tranship-
ment 
Technolo
gy 
RoRo - 
Cassettes 

None 

e
d
o
M

d
a
o
R

Loading 
unit 

40’ Ct 

St with 
truck 

Criteria and assigned weight 
Comparative 
costs 

Delivery 
time 

Sub 
Score 

45% 

25% 

Availability 

15% 

Network 
coverage 
15% 

Sub Score 

Total 
score 

100% 

20 

16 

17 

18.93 

9 

20 

14.50 

17.6 

25 

19.21 

25 

25 

25.00 

20.95 

For the competitiveness scoring of the 1 000 km transport shown in Table 72 most of the 
explanations and arguments made for the 600 km transport still apply, and we will therefore 
focus  on  what  is  different.  For  the  costs  criterion  a  detailed  analysis  was  provided  in 
chapter5.1.  

For the delivery time score the road-only alternative remains the fastest entry also for the 1 
000 km transport chain due to the highest average speed and no transhipments. Only minor 
changes of plus or minus one point can be observed for the rail technologies with most of 
them  scoring  the  same  because  the  main  leg  speed  is  the  closest  to  the  average  road 
transport speed. For IWW all technology and loading unit combinations reduce their delivery 
time score. This is a result of the slow barge speed. Due to the longer main leg the gap in 
delivery time between IWW and the other modes of transport widens. For SSS the vertical 
transhipment technologies can increase their score. As they previously had a similar total 
delivery time to IWW, the increase in main leg distance now leads to a better score than 
IWW due to faster speed of the ship compared to the barge. For the SSS RoRo technologies 
this  effect  cannot  be  observed  as  they  already  had  a  better  score  due  to  their  faster 
transhipment times. 

As  was  previously  described,  the  criteria  availability  and  network  coverage  are  not 
influenced by the total transport distance and therefore the scores remain the same for all 
technology and loading unit combinations. 

Figure 39 shows the competitiveness score for all technology and loading unit combinations 
for both the 600 km and the 1 000 km distance. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 39: Comparison of the competitiveness score per combination between the 600 km and 1 000 km transport distance 

162 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

As can be seen, the main leg distance does not have a large impact on the competitiveness 
score for most technology and loading unit combinations. One reason for this is, that two of 
the  criteria,  availability  and  network  coverage,  which  together  account  for  30%  of  the 
allocated weight, are independent of the main leg distance. 

The largest impact can be observed on the competitiveness of the road-only transport which 
decreases  with  an  increase  in  transport  distance  due  to  no  longer  having  the  lowest 
comparative costs. However, although most of the intermodal technology and loading unit 
combinations have lower comparative costs for the 1 000 km distance, only four technology 
and loading unit combinations, the gantry and the reach-stacker for both container sizes 
and for rail, achieve a higher competitiveness score, due to the road-only alternative still 
having the fastest delivery time as well as being scored highest for availability and network 
coverage. 

For the intermodal technology and loading unit combinations the picture is mixed, with the 
competitiveness being increased over the longer transport distance for some combinations 
their 
but  being  reduced 
competitiveness which is due to the lowest per unit transport costs on the main leg of all 
modes  of  transport  as  well  as  the  total  delivery  time  improving  compared  to  the  IWW 
delivery time.  

for  others.  Especially 

technologies 

the  SSS 

increase 

The highest competitiveness is achieved by the gantry crane rail technology for all types of 
loading  units  which  also  previously  had  the  highest  competitiveness  score  amongst  the 
intermodal technology and loading unit combinations. However, the competitiveness score 
decreased from the 600 km to the 1 000 km transport chain due to the gaps towards the 
leading  technology  and  loading  unit  combinations,  the  gantry  crane  SSS  for  the  cost 
criterion and the road-only transport for the delivery time criterion, widening. It does however 
still score high in all four criteria and can now score even above the road-only alternative 
achieving the highest overall competitiveness score and not only amongst the intermodal 
technology and loading unit combinations. 

5.3 Potential for modal shift by 2030 taking into account the competitiveness of the 

technology and today’s network limitations 

Determining  the  modal  shift  potential  per  technology  and  loading  unit  combination  is 
impossible due to the insufficient available data about the current terminal handling capacity 
and  capacity  utilization  from  the  sources  utilized  for  task  3.  As  an  alternate  approach  is 
needed, this task was carried out in two steps: 

•  calculation of the potential for modal shift per mode of transport by 2030 in tkm of 

• 

road transport; 
the suitability of a technology and loading unit combination for modal shift based 
on the competitiveness of the technology, today’s network limitations and the 
compatibility with other technology and loading unit combinations. 

Calculation of the potential for modal shift by 2030 in tkm of road transport 

Within  the  European  Green  Deal  (EGD)  and  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy 
(SSMS), the EU sets wide milestones and policy objects for the period from 2021 to 2030. 
To achieve its climate goals, among other things, it includes milestones to raise the shares 
of rail freight, inland waterways (IWW) and short sea shipping (SSS), as follows: 

• 
• 

rail freight traffic shall grow by 50% until 2030; 
transport on inland waterways and short sea shipping shall grow by 25% until 
2030. 

163 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

The last figures of the transport performance, which is the unit of measurement in tkm, of 
all those three modes were available for 2019. Thus, we applied the planned growth of the 
EGD and SSMS on this particular year, to reach a potential for modal shift by 2030. In 2019, 
the transport performance of the EU 27 countries counted to about 406 billion tkm on rail, 
140 billion tkm on inland waterways and 979 billion tkm on short sea shipping. Applying the 
milestones  from  the  EGD  and  SSMS  on  these  transport  performances  in  that  particular 
year, a modal shift potential for rail of 203 billion tkm, for IWW of 35 billion tkm and for SSS 
of almost 245 billion tkm as is shown in Table 73. 

Table 73: Transport performance for rail, IWW and SSS in 2019, envisaged growth and transport 
performance 2030, EU-27 countries 

Mode 

Rail 

IWW 

SSS 

Total 

2019 

billion tkm 

406.4 

139.7 

978.8 

1 524.9 

% 

50% 

25% 

growth by 

2030 

billion tkm 

billion tkm 

203.2 

34.9 

244.7 

482.8 

609.6 

174.6 

1 223.5 

2 007.7 

Source: EU transport in figures - Statistical pocketbook 2021, KombiConsult calculations 

In total this accounts to almost 483 billion tkm of modal shift potential from road to other 
modes of transport such as rail, IWW or SSS by 2030. 

To determine the transport performance for the intermodal transport by 2030, we applied 
the  same growth figures  to the  current  intermodal  share of  each mode, assuming  that  it 
would grow in the same way. This a rather conservative approach because multiple studies 
over  the  past  years  have  estimated  that  the  intermodal  market  segment  will  grow  faster 
than  the  overall  market.  However,  as  no  definite  figures  for  this  additional  growth  of  the 
intermodal market could be identified, the equal growth target for all market segments was 
opted for. For rail, the “2020 Report on Combined Transport in Europe” does not include 
information on tkm in 2019, but it includes information on tonnes in 2019 for international 
and national intermodal transport. As it also states average distances for international and 
national intermodal transport, we multiplied those average distances with the tonnes and 
received  a  total  of  181  billion  tkm  in  2019  for  intermodal  transport  on  rail.  For  inland 
waterways and short sea shipping, Eurostat states the shares of intermodal transport  for 
those modes. With these shares, we receive 14 billion tkm for inland waterways and about 
291 billion tkm for short sea shipping as concerns the intermodal transport performance of 
these modes. Applying the envisaged growth from the EGD and SSMS on these transport 
performances  in  that  particular  year,  it  would  mean  that  the  intermodal  transport 
performance on rail would grow by about 91 billion tkm, IWW by about 4 billion tkm and 
SSS by about 73 billion tkm (see Table 74). 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 74: Intermodal transport performance for rail, IWW and SSS 2019, envisaged growth and 
transport performance in 2030, EU-27 countries 

Mode 

Rail 

IWW 

SSS 

Total 

2019 

billion tkm 

181.1 

14.0 

290.7 

485.8 

% 

50% 

25% 

growth by 

2030 

billion tkm 

billion tkm 

90.6 

3.5 

72.7 

166.8 

271.7 

17.47 

363.4 

652.6 

Source: Source: 2020 Report on Combined Transport, Eurostat, KombiConsult calculations 

Thus, in total, the modal shift potential for rail, IWW and SSS is 166.8 billion tkm based on 
the EGD and SSMS milestones, if the intermodal share grows by the same rate as total 
freight for these modes. 

To meet this goal will also require appropriate infrastructure to be developed. 

To compare these figures with the calculated capacity of the transhipment technologies, we 
applied the following methodology: 

•  converting transport performance (tkm) into transport volume (tonnes) with average 

numbers on km per mode (status 2019). 

•  Converting transport volume from tonnes into loading units with average numbers 

on tonnes per loading unit (status 2019). 

•  Converting transport volume (loading units) into handling volume (loading units). As 
the figures represent mainly EU intra transport, we assume that for each transport 
of one loading unit two handlings are needed on each side of the transport chain 
(factor two). 

Table 75: Intermodal transport performance / volume and handling volume for rail, IWW and SSS 2019, 
in 2030, EU-27 countries 

Mode 

Rail 

IWW 

SSS 

Total 

Transport performance / volume 

Handling 
volume 

billion tkm  Ø ~ km 

million t  Ø t / LU  million LU  million LU 

271.7 

17.1 

363.4 

652.2 

670 

220 
540 

405.5 

77.7 

673.0 

1 156.2 

18.5 

16.0 

15.1 

21.9 

4.9 

44.6 

71.4 

43.8 

9.8 

89.2 

142.8 

Source: 2020 Report on Combined Transport, Eurostat, KombiConsult calculations 

Thus, a total handling capacity of 142.8 million loading units for the intermodal transport of 
rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping is needed in 2030 to reach the milestones of 
the EGD and SSMS.  

In  chapter  4.2  todays  terminal  handling  capacity  was  analysed.  However,  since  only 
incomplete data in low quality was available, only a wide range of possible terminal handling 
capacity per technology and loading unit combination could be provided here. Furthermore, 
the  values  cannot  simply  be  added up,  as the technologies are  not  necessarily mutually 
exclusive, and capacity used for one type of loading unit likely limits the capacity available 
for other types. To provide a very rough estimate for the available total terminal handling 
capacity, the lower bound values and the upper bound values for the different technologies 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

are added up. For the technologies capable of transhipping different types of loading units, 
the  handling  capacity  for  the  LU-type  mostly  transhipped  with  the  technology  is  used. 
Technologies which can only be used with other listed technologies, i.e. the technologies 
used  for  enabling  the  vertical  transhipment  of  non-craneable  semi-trailers,  the  handling 
capacity is ignored because it is already included in the vertical transhipment technologies. 

Using this approach, the resulting range for the possible current terminal handling capacity 
in the EU is between 90 million transhipments to 167 million transhipments. In chapter 4.2, 
it was already explained in detail that there are several factors impacting the accuracy of 
this assessment. These factors are likely to lead to an overestimation of the current terminal 
handling capacity.  

The determined necessary terminal handling capacity of 143 million handlings to realize the 
2030 modal shift milestones falls within the upper third of the calculated range for today’s 
possible  terminal  handling  capacity. When then considering, that  the  calculated  range  is 
likely overestimating the available terminal handling capacity, it is reasonable to assume 
that additional terminal handling capacity will be necessary to realize the 2030 milestones. 

To  determine  the  suitability  for  modal  shift  of  the  different  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations, we are again using a weighted scoring model, this time with three differently 
weighted  criteria  but  otherwise  following  the  same  approach  and  framework  conditions 
described in 5.2 for scoring and weighting the criteria. In this task road-only transport will 
not  be  scored  because this  task  is  concerned  with shifting transport  volumes away from 
road-only transport.  

Two of the three criteria, competitiveness and network limitations, were pre-determined by 
DG  MOVE  and  the  other  criterion,  compatibility,  was  added  by  us  to  take  into  account 
further characteristics of the technology.  

Following the three previously used principles for the allocation of weight to the criteria the 
following weighting was decided upon: 

•  Competitiveness: 50% 

The competitiveness score per technology and loading combination was determined 
in task 5.2 and considers the costs, delivery time, availability and network coverage. 
The score used here will be the one determined for the 600 km transport distance 
because the shorter main leg distance leads to a larger impact of the transhipment 
on  the  total  values  for  cost  and  delivery  time  and  is  thereby  better  suited  for  the 
comparison of the different technologies. The weight of 50% was assigned to this 
criterion. 

•  Network limitations: 30% 

This criterion assesses the potential network limitations for using specific technology 
and loading  unit  combinations  on the  TEN-T core  network  corridors.  For  network 
limitations, which were already analysed throughout tasks 3.5 to 3.9, it was agreed 
with  DG  MOVE  to  focus  on  the  issue  of  loading  gauges  for  rail-road  intermodal 
transport.  Due  to  the  necessary  compliance  between  the  technology  and  loading 
unit combination and the railway line, having too large a loading gauge profile can 
negatively impact or prevent a technology and loading unit combination from being 
deployed.  Removing  loading  gauge  restrictions  can  be  a  very  costly  and  time-
consuming undertaking and while we expect progress to be made, there will likely 
still  be  many  such  limitations  on  the  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  by  2030.  We 
decided to allocate a weight of 30% to this criterion. 

•  Compatibility: 20% 

This  criterion  assesses  the  compatibility  of  the  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations  with  each  other.  Technologies  which  can  easily  be  combined  with 

166 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

other  technologies  in  the  same  transport  chain  are  at  an  advantage.  The  more 
flexible terminals for a technology and loading unit combination can be integrated 
into a heterogenous terminal network the easier and faster it can be deployed and 
scaled up in operations. This criterion was assigned a weight of 20%.  

The  scoring  for  the  competitiveness  criterion  was  done  based  on  the  competitiveness 
calculated  and  discussed  in  detail  in  5.2.  The  calculated  competitiveness  scores  for  all 
technology  and  loading  unit  combinations  were  used  as  the  basis  for  determining  the 
scoring intervals following the approach using the minimum and maximum values and 25 
equally sized scoring intervals explained in chapter 5.2. The road-only score is left out when 
preparing the scoring scale for this model because road-only transport will not be analysed 
in this task. The basis for the scoring scale is shown in below. 

Table 76: Competitiveness scoring intervals 

Basis for Competitiveness intervals 

Value 

Min. 

6.50 

Max. 

23.65 

∆ 

17.15 

Interval width 

0.69 

For  the  network  limitations  criterion.  the  scoring procedure  is  dependent on the  mode  of 
transport of the specific technology and loading unit combination. For rail we looked at the 
minimum necessary loading gauge on route per rail wagon and loading unit combination (2 
550 wide boxes/2 600 mm wide Semi-Trailers) as shown in Table 28. The scoring was then 
conducted according to loading gauge intervals determined on the basis shown in Table 
77.  These  intervals  are  evenly  sized  between  the  P  330  and  the  P  408  loading  gauge 
requirement. 

Table 77: Loading gauge for rail wagon and loading unit combination scoring intervals 

Basis for Network Limitations intervals 

Value 

Min. 

330 

Max. 

408 

∆ 

78 

Interval width 

3.12 

For IWW and SSS the score for network limitations was set to  25 for all technology and 
loading  unit  combinations.  Network  limitations  for  IWW  and  SSS  were  not  part  of  the 
respective  tasks  3.5  to  3.9.  Furthermore,  for  both  modes  of  transport  we  are  looking  at 
relatively small barge or ship sizes which are assumed to be able to travel on all relevant 
shipping lines.  

The compatibility criterion scoring is again dependent on the mode of transport. For IWW 
all analysed technologies and loading units are compatible with each other and therefore 
receive a score of 25 for this criterion.  

For  rail,  the  considerations  were  more  complex  due  to  the  wide  variety  of  different 
technologies and loading unit types. We therefore decided to implement a model, in which 
points  were  awarded  for  two  types  of  compatibility.  The  results  of  the  compatibility 
assessment are shown in Table 79. The first type is the compatibility of a train being loaded 
with  one  specific  technology  and  type  of  loading  unit  (not  size,  in  order  to  not  count 
containers  multiple  times  for  different  sizes)  to  be  unloaded  in  a  terminal  of  another 
technology and type of loading unit combination. Each compatible technology and type of 
loading  unit  combination  where  the  train  could  be  unloaded,  awarded  one  point.  This  is 
shown in the rows for each technology and type of loading unit combinations. The second 
is the compatibility of the terminal with trains loaded by other technology and type of loading 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

unit combinations. Again, each compatibility with another technology and type of loading 
unit combination awarded one point. The results for this type of compatibility are shown in 
the columns. By summing up the results of the row and the column for the same technology 
and  type  of  loading  unit  combination,  the  total  sum  for  the  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations compatibilities are calculated. These points are then again used as the basis 
for determining the scoring intervals as shown in Table 78.  

Table 78: Compatibility scoring intervals 

Basis for Compatibility intervals 

Value 

Min. 

1 

Max. 

17 

∆ 

16 

Interval width 

0.64 

In SSS two main clusters can be identified, one being the vertical crane technologies and 
one the horizontal transhipment RoRo technologies. The vertical transhipment technologies 
in SSS are all compatible with each other, but not with the RoRo technologies, whereas for 
RoRo only semi-trailers can be transhipped in all RoRo terminals but not roll-trailers and 
cassettes as these require additional terminal equipment. None of the RoRo technologies 
is compatible with the vertical crane technologies. These compatibilities were scored the 
same way as for the rail mode of transport. The allocated compatibility points were then 
standardized to the scale of the rail technologies by multiplying them with a factor of the 
maximum rail points divided by the maximum SSS points to score them on the same scale 
as the rail technologies. 

When checking the compatibilities, we adhered strictly to the model terminals described for 
each technology and loading unit combination. Therefore, even if a technology and loading 
unit combination can be made compatible with new ones with a small additional effort, this 
combination will be checked as non-compatible in this analysis.  

168 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Table 79: Compatibility between different transhipment technology and loading unit combinations rail 

169 

BOXmoverFlexi-wagon RoLaCargoBeamerSidelifterModalohrr2l 2.0 trailer-useMobile Harbour craneNiKRASA - craneHydraulic craneContainer-MoverISUMobilerCtST (craneable)40’ CtST with truckCtST (craneable)ST with truckST (non-craneable)40’ CtST (non-craneable)ST (non-craneable)CtST (non-craneable)CtCtST (non-craneable)30’ CtCt110110010111101010ST (craneable)00001000010100003BOXmover40’ Ct110110010111101010Flexiwagon ST with truck111111011111111115Ct111010010111101010ST (craneable)01000000010100003RoLaST with truck00000000000000000CargoBeamerST (non-craneable)01000100010100004Sidelifter40’ Ct111011000111101010ModalohrST (non-craneable)00000000000000000r2l 2.0 trailer-useST (non-craneable)01000100000100003Mobile Harbour CraneCt111011001011101010NiKRASA - craneST (non-craneable)00000000000000000Hydraulic CraneCt111011001011101010ContainerMoverCt111011001011111011ISUST (non-craneable)00000000000000000Mobiler30’ Ct01000100001010004712707121071127137181Total rowsTotal columnsReach StackerGantry CraneReachstackerGantry Crane 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Based  on  the  described  criteria  and  procedure  for  the  suitability  for  modal  shift  the 
technology and loading unit combinations are then scored. The results are shown in Table 
80 in the standard order and in sorted by score per mode of transport. 

Table 80: Weighted scoring model Suitability for modal shift 

Criteria and assigned weight 
Competitive
ness 

Compatibilit
y 

Network 
limitations 
30% 
25 

  Tranship-
e
ment 
d
o
Technology 
M

Gantry Crane 

BOXmover 

Flexiwaggon  

Reach stacker 

RoLa 

CargoBeamer 

l
i
a
R

Sidelifter 

Modalohr 

r2l 2.0 trailer-
use 

Mobile harbour 
crane 

NiKRASA - 
crane 

Hydraulic crane 

ContainerMover 

ISU 

Mobiler 

Gantry crane 

W
W

I

Reach stacker 

Mobile harbour 
crane 

Hydraulic crane 

Gantry crane 

S
S
S

Mobile harbour 
crane 

Hydraulic crane 

Loading unit 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

Semi-trailer 
(craneable) 
40’ Container 

Semi-trailer with 
truck 
20’ Container 

40’ Container 

Semi-trailer 
(craneable) 
Semi-trailer with 
truck 
Semi-trailer 
(non-craneable) 
40’ Container 

Semi-trailer 
(non-craneable) 
Semi-trailer 
(non-craneable) 
20’ Container 

40’ Container 

Semi-trailer 
(non-craneable) 
20’ Container 

40’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

Semi-trailer 
(non-craneable) 
30’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

50% 
25 

24 

21 

8 

4 

23 

20 

18 

1 

10 

10 

10 

13 

10 

6 

13 

12 

9 

12 

11 

8 

12 

14 

13 

1 

1 

6 

6 

7 

8 

19 

19 

7 

8 

10 

10 

25 

5 

25 

6 

25 

25 

5 

1 

8 

25 

7 

3 

25 

25 

5 

25 

25 

21 

21 

5 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

20% 
25 

25 

22 

25 

22 

25 

25 

22 

1 

5 

25 

1 

22 

25 

25 

19 

25 

25 

18 

18 

11 

7 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

Total 
score 

100% 

25 

24.5 

16.4 

16.5 

8.2 

24 

22.5 

14.9 

1 

8.4 

17.5 

7.3 

11.8 

17.5 

15.5 

11.8 

18.5 

17 

15.9 

15.4 

7.7 

14.9 

19.5 

19 

13 

13 

15.5 

15.5 

16 

16.5 

22 

22 

16 

16.5 

17.5 

17.5 

170 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Criteria and assigned weight 
Competitive
ness 

Compatibilit
y 

Network 
limitations 
30% 

Table 81: Weighted scoring model Suitability for modal shift 

Criteria and assigned weight 
Competitive
ness 

Compatibilit
y 

Network 
limitations 
30% 

  Tranship-
e
ment 
d
o
Technology 
M

RoRo 

RoRo - 
Rolltrailers 
RoRo - 
Cassettes 

Loading unit 

Semi-trailer 
(non-craneable) 
40’ Container 

40’ Container 

  Tranship-
e
ment 
d
o
Technology 
M

Loading unit 

Gantry Crane 

Gantry Crane 

Reach stacker 

Reach stacker 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

Hydraulic crane 

20’ Ct 

Sidelifter 
Mobile harbour 
crane 
Hydraulic crane 

BOXmover 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

Gantry Crane 

ST (craneable) 

ContainerMover 
Mobile harbour 
crane 
ContainerMover 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

l
i
a
R

Reach stacker 

ST (craneable) 

Mobiler 
r2l 2.0 trailer-
use 
NiKRASA - 
crane 

CargoBeamer 

Flexiwagon  

ISU 

Modalohr 

RoLa 

30’ Ct 
ST (non-
craneable) 
ST (non-
craneable) 
ST (non-
craneable) 
ST with truck 
ST (non-
craneable) 
ST (non-
craneable) 
ST with truck 

Gantry Crane 

Gantry Crane 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

Hydraulic crane 

20’ Ct 

W
W

I

Hydraulic crane 
Mobile harbour 
crane 
Mobile harbour 
crane 
Reach stacker 

Reach stacker 

SSS

Gantry Crane 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

20’ Ct 

50% 

13 

10 

14 

50% 

25 

24 

23 

20 

12 

10 

10 

9 

8 

21 

12 

6 

11 

18 

12 

13 

13 

10 

4 

8 

10 

1 

14 

13 

7 

7 

6 

6 

1 

1 

19 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

5 

21 

25 

21 

5 

25 

3 

5 

8 

6 

5 

7 

1 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

20% 

12 

6 

6 

Total 
score 

100% 

16.4 

13.7 

15.7 

Total 
score 

20% 

100% 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

22 

18 

25 

18 

22 

7 

22 

19 

5 

22 

11 

1 

1 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

24.5 

24 

22.5 

18.5 

17.5 

17.5 

17 

16.5 

16.4 

15.9 

15.5 

15.4 

14.9 

14.9 

11.8 

11.8 

8.4 

8.2 

7.7 

7.3 

1 

19.5 

19 

16 

16 

15.5 

15.5 

13 

13 

22 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Criteria and assigned weight 
Competitive
ness 

Compatibilit
y 

Network 
limitations 
30% 
25 

  Tranship-
e
ment 
d
o
Technology 
M

Loading unit 

Gantry Crane 

40’ Ct 

Hydraulic crane 

20’ Ct 

Hydraulic crane 
Mobile harbour 
crane 

40’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

RoRo 

Mobile harbour 
crane 
RoRo - 
Cassettes 
RoRo - 
Rolltrailers 

ST (non-
craneable) 

20’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

40’ Ct 

50% 
19 

10 

10 

8 

13 

7 

14 

10 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

Total 
score 

100% 

22 

17.5 

17.5 

16.5 

16.4 

16 

15.7 

13.7 

20% 
25 

25 

25 

25 

12 

25 

6 

6 

The competitiveness criteria have been discussed in detail in 5.2 and will not be discussed 
here again. 

With regard to the network limitations for rail, it can be seen that for the same type of loading 
unit  they  are  mostly  the  same.  Whereas  the  container  technologies  receive  the  highest 
score,  the  technologies  for  transhipping  semi-trailers  and  full  vehicles  are  scoring  in  the 
single digits. The Flexiwaggon for full vehicles and the horizontal transhipment technologies 
for non-craneable semi-trailers, CargoBeamer and Modalohr, are scoring higher than the 
other semi-trailer and full vehicle technologies. For these technologies the score is higher 
than  for  their  counterparts  transhipping  the  same  types  of  loading  units  because  the 
specialized  wagons  noticeable reduce the  loading  profile for the  wagon  and loading  unit 
combination. 

The ContainerMover as well as the r2l 2.0 technologies are using additional equipment on 
the main leg which increases the loading profile of the wagon and loading unit combination, 
this increase is sufficient to impact their scoring and they are scoring lower than the other 
technologies transhipping the same types of loading units onto standard wagons. 

For network limitations all IWW and SSS technology and loading unit combinations scored 
a  five,  which  also  means  that  these  modes  have  a  clear  advantage  in  this  criterion 
compared to rail. 

When  looking  at  the  score  for  the  compatibility  criterion  it  can  be  noticed  that  most  rail 
technologies  received  a  high  score  in  the  twenties.  The  vertical  rail  transhipment 
technologies  except  for  two,  which  require  additional  specialized  terminal  equipment, 
received the highest scores and are mostly compatible with each other. However also some 
horizontal  technologies  achieve  a  high  compatibility  score.  These  are  the  horizontal 
container technologies BOXmover and Sidelifter which are also fully compatible with vertical 
container  technologies,  and  the  Flexiwaggon,  which  doesn’t  require  a  complex  or 
specialized terminal but can be loaded or unloaded almost anywhere on its own. Although 
the Flexiwaggon has a high compatibility with other terminals, the assumed Flexiwaggon 
terminal itself cannot be used for trains loaded by another technology, as it lacks any kind 
of  transhipment  equipment.  Still,  this  is  enough  for  a  high  score  due  to  no  other  rail 
technology  achieving  significantly  more  compatibility  points.  For  NiKRASA  and  ISU  the 
terminals are using specialized terminal equipment required for loading and unloading the 
train. Although the terminals itself are also suited to unload trains loaded with certain other 
technologies, NiKRASA and ISU trains cannot be handled in any other terminal, thereby 
reducing the compatibility compared to other vertical transhipment technologies for semi-
trailers. The opposite is the case for the ContainerMover and the Mobiler technologies. For 

172 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

these technologies the terminal is unable to handle trains from other technologies (except 
the Flexiwaggon) due to technology requiring specialized loading units or adapters on the 
train,  however  the  trains  can  be  handled  by  other  container  terminal  technologies.  The 
lowest scores are received by the remaining horizontal transhipment technologies. For the 
CargoBeamer technology, the train can be handled by other technologies for the vertical 
transhipment of craneable and non-craneable semi-trailers (except the ISU technology) but 
the terminal is incompatible with all other technologies. For Rola and Modalohr the terminal 
can be used also by the Flexiwaggon, however the trains themselves cannot be handled by 
terminals for other technologies. 

All IWW technologies are fully compatible with each other for the chosen barge size and 
receive  a  score  of  five  and  for  SSS  a  differentiation  must  be  made  between  the  vertical 
technologies  and  the  horizontal  RoRo  technologies.  The  crane  technologies  are  all  fully 
compatible with each other within our model parameters but are unable to handle the RoRo 
technologies. For RoRo, semi-trailers can be handled in all terminals, but the semi-trailer 
terminal is unable to handle roll-trailers or cassettes without additional equipment. For the 
roll-trailer  and  cassette  technologies  this  in  turn  means,  that  the  corresponding  RoRo 
terminals can also handle semi-trailers, but the roll-trailers and cassettes cannot be handled 
in any other terminal, thereby reducing compatibility.  

Because  the  total  potential  for  modal  shift  as  well  as  the  scoring  for  two  of  the  criteria 
already differentiates between the modes of transport, it is reasonable to also conduct the 
discussion  of  the  resulting  score  of  suitability  for  modal  shift  based  on  the  modes  of 
transport. 

For the rail mode of transport, from the technology and loading unit perspective container 
technologies generally achieved a higher suitability score than technologies for other types 
of loading units due to their high scores for network limitations and compatibility and at least 
average scores for competitiveness.  

Between craneable and non-craneable semi-trailer technologies the craneable semi-trailer 
technologies  achieve  higher  suitability  scores.  This  is  mainly  a  result  of  higher 
competitiveness  and  compatibility  scores.  The  higher  competitiveness  score  implies  that 
even though the craneable semi-trailer is slightly more expensive and a little heavier than 
the non-craneable variant, this does not have an overall negative impact on the intermodal 
transport chain but can be over-compensated by other positive effects. As they score low 
in the network limitations criterion and are unable to be used for transports on routes with 
a lower loading gauge. In these cases, it might be suitable to deploy lower loading gauge 
horizontal technologies even if they achieved an overall lower score. 

When  discussing  the  advantageousness  of  different  loading  unit  types,  it  is  important  to 
point back to chapter 5.1 where we discussed in-depth the impact of our model assumptions 
on  the  comparison  between  different  loading  unit  types  and  based  on  this  also  some 
resulting shortcomings when transferring the results to real world transport decisions. 

For  IWW  only  the  competitiveness  score  is  different  for  the  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations and both other criteria are the same. This results in the gantry crane having 
the highest competitiveness score and thereby also the highest suitability for modal shift. 
However,  all  technologies  are  fully  compatible  with  each  other  and  none  scored  badly, 
therefore they all might be viable depending on the right circumstances, for example smaller 
terminals where a gantry crane could not be used to its full capacity. 

SSS is similar to IWW for the vertical crane technologies and follows the same arguments. 
For RoRo the semi-trailer variant shows the highest suitability whereas the roll-trailer and 
cassette variants for containers fall short to both RoRo the semi-trailer as well as the crane 
technologies  used  for  containers.  The  cassette  scores  higher  than  the  roll-trailer 
technology.  It  is  however  important  to  note  that  this  study  considered  double  stacked 

173 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

cassettes  and  whether  this  is  feasible  or  not  is  dependent  on  external  circumstances, 
especially whether the deployed ship allows for this type of transport. The advantageous 
technologies  for  short  sea  container  transport  are  therefore  the  vertical  container 
technologies, with RoRo coming under consideration when these are either not available or 
feasible, for example due to low container transport volumes. 

5.4 Potential for saving external costs by 2030 based on potential for modal shift 

In 5.3 the potential for modal shift per mode of transport by intermodal transport chains in 
tkm of road-only transport was determined based on the European milestones to raise the 
share  of  rail,  IWW  and  SSS  by  2030  to  achieve  its  climate  goals.  These  modal  shift 
potentials  are  now  evaluated  for  their  external  cost  savings  if  they  are  achieved  with  a 
certain technology and loading unit combination.  

For each technology and loading unit combinations the external costs of the 600km and 1 
000  km  transport  chain  were  determined  based  on  the  Handbook  on  external  costs  in 
transport and the considerations described in chapter 3.2.3 – part External costs.  

The external costs were determined based on the total weight of the train, barge, ship or 
road vehicle, instead of only the loaded goods weight, in order to account for differences in 
transport equipment weight between the different technology and loading unit combinations 
which would otherwise be ignored. 

In  the  same  chapter  the  determined  road-only  costs  for  a  600  km  and  1  000  km  were 
calculated with the same approach. By calculating the difference between the external costs 
for  each  technology  and  loading  unit  combination  and  road-only  transport  for  the  same 
transport  distance  and  dividing  the  result  by  the  loaded  goods  weight  and  the  transport 
distance the external cost savings potential per tkm of intermodal transport compared to 
road-only transport can be determined for each technology and loading unit combination.  

By  then  multiplying  the  external  cost  saving  potentials  per  tkm  for  each  technology  and 
loading  unit  combination  with  the  potential  for  modal  shift  of  the  respective  mode  of 
transport, the total potential for saving external costs by 2030 can be calculated. The results 
are shown in Figure 40. 

As can be seen, the potential for saving external costs is mainly dependent on the mode of 
transport and consequently the potential for modal shift per mode of transport. Because the 
modal shift potential for IWW is small compared to rail and SSS, also the potential external 
cost savings by 2030 are smaller than for the other modes. For IWW there are only small 
differences between the technologies regarding their external cost savings potential. 

Generally,  for  all  technology  and  loading  unit  combinations  and  modes  of  transport  the 
external costs of transhipment are magnitudes lower than the external costs of transport on 
the road leg as well as on the main leg. Differences between the technologies for one mode 
of transport are therefore mainly caused by a different number of loading units on the main 
leg means of transport and thereby the transport efficiency. One other effect impacts the 
ContainerMover  and  the  Hydraulic  crane  technologies.  Because  these  technologies  can 
only handle lighter loading units than are assumed for the other technologies, even though 
this slightly increases the number of loading units, the total transport performance per main 
leg transport is lower and therefore fewer external costs are saved per tkm compared to 
road-only transport. 

For all technology and loading unit combinations the longer 1 000 km transport distance 
increases  the  external  cost  savings  potential  due to the  increased  share  of the  main  leg 
transport distance. 

174 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For IWW the loading unit capacity of the barge is similar for all technologies, therefore no 
big differences can be observed. 

For SSS and rail the same as for IWW can be observed for the vertical crane technology 
and container combinations which are all similar in loading unit capacity. Only the hydraulic 
crane has a slightly lower external costs savings potential caused by the lower loaded goods 
weight per loading unit as already explained.  

175 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 40: potential for saving external costs by 2030 per technology and loading unit combination 

176 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

The lower loaded goods weight is also noticeable for the ContainerMover technology which 
has a lower external cost savings potential than any other container technology for rail. 

For all other technology and loading unit combinations the external cost savings potential 
correlates to the number of loading unit spots on the main leg means of transport. This is 
especially  noticeable  for  the  RoRo  variants  where  either  166  semi-trailers,  192  40’ 
containers  on  roll-trailers  or  384  40’  containers  on  double  stacked  cassettes  can  be 
transported on the same ship. 

5.5 Comparative costs taking into account also external costs 

This task evaluates the comparative costs of the technology and loading unit combinations 
taking into account also the external costs incurred during transport and transhipment for 
one  loading  unit.  To  this  end  the  external  costs,  as  previously  determined  based  on  the 
Handbook on external costs in transport and shown in the fact sheets for each technology 
and loading unit combination, are added to the comparative costs shown and analysed in 
chapter  5.1.  The  external  costs  were  determined  based  on  the  total  weight  of  the  train, 
barge, ship or road vehicle, instead of only the loaded goods weight, in order to account for 
differences in transport equipment weight between the different technology and loading unit 
combinations which would otherwise be ignored.  

The results for the 600 km transport chain are shown in Figure 41. Each technology and 
loading unit combination has its own column, of which the lower blue part represents the 
previously shown comparative system costs and the upper green part the added external 
costs. The horizontal black line provides the comparative road-only costs, and the grey line 
provides  the  road-only  costs  incl.  the  external  costs  of.  The  results  for  the  1  000  km 
transport chain are shown in a similar way in Figure 42. Here the lower orange part of the 
columns  represents  the  previously  shown  comparative  system  costs  and  the  upper  blue 
part the added external costs per technology and loading unit combination. The horizontal 
yellow  line  provides  the  comparative  road-only  costs,  and  the  horizontal  orange  line 
provides the road-only costs incl. the external costs.  

When taking the external costs into consideration, only seven technology and loading unit 
combinations have higher comparative costs than the road-only transport for the 600 km 
transport chain. These are technology and loading unit combinations which already without 
external  costs  had  high  comparative  costs  and  were  above  most  other  technology  and 
loading unit combinations as well as road-only transport. The other technology and loading 
unit combinations which also showed higher comparative costs (excl. external costs) than 
road-only transport now fall below road-only transport when including external costs. 

For  the  comparison  of  the  technologies  with  each  other,  the  other  findings  for  the 
comparative costs analysis without external costs can be confirmed as well. Smaller and 
less complex loading units still show lower comparative costs than larger and more complex 
loading units for comparable technologies which, as explained, is due to the more efficient 
capacity utilization for the assumed standard loaded goods weight of 20 t per loading unit. 

In the comparison between the technologies used for all the different modes of transport 
SSS  still  offers  the  lowest  comparative  costs  per  loading  unit  with rail  being  second  and 
IWW  offering  the  highest  comparative  costs  for  all  six  technology  and  loading  unit 
combinations used on all modes of transport. 

177 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 41: Total system costs incl. external costs for the 600 km model transport chain per LU 

178 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 42: Total system costs incl. external costs for the 1 000 km model transport chain per LU 

179 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

The  ContainerMover  technology  with  20’  containers  now  showing  the  lowest  overall 
comparative  costs  for  rail  technologies  is  due  to  the  previously  explained  lower  max. 
transhipment weight of the technology. For this reason, more loading units are transported 
per train and the transport as well as external costs are distributed over more loading units 
lowering the per unit costs. 

For all entries the external costs of the 600 km intermodal transport chain are lower than 
the external costs of the road-only alternative.  

When looking at the 1 000 km transport comparative costs including external costs, only 
the technologies for accompanied intermodal transport still show higher comparative costs 
than  road-only  transport.  All  other  technology  and  loading  unit  combinations  have  lower 
comparative costs incl. external costs than road-only transport with some technologies even 
being only slightly above the road-only comparative costs excl. external costs.

180 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

6. GLOSSARY 

Combined Transport (CT) is intermodal transport where the major part of the journey is by 
rail, inland waterways or sea and any initial and/or final leg carried out by road is as short as 
possible.77. 

Intermodal transport is movement of goods (in one and the same loading unit or a vehicle) 
by successive modes of transport without handling of the goods themselves when changing 
modes.  Vehicle  can  be  a  road  or  rail  vehicle  or  a  vessel.  It  is  hence  a  type  of  multimodal 
transport.78 

Multimodal transport is carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport.79 

Horizontal  transhipment  describes  a  transhipment  process  during  which  the  transhipped 
loading unit is not lifted up or is lifted only a small amount to release it from the transport locks. 
Horizontal transhipment technologies can usually be used under the overhead line (catenary). 

Vertical transhipment on the other hand describes a transhipment process during which the 
loading unit is subjected to a high vertical lift in order to be moved between the different modes 
of transport. These technologies cannot be used under the overhead line (catenary). 

Accompanied intermodal transport describes a form of transport where the loading unit is 
transported  by  rail,  inland waterway or  sea  and  is  accompanied  by the tractor  unit  and the 
road vehicle driver.  

Unaccompanied intermodal transport describes the transport of loading units on rail, inland 
waterway or sea without the accompanying driver and usually also without the tractor unit. 

(European) Technical Readiness Levels (TRL) describe on a scale ranging from 1 to 9 the 
technical readiness of a certain technology, with 1 representing the lowest and 9 the highest 
TRL. 

77 REFIT Ex-Post Evaluation of the CT Directive 92/106/EEC in 2016;  

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2016)140&lang=de 

78 Ibidem 
79 Ibidem 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

7. Annexes 

7.1 Annex 1: Technology fact sheets 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

FACT SHEET FOR “GANTRY CRANE (WITH/WITHOUT CANTILEVER)” ....................... 185 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

Fact sheet for “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – Rail/Road” ........................ 185 
1.1.1 

Fact  Sheet  “Gantry  Crane  (with/without  cantilever)  –  Rail/Road  – 
Containers” ................................................................................................ 187 
1.1.1.1 

“Gantry  Crane 

Fact  Sheet 
Rail/Road – 20’ Container” ....................................................... 192 
Fact  Sheet 
Rail/Road – 40’ Container” ....................................................... 196 

(with/without  cantilever)  – 

(with/without  cantilever)  – 

“Gantry  Crane 

1.1.1.2 

1.1.2 

Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – Rail/Road – Semi-
trailer” ........................................................................................................ 200 
Fact sheet for “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – IWW/Road” ...................... 210 
1.2.1 

Fact  Sheet  “Gantry  Crane  (with/without  cantilever)  –  IWW/Road  – 
Containers” ................................................................................................ 212 
1.2.1.1 

Fact  Sheet 
IWW/Road – 20’ Container” ..................................................... 217 
Fact  Sheet 
IWW/Road – 40’ Container” ..................................................... 221 
Fact sheet for “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – SSS/Road” ....................... 226 
1.3.1 

Fact  Sheet  “Gantry  Crane  (with/without  cantilever)  –  SSS/Road  – 
Containers” ................................................................................................ 228 
1.3.1.1 

(with/without  cantilever)  – 

(with/without  cantilever)  – 

“Gantry  Crane 

“Gantry  Crane 

“Gantry  Crane 

1.2.1.2 

Fact  Sheet 
SSS/Road – 20’ Container” ...................................................... 233 
Fact  Sheet 
SSS/Road – 40’ Container” ...................................................... 237 

(with/without  cantilever)  – 

(with/without  cantilever)  – 

“Gantry  Crane 

1.3.1.2 

2 

FACT SHEET FOR “REACH STACKER” ........................................................................... 242 

2.1 

2.2 

Fact sheet for “Reach stacker – Rail/Road” ............................................................. 242 
Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – Containers” ............................. 243 
2.1.1 
Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – 20’ Container” ........ 248 
2.1.1.1 
2.1.1.2 
Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – 40’ Container” ........ 252 
2.1.2 
Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – Semi-trailer” ............................ 257 
Fact sheet for “Reach stacker – IWW/Road” ............................................................ 266 
2.2.1 

Fact  Sheet  “Gantry  Crane  (with/without  cantilever)  –  IWW/Road  – 
Containers” ................................................................................................ 267 
Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – IWW/Road – 20’ Container” ...... 272 
2.2.1.1 
Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – IWW/Road – 40’ Container” ...... 276 
2.2.1.2 

3 

FACT SHEET FOR “HYDRAULIC MATERIAL HANDLING CRANE” ................................. 281 

3.1 

3.2 

Fact sheet for “Hydraulic material handling crane – Rail/Road” ............................... 281 
3.1.1 

Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – Rail/Road – Containers”
 ................................................................................................................... 283 
3.1.1.1 

Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – Rail/Road – 
20’ Container”........................................................................... 289 
Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – 40’ Container”
 ................................................................................................. 293 
Fact sheet for “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road” ............................. 297 

3.1.1.2 

182 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

3.3 

3.2.1 

3.2.1.2 

Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road – Containers”
 ................................................................................................................... 300 
3.2.1.1 

Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road – 
20’ Container”........................................................................... 304 
Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road – 
40’ Container”........................................................................... 308 
Fact sheet for “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road” .............................. 313 
3.3.1 

Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road – Containers”
 ................................................................................................................... 316 
3.3.1.1 

Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road – 
20’ Container”........................................................................... 320 
Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road – 
40’ Container”........................................................................... 324 

3.3.1.2 

4 

FACT SHEET FOR “MOBILE HARBOUR CRANE” ............................................................ 330 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.1.1.2 

Fact sheet for “Mobile harbour crane – Rail/Road” .................................................. 330 
Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – Rail/Road – Containers” .................. 331 
4.1.1 
4.1.1.1 

Fact  Sheet  “Mobile  harbour  crane  –  Rail/Road  –  20’ 
Container” ................................................................................ 336 
Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – 40’ Container” ................ 341 
Fact sheet for “Mobile harbour crane – IWW/Road” ................................................. 346 
Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – IWW/Road – Containers” ................ 347 
4.2.1 
4.2.1.1 

Fact  Sheet  “Mobile  harbour  crane  –  IWW/Road  –  20’ 
Container” ................................................................................ 352 
Fact  Sheet  “Mobile  harbour  crane  –  IWW/Road  –  40’ 
Container” ................................................................................ 356 
Fact sheet for “Mobile harbour crane – SSS/Road” ................................................. 361 
Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – SSS/Road – Containers” ................. 362 
4.3.1 
4.3.1.1 

4.2.1.2 

Fact  Sheet  “Mobile  harbour  crane  –  SSS/Road  –  20’ 
Container” ................................................................................ 367 
Fact  Sheet  “Mobile  harbour  crane  –  SSS/Road  –  40’ 
Container” ................................................................................ 371 

4.3.1.2 

FACT SHEET FOR “DECK CRANE ON SHORT SEA CONTAINER SHIP – CRANE SHIP 
– SSS/ROAD” ...................................................................................................................... 376 

FACT SHEET FOR “FURMIA RTS 500 – RAIL/ROAD” ..................................................... 377 

FACT SHEET FOR “RORO RAMP TO/FROM SHIP”......................................................... 379 

7.1 

Fact sheet for “RoRo Ramp to/from Ship – SSS/Road” ........................................... 379 
Fact Sheet “RoRo Ramp to/from Ship – SSS/Road” ................................ 381 
7.1.1 
7.1.1.1 

7.1.1.2 

7.1.1.3 

Fact  Sheet  “RoRo  Ramp  to/from  Ship  –  SSS/Road  –  Semi-
trailers” ..................................................................................... 381 
Fact  Sheet  “RoRo  Ramp  to/from  Ship  –  SSS/Road  –  Roll-
trailers” ..................................................................................... 389 
Fact  Sheet  “RoRo  Ramp  to/from  Ship  –  SSS/Road  – 
Cassettes (2LU)” ...................................................................... 398 

FACT SHEET FOR “METROCARGO – RAIL/ROAD” ........................................................ 406 

FACT SHEET FOR “N.E.H.T.S. (NEUWEILER) – RAIL/ROAD” ........................................ 409 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10  1FACT  SHEET  FOR  “IUT  -  INNOVATIVER  UMSCHLAGTERMINAL  (INNOVATIVE 

TRANSHIPMENT TERMINAL) – RAIL/ROAD” ................................................................... 411 

11  FACT SHEET FOR “CARCONTRAIN – RAIL/ROAD” ........................................................ 413 

12  FACT SHEET FOR “SIDELIFTER – RAIL/ROAD” .............................................................. 415 

183 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

13  FACT SHEET FOR “BOXMOVER – SIDE LODER – RAIL/ROAD” .................................... 427 

14  FACT SHEET FOR “MOBILER – RAIL/ROAD” .................................................................. 439 

15  FACT SHEET FOR “CONTAINERMOVER – RAIL/ROAD” ................................................ 451 

15.1  Fact Sheet „ContainerMover – Rail/Road – Containers” .......................................... 453 
15.1.1  Fact Sheet „ContainerMover – Rail/Road – 20’ Container” ...................... 457 
15.1.2  Fact Sheet „ContainerMover – Rail/Road – 40’ Container” ...................... 462 

16  FACT  SHEET  FOR 

“CARGOBEAMER  –  RAIL/ROAD  HORIZONTAL  FIRST 

GENERATION – RAIL/ROAD” ............................................................................................ 467 

17  FACT  SHEET  FOR  “CARGOBEAMER  HORIZONTAL  NEXT  GENERATION  – 

RAIL/ROAD” ........................................................................................................................ 469 

18  FACT SHEET FOR “MODALOHR 1ST GENERATION (AFA) – RAIL/ROAD” .................. 481 

19  FACT  SHEET  FOR  “MODALOHR  2ND  GENERATION  (LOHR 

INDUSTRIE)  – 

RAIL/ROAD” ........................................................................................................................ 483 

20  FACT SHEET FOR “MODALOHR UIC (LOHR INDUSTRIE) – RAIL/ROAD” .................... 485 

21  FACT SHEET FOR “HELROM – RAIL/ROAD” ................................................................... 497 

22  FACT SHEET FOR “NIKRASA – RAIL/ROAD” (CRANE TERMINAL) ............................... 499 

23  FACT 

SHEET 

SATTELANHÄNGER 
UMSCHLAG/INNOVATIVE  SAMI-TRAILER  TRANSHIPMENT  –  RAIL/ROAD”  (CRANE 
TERMINAL) ......................................................................................................................... 510 

INNOVATIVER 

FOR 

“ISU 

– 

24  FACT SHEET FOR “CARGOSPEED – RAIL/ROAD” ......................................................... 521 

25  FACT SHEET FOR “RAIL RUNNER – RAIL/ROAD” .......................................................... 523 

26  FACT SHEET FOR “ROLA – RAIL/ROAD” ......................................................................... 524 

27  FACT SHEET FOR “EUROTUNNEL FREIGHT SHUTTLE – RAIL/ROAD” ....................... 534 

28  FACT SHEET FOR “FLEXIWAGGON – RAIL/ROAD”........................................................ 536 

29  FACT  SHEET  FOR  “ROADRAILLINK  2.0  –  TRAILER  USE  –  RAIL/ROAD”  (CRANE 

TERMINAL) ......................................................................................................................... 547 

184 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1  FACT SHEET FOR “GANTRY CRANE (WITH/WITHOUT CANTILEVER)” 
1.1  Fact sheet for “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – Rail/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.kuenz.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A gantry crane consists of the crane system, the trolley, the rail system and the lifting equipment. 
The  crane  system  consists  of  two  legs  that  are  connected  via  a  crossbeam  and  form  a  gantry. 
There is a fixed leg and a swinging leg to compensate for temperature-related deformations. The 
legs usually run-on tracks along the working area under the gantry.  A gantry crane version with 
rubber  wheels  is  also  available.  If  the  crossbeam  extends  beyond  the  supports,  this  is  called  a 
cantilever and thus increases the working area.  
Other components are the trolley, which travels along the crossbeam, and the rail system on which 
the crane travels. The trolley consists of the lifting mechanism on which the spreader for picking up 
the loading unit is suspended from steel cables, and the crane operator's cabin which enables the 
crane operator to control the crane. 
In  addition  to  this  standard  crane,  other  elements  can  be  added  in  some  cases  and  elements 
described can be omitted.  For example, a crane operator's cabin can be  omitted if the crane  is 
remote-controlled or operates automatically. 
In the case of the spreader, a distinction must be made as to which loading units it is to handle. If 
it is only intended for containers, a simple spreader is sufficient that moves into the corner castings 
of the loading units with the help of twist locks, locks them and then the loading unit is lifted. After 
the loading unit has been set down, the twist locks are unlocked and the spreader is removed from 
the loading unit. If semi-trailers or swap bodies without corner castings are to be handled, grappler 
arms are required that grip the loading units from the side at their grappler pockets. 

Process: 

•  Crane moves to the loading unit (storage) or loading unit is moved under the crane (Semi-

trailer); 

•  crane moves over the loading unit with the trolley and lowers the spreader; 
•  spreader grips the loading unit or locks the twist locks; 
trolley lifts the loading unit; 
• 
•  crane moves to destination; 
• 

trolley lowers spreader with loading unit; 

185 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  spreader is opened or unlocked; 
•  spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order. 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  High investment costs; 
• 

large area is necessary to take advantage 
of; 
further terminal infrastructure necessary; 

• 
•  mostly fixed on rails. 

•  Standardised system and compatible 
with common craneable loading units; 
fast transhipment rate; 

• 
•  automation and digitalisation easy to 

• 

• 

• 

implement; 
remote control is more employee-
friendly (more interesting for employee 
recruitment); 
large working area is covered, which is 
used very efficiently (a lot of storage 
area and transhipment area in relation 
to the traffic area of the crane (crane 
track)); 
compact storage area under crane, 
which can be used to 100%; 

•  efficient technology for consumption 

and transhipment speed; 
low life cycle costs; 
long service life. 

• 
• 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

41 t 

186 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – Rail/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Loco, Sggrss 80’ rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

For 40’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

64 (54) 

50 (43) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Train driver 

Departure duration: 

 Total 

30,0 min 

20’: 63,2 min 
40’: 98,8 min 

10,0 min 

20’: 73,2 min 
40’: 108,8 min 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

4,0 min 

4,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 11 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

•  All process steps: 8 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 108 min 
•  40’-Container: 86 min 

•  20’-Container: 108 min 
•  40’-Container: 86 min 

•  20’-Container: 181 min 
•  40’-Container: 195 min 

•  20’-Container: 148 min 
•  40’-Container: 126 min 

•  20’-Container: 1,94 
•  40’-Container: 2,44 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

162 min 
162 min 
486 min 
216 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
63 min 
10 min 
1.159 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

129 min 
129 min 
387 min 
172 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
99 min 
10 min 
986 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

675 min 
338 min 

189 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

0 min 
0 min 
324 min 
216 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
610 min 

75 min 
6 min 

29,24 h 

19,24 h 

208 h 

193 h 

3,85 h 

3,57 h 

0 min 
0 min 
258 min 
172 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
500 min 

75 min 
6 min 

29,10 h 

19,10 h 

173 h 

158 h 

4,03 h 

3,68 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

740,0 m 

2,6 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

1 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

90 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

5.772 m² 

 519.480 €  

- m² 

 -   €  

- m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

190 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

3,0 m 

4 

3 

4 

2 

1.000 €/m 

13.912 m² 

 2.960.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

450 m² 

 187.500 €  

282 m² 

 48.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

4.440 m² 

 1.850.000 €  

- m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0 

90 €/m² 

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

39.486 m² 

 1.974.300 €  

 3.948.600 €  

 12.748.855 €  

 2.549.771 €  

 15.298.626 €  

 7.098.562 €  

 22.241.142 €  

25 

1.033.786 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Gantry crane 

3.550.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

2 

2 

7.100.000 € 

200.000 € 

25 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

7.300.000 € 

1.460.000 € 

8.760.000 € 

605.330 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 24.058.626 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 1.639.115 €  

191 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – Rail/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

105.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

637.443 € 

198.800 € 

5.600 € 

841.843 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

43.435 kWh 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

525.000 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

5.429 € 

65.625 € 

71.054 € 

 33.317 €  

 103.012 €  

- 

- 

 33.317 €  

 103.012 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0,5 

1 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

0 

2 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

192 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

644.750 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 139.653 €  

 1.040.445 €  

197.430 € 

0,00 € - 394.860 € 

3.394.192 € 

15,61 € 

 6,14 €  

 0,68 €  

 8,02 €  

 14,83 €  

 1,88 €  

 32,33 €  

16,91 € 

45,36 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

16 

1 

1.360.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

15,73 € 

57,82 € 

 6.360.000 €  

 73,54 €  

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

96.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

20,00 € 

62,50 € 

82,50 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.389 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

173,68 € 

173,68 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

194 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

4.717 € 

87,35 € 

1.746 € 

32,33 € 

6.196 € 

114,75 € 

11.210 € 

207,59 € 

1.746 € 

32,33 € 

4.575 € 

84,72 € 

89 € 

1,65 € 

136 € 

2,51 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.767,11 € 

88,28 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.031,99 € 

111,70 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

External costs 

19.068 € 

441,40 € 

24.128 € 

558,52 € 

410,56 € 

467,47 € 

527,68 € 

584,59 € 

Total 

Per LU 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

 4.778 €  

 88,49 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 4 €  

 0,07 €  

 8.597 €  

 159,21 €  

 16.239 €  

 300,72 €  

 4 €  

 0,07 €  

 4.778 €  

 88,49 €  

 18.154 €  

 336,33 €  

 25.795 €  

 477,84 €  

1.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – Rail/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

105.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

637.443 € 

198.800 € 

5.600 € 

841.843 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

43.435 kWh 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

525.000 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

Terminal personnel 

5.429 € 

65.625 € 

71.054 € 

 33.317 €  

 103.012 €  

- 

- 

 33.317 €  

 103.012 €  

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0,5 

1 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

0 

2 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

644.750 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 139.653 €  

 1.040.445 €  

197.430 € 

0,00 € - 394.860 € 

3.394.192 € 

15,61 € 

 6,14 €  

 0,68 €  

 8,02 €  

 14,83 €  

 1,88 €  

 32,33 €  

16,91 € 

45,36 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

25 

1 

2.125.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

24,57 € 

57,82 € 

 7.125.000 €  

 82,39 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

150.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

31,25 € 

62,50 € 

93,75 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.451 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

181,34 € 

181,34 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

198 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.756 € 

87,35 € 

1.390 € 

32,33 € 

6.651 € 

154,67 € 

11.941 € 

277,71 € 

1.390 € 

32,33 € 

3.643 € 

84,72 € 

99 € 

2,30 € 

148 € 

3,43 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.232,06 € 

98,42 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

5.566,96 € 

129,46 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

16.928 € 

492,10 € 

22.268 € 

647,32 € 

199 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

461,27 € 

518,17 € 

616,49 € 

673,40 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 3 €  

 0,07 €  

 8.976 €  

 208,75 €  

 16.955 €  

 394,31 €  

 3 €  

 0,07 €  

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

 16.937 €  

 394,03 €  

 24.916 €  

 579,59 €  

1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – Rail/Road – Semi-trailer” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck 

Loco, T3000e rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Semi-trailer craneable on T3000e wagons with no further special 
equipment (assuming 85% load factor) 

42 (36) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

8,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

3,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

82,8 min 

10,0 min 

92,8 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

3,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

10,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 18 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 3 min 

•  All process steps: 15 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 3 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Loading 

•  54 min 

Unloading 

•  54 min 

Loading 

•  147 min 

Unloading 

•  94 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  3,89 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Involved personnel: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

75 min 
6 min 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

108 min 
108 min 
432 min 
108 min 
108 min 
108 min 
30 min 
30 min 
83 min 
10 min 
1.125 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
252 min 
108 min 
180 min 
30 min 
108 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
718 min 

75 min 
6 min 

27,76 h 

17,76 h 

160 h 

145 h 

4,46 h 

4,04 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

203 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Gate area  100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

32,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

4 

2 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

80 €/m² 

23.680 m² 

 1.894.400 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

13.912 m² 

 2.960.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

450 m² 

 187.500 €  

282 m² 

 48.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

6.956 m² 

 1.850.000 €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0 

90 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

59.910 m² 

 2.995.500 €  

 5.991.000 €  

 17.187.375 €  

 3.437.475 €  

 20.624.850 €  

 9.569.930 €  

 29.984.407 €  

25 

1.393.699 € 

204 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Gantry crane 

3.550.000 € 

Spreader with 
gripper arms 

150.000 € 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

2 

2 

4 

7.100.000 € 

300.000 € 

600.000 € 

25 

10 

5 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

 8.000.000 €  

 1.600.000 €  

 9.600.000 €  

778.513 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 30.224.850 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 2.172.212 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

140.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader with gripper arms 

Terminal truck 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

2,8 

859.369 € 

198.800 € 

8.400 € 

16.800 € 

1.083.369 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

65.901 kWh 

8.238 € 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

350.000 kWh 

43.750 € 

Terminal truck 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

168.000 l 

188.160 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

240.148 € 

 24.377 €  

 75.370 €  

 154.981 €  

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

 229.933 €  

 179.358 €  

 305.303 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1,5 

1,5 

2 

3,5 

2,5 

1 

5 

5 

7 

11,5 

8,5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 132.500 € 

 33.000 €  

 165.000 € 

 35.000 €  

 245.000 € 

 32.000 €  

 368.000 € 

 31.000 €  

 263.500 € 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 € 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

1.303.500 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

 282.338 €  

 2.103.482 €  

299.550 € 

0,00 € - 599.100 € 

5.098.778 € 

15,52 € 

 9,31 €  

 1,72 €  

 7,74 €  

 18,76 €  

 2,14 €  

 36,42 €  

18,24 € 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

51,78 € 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer 
craneable 

27.000 € 

11 

810,00 € 

0,81 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

T3000e 

140.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

21 

1 

2.940.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

34,00 € 

57,82 € 

 7.940.000 €  

 91,82 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

T3000e 

Loco 

5 

6 

146.790 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

30,58 € 

62,50 € 

93,08 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.428 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

178,53 € 

178,53 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

207 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Road leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1:3,0 

1:4,2 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

1.000 km 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.156 € 

87,66 € 

1.311 € 

36,42 € 

6.673 € 

185,35 € 

12.023 € 

333,97 € 

1.311 € 

36,42 € 

3.003 € 

83,42 € 

208 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

520 € 

14,45 € 

798 € 

22,17 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

3.993,55 € 

110,93 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

5.400,52 € 

150,01 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

15.974 € 

554,66 € 

21.602 € 

750,07 € 

518,29 € 

585,38 € 

713,70 € 

780,79 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.185 €  

 88,49 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 14 €  

 0,40 €  

 8.837 €  

 245,48 €  

 16.693 €  

 463,68 €  

 14 €  

 0,40 €  

 3.185 €  

 88,49 €  

 15.208 €  

 423,25 €  

 23.063 €  

 641,45 €  

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1.2  Fact sheet for “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – IWW/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.kuenz.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A gantry crane consists of the crane system, the trolley, the rail system and the lifting equipment. 
The  crane  system  consists  of  two  legs  that  are  connected  via  a  crossbeam  and  form  a  gantry. 
There is a fixed leg and a swinging leg to compensate for temperature-related deformations. The 
legs usually run-on tracks along the working area under the gantry.  A gantry crane version with 
rubber  wheels  is  also  available.  If  the  crossbeam  extends  beyond  the  supports,  this  is  called  a 
cantilever and thus increases the working area.  
Other components are the trolley, which travels along the crossbeam, and the rail system on which 
the crane travels. The trolley consists of the lifting mechanism on which the spreader for picking up 
the loading unit is suspended from steel cables, and the crane operator's cabin which enables the 
crane operator to control the crane. 
In  addition  to  this  standard  crane,  other  elements  can  be  added  in  some  cases  and  elements 
described can be omitted.  For example, a crane operator's cabin can be  omitted if the crane  is 
remote-controlled or operates automatically. 
In the case of the spreader, a distinction must be made as to which loading units it is to handle. If 
it is only intended for containers, a simple spreader is sufficient that moves into the corner castings 
of the loading units with the help of twist locks, locks them and then the loading unit is lifted. After 
the loading unit has been set down, the twist locks are unlocked and the spreader is removed from 
the loading unit. If semi-trailers or swap bodies without corner castings are to be handled, grappler 
arms are required that grip the loading units from the side at their grappler pockets. 

Process: 

•  Crane moves to the loading unit (storage) or loading unit is moved under the crane (Semi-

trailer); 

•  crane moves over the loading unit with the trolley and lowers the spreader; 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  spreader grips the loading unit or locks the twist locks; 
• 
trolley lifts the loading unit; 
•  crane moves to destination; 
• 
•  spreader is opened or unlocked; 
•  spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order. 

trolley lowers spreader with loading unit; 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  High investment costs; 
• 

large area is necessary to take advantage 
of; 
further terminal infrastructure necessary; 

• 
•  mostly fixed on rails. 

•  Standardised system and compatible 
with common craneable loading units; 
fast transhipment rate; 

• 
•  automation and digitalisation easy to 

• 

• 

• 

implement; 
remote control is more employee-
friendly (more interesting for employee 
recruitment); 
large working area is covered, which is 
used very efficiently (a lot of storage 
area and transhipment area in relation 
to the traffic area of the crane (crane 
track)); 
compact storage area under crane, 
which can be used to 100%; 

•  efficient technology for consumption 

and transhipment speed; 
low life cycle costs; 
long service life. 

• 
• 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

41 t 

211 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1.2.1  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – IWW/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Barges (110 m, 2.800 t, 200 TEU) 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

For 40’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

126 (107) 

100 (85) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

non 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30 min 

0 min 

25 min 

40 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

non 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

25 min 

0 min 

30 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

4,0 min 

4,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 11 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

•  All process steps: 8 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 428 min 
•  40’-Container: 340 min 

•  20’-Container: 428 min 
•  40’-Container: 340 min 

•  20’-Container: 468 min 
•  40’-Container: 380 min 

•  20’-Container: 468 min 
•  40’-Container: 380 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,49 
•  40’-Container: 0,62 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full ship: 
The LU is transhipped using 
the transhipment technology 
as described in detail above.  

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

321 min 
321 min 
963 min 
428 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
25 min 
2118 min 

255 min 
255 min 
765 min 
340 min 
0 min 
0 min 
31 min 
30 min 
25 min 
1701 min 

3.400 min 

3.400 min 

1.800 min 

1.800 min 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 3.400 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 1.800 min 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Second transhipment full 
ship: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 

0 min 
0 min 
642 min 

0 min 
0 min 
510 min 

214 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

technology as described in 
detail above. 

Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

428 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
0 min 
25 min 
1125 min 

75 min 
6 min 

74,77 h 

48,10 h 

514 h 

434 h 

4,80 h 

4,05 h 

340 min 
0 min 
31 min 
0 min 
0 min 
25 min 
906 min 

75 min 
6 min 

71,83 h 

45,17 h 

444 h 

364 h 

5,22 h 

4,28 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

240,0 m 

2,6 m 

240,0 m 

10,0 m 

Crane tracks 

240,0 m 

3,0 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

1.680 m² 

 134.400 €  

80 €/m² 

840 m² 

 67.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

2.496 m² 

 224.640 €  

45.000 €/m 

2.400 m² 

 10.800.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

1.440 m² 

 600.000 €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

15.481 m² 

215 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

 774.050 €  

 1.548.100 €  

 14.675.265 €  

 2.935.053 €  

 17.610.318 €  

 8.171.188 €  

 25.601.880 €  

25 

1.189.995,58 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Gantry crane 

3.550.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

1 

1 

3.550.000 € 

100.000 € 

25 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 3.650.000 €  

 730.000 €  

 4.380.000 €  

302.665 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 21.990.318 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 1.492.660 €  

216 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1.2.1.1  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – IWW/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

52.500 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

733.763 € 

99.400 

2.800 € 

835.963 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

17.029 kWh 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

262.500 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.129 € 

32.813 € 

34.941 € 

 16.384 €  

 50.656 €  

- 

- 

 16.384 €  

 50.656 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

0,5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

2 

3,5 

0 

0 

3,5 

2 

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

217 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

 598.690 €  

77.405 € 

0,00 € - 154.810 € 

2.811.970 € 

28,43 € 

 7,07 €  

 0,67 €  

 15,92 €  

 23,66 €  

 1,47 €  

 53,56 €  

30,96 € 

72,57 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

 3.000.000 €  

 38,72 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Barge (110 m) 

2,7 

80.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

233 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

167,42 € 

167,42 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

219 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Tolls 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Personnel costs road leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

9.346 € 

87,35 € 

5.731 € 

53,56 € 

13.778 € 

128,77 € 

21.330 € 

199,35 € 

5.731 € 

53,56 € 

9.065 € 

84,72 € 

442 € 

4,13 € 

687 € 

6,42 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

11.023,34 € 

103,02 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

12.972,64 € 

121,24 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

44.093 € 

515,11 € 

51.891 € 

606,20 € 

469,90 € 

553,14 € 

560,99 € 

644,22 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.525 €  

 23,60 €  

450 km 

850 km 

 8 €  

 0,07 €  

 33.135 €  

 309,67 €  

 62.588 €  

 584,93 €  

 8 €  

 0,07 €  

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 2.525 €  

 23,60 €  

 38.184 €  

 357,01 €  

 67.637 €  

 632,27 €  

1.2.1.2  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – IWW/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

52.500 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

733.763 € 

99.400 € 

2.800 € 

835.963 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

17.029 kWh 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

262.500 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.129 € 

32.813 € 

34.941 € 

 16.384 €  

 50.656 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 16.384 €  

 50.656 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

0,5 

0,5 

1 

2 

2 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

221 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3,5 

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

 598.690 €  

77.405 € 

0,00 € - 154.810 € 

2.811.970 € 

28,43 € 

 7,07 €  

 0,67 €  

 15,92 €  

 23,66 €  

 1,47 €  

 53,56 €  

30,96 € 

72,57 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

3.000.000 €  

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

 38,72 € 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Barge  
(110 m) 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

2,7 

80.000 € 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

211 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

152,19 € 

152,19 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

223 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

7.425 € 

87,35 € 

4.553 € 

53,56 € 

12.135 € 

142,77 € 

19.281 € 

226,84 € 

4.553 € 

53,56 € 

7.201 € 

84,72 € 

462 € 

5,43 € 

734 € 

8,64 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

9.082,02 € 

106,85 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

10.936,69 € 

128,67 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

External costs 

36.328 € 

534,24 € 

43.747 € 

643,33 € 

489,03 € 

598,13 € 

643,33 € 

681,36 € 

Total 

Per LU 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

 2.098 €  

 24,68 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 6 €  

0,07 € 

 30.122 €  

 354,37 €  

 56.896 €  

 669,37 €  

 6 €  

 0,07 €  

 2.098 €  

 24,68 €  

 34.318 €  

 403,88 €  

 61.093 €  

 718,88 €  

225 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

2 

Fact sheet for “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – SSS/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.kuenz.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A gantry crane consists of the crane system, the trolley, the rail system and the lifting equipment. 
The  crane  system  consists  of  two  legs  that  are  connected  via  a  crossbeam  and  form  a  gantry. 
There is a fixed leg and a swinging leg to compensate for temperature-related deformations. The 
legs usually run-on tracks along the working area under the gantry.  A gantry crane version with 
rubber  wheels  is  also  available.  If  the  crossbeam  extends  beyond  the  supports,  this  is  called  a 
cantilever and thus increases the working area.  
Other components are the trolley, which travels along the crossbeam, and the rail system on which 
the crane travels. The trolley consists of the lifting mechanism on which the spreader for picking up 
the loading unit is suspended from steel cables, and the crane operator's cabin which enables the 
crane operator to control the crane. 
In  addition  to  this  standard  crane,  other  elements  can  be  added  in  some  cases  and  elements 
described can be omitted.  For example, a crane operator's cabin can be  omitted if the crane  is 
remote-controlled or operates automatically. 
In the case of the spreader, a distinction must be made as to which loading units it is to handle. If 
it is only intended for containers, a simple spreader is sufficient that moves into the corner castings 
of the loading units with the help of twist locks, locks them and then the loading unit is lifted. After 
the loading unit has been set down, the twist locks are unlocked and the spreader is removed from 
the loading unit. If semi-trailers or swap bodies without corner castings are to be handled, grappler 
arms are required that grip the loading units from the side at their grappler pockets. 

Process: 

•  Crane moves to the loading unit (storage) or loading unit is moved under the crane (Semi-

trailer); 

•  crane moves over the loading unit with the trolley and lowers the spreader; 
•  spreader grips the loading unit or locks the twist locks; 
• 

trolley lifts the loading unit; 

226 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

trolley lowers spreader with loading unit; 

•  crane moves to destination; 
• 
•  spreader is opened or unlocked; 
•  spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order. 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  High investment costs; 
• 

large area is necessary to take advantage 
of; 
further terminal infrastructure necessary; 

• 
•  mostly fixed on rails. 

•  Standardised system and compatible 
with common craneable loading units; 
fast transhipment rate; 

• 
•  automation and digitalisation easy to 

• 

• 

• 

implement; 
remote control is more employee-
friendly (more interesting for employee 
recruitment); 
large working area is covered, which is 
used very efficiently (a lot of storage 
area and transhipment area in relation 
to the traffic area of the crane (crane 
track)); 
compact storage area under crane, 
which can be used to 100%; 

•  efficient technology for consumption 

and transhipment speed; 
low life cycle costs; 
long service life. 

• 
• 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

41 t 

227 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

2.1.1  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – SSS/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Short sea container ships (1.000 TEU) 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

For 40’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

585 (497) 

500 (425) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

228 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Crew 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

10 min 

20 min 

10 min 

30 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

Crew 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

10 min 

20 min 

20 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

4,0 min 

4,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 11 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

•  All process steps: 8 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 994 min 
•  40’-Container: 850 min 

•  20’-Container: 994 min 
•  40’-Container: 850 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.024 min 
•  40’-Container: 880 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.034 min 
•  40’-Container: 890 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,21 
•  40’-Container: 0,25 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.619 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 857 min 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

1.491 min 
1.491 min 
4.473 min 
1.988 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
9.763 min 

1.275 min 
1.275 min 
3.825 min 
1.700 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
8.395 min 

1.619 min 

1.619 min 

857 min 

857 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 

0 min 
0 min 
2.982 min 

0 min 
0 min 
2.550 min 

230 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

technology as described in 
detail above. 

Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.988 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
100 min 
240 min 
5.340 min 

75 min 
6 min 

1.700 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
100 min 
240 min 
4.620 min 

75 min 
6 min 

63,78 h 

51,09 h 

1.814 h 

58,98 h 

46,29 h 

1.584 h 

1.712 h 

1.482 h 

3,65 h 

3,44 h 

3,73 h 

3,49 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

240,0 m 

2,6 m 

320,0 m 

10,0 m 

Crane tracks 

240,0 m 

3,0 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

1.680 m² 

 134.400 €  

80 €/m² 

840 m² 

 67.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

2.496 m² 

 224.640 €  

75.000 €/m 

3.200 m² 

 24.000.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

1.440 m² 

 600.000 €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

16.281 m² 

231 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

 814.050 €  

 1.628.100 €  

 27.995.265 €  

 4.199.290 €  

 32.194.555 €  

 14.938.273 €  

 46.804.444 €  

25 

2.175.507,42 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Gantry crane 

3.550.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

2 

2 

7.100.000 € 

200.000 € 

25 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 7.300.000 €  

 1.460.000 €  

 8.760.000 €  

605.330 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 40.954.555 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 2.780.837 €  

232 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

2.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – SSS/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

105.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

1.399.763 € 

198.800 € 

5.600 € 

1.604.163 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

17.909 kWh 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

525.000 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.239 € 

65.625 € 

67.864 € 

 31.821 €  

 98.386 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 31.821,26 €  

 98.386,05 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

0 

3,5 

0 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

233 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

561.750 € 

 121.675 €  

 906.506 €  

81.405 € 

0,00 € - 162.810 € 

5.096.019 € 

26,48 € 

 5,35 €  

 0,65 €  

 15,28 €  

 21,27 €  

 0,78 €  

 48,53 €  

29,03 € 

64,90 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
Container 
Ship 

20.000.000 € 

1 

20.000.000 € 

25 

281,56 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

20.000.000 € 

281,56 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

2,2 

430.647 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

89,72 € 

89,72 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

Gas oil 

1,75 

25 

47 

Other operational costs main leg 

Cost type 

Port 

Costs 

1.494 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

1.494 € 

Personnel costs main leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

235 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Other operational costs road leg 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

43.412 € 

87,35 € 

24.121 € 

48,53 € 

34.588 € 

69,59 € 

52.228 € 

105,09 € 

24.121 € 

48,53 € 

42.105 € 

84,72 € 

2.181 € 

4,39 € 

2.723 € 

5,48 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

42.632,06 € 

85,78 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

47.177,62 € 

94,92 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

170.528 € 

428,89 € 

188.710 € 

474,62 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

389,88 € 

461,63 € 

435,61 € 

507,36 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 43.977 €  

 88,49 €  

450 km 

850 km 

 34 €  

 0,07 €  

 66.255 €  

 133,31 €  

 125.149 €  

 251,81 €  

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 34 €  

 0,07 €  

 43.977 €  

 88,49 €  

 154.209 €  

 310,28 €  

 213.103 €  

 428,78 €  

2.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – SSS/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

105.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

1.399.763 € 

198.800 € 

5.600 € 

1.604.163 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

17.909 kWh 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

525.000 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.239 € 

65.625 € 

67.864 € 

 31.821 €  

 98.386 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 31.821,26 €  

 98.386,05 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Checker  

Gate agent 

1 

1 

3,5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

237 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

7 

0 

3,5 

0 

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

2 

0 

1 

0 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

561.750 € 

 121.675 €  

 906.506 €  

81.405 € 

0,00 € - 162.810 € 

5.096.019 € 

26,48 € 

 5,35 €  

 0,65 €  

 15,28 €  

 21,27 €  

 0,78 €  

 48,53 €  

29,03 € 

64,90 € 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

238 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Short Sea 
Container 
Ship 

20.000.000 € 

1 

20.000.000 € 

25 

281,56 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

20.000.000 € 

281,56 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

2,2 

430.647 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

89,72 € 

89,72 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

Gas oil 

1,75 

25 

47 

Other operational costs main leg 

Cost type 

Costs 

Port 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

1.494 € 

1.494 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

239 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

3,60 € 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

37.123 € 

87,35 € 

20.627 € 

48,53 € 

32.806 € 

77,19 € 

50.446 € 

118,70 € 

20.627 € 

48,53 € 

36.006 € 

84,72 € 

2.366 € 

5,57 € 

3.015 € 

7,09 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

37.388,32 € 

87,97 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

41.960,60 € 

98,73 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

149.553 € 

439,86 € 

167.842 € 

493,65 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

400,85 € 

472,60 € 

454,64 € 

526,39 € 

240 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 39.340 €  

 92,57 €  

450 km 

850 km 

 29 €  

 0,07 €  

 63.362 €  

 149,09 €  

 119.684 €  

 281,61 €  

 29 €  

 0,07 €  

Second road leg 

75 km 

 39.340 €  

 92,57 €  

Full transport chain per LU 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 142.043 €  

 334,35 €  

 198.365 €  

 466,88 €  

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

3  FACT SHEET FOR “REACH STACKER” 
3.1  Fact sheet for “Reach stacker – Rail/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: Liebherr 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A reach stacker is an industrial truck with variable reach that can lift and move intermodal loading 
units. Until today, only combustion engine powered primary drives are available. Reach stackers 
drive on six rubberised wheels, have a driver's cab and a lifting arm that reaches in front of the 
vehicle and can lift loading units with the help of a spreader. In addition to reach stackers for moving 
intermodal  loading  units  in  combined  transport,  there  are  also  reach  stackers  designed  only  for 
empty loading units. These are much lighter and do not require high motorisation and power. In 
some cases, the lifting arm is replaced by a forklift mast because the load units are lighter. 

•  Reach stacker moves to the loading unit 
•  Spreader is positioned above the loading unit 
•  Spreader is locked or gripper arms are closed 
•  Reach stacker lifts the loading unit 
•  Reach stacker drives with loading unit to destination 
•  Reach stacker sets down the loading unit at the destination 
•  Spreader is opened or unlocked 
•  Spreader is lifted and reach stacker moves to next order 

242 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Standardised  system  and  compatible 
with common craneable loading units 

•  Fast transhipment rate 
•  Easy to implement: only traffic areas 

and one track necessary 

•  Large area for manoeuvring necessary 
•  Further terminal infrastructure necessary 
•  Automation and digitalisation not easy to 

implement 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

40,5 t 

3.1.1  Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Loco, Sggrss 80’ rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

64 (54) 

243 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For 40’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

50 (43) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4,0 min 

4,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

4,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

4,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Train driver 

Departure duration: 

 Total 

30,0 min 

20’: 63,2 min 
40’: 98,8 min 

10,0 min 

20’: 73,2 min 
40’: 108,8 min 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

244 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

4,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

4,0 min 

4,0 min 

4,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 15 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 8 min 

•  All process steps: 10 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 8 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  11 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 216 min 
•  40’-Container: 172 min 

•  20’-Container: 216 min 
•  40’-Container: 172 min 

245 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 289 min 
•  40’-Container: 281 min 

•  20’-Container: 256 min 
•  40’-Container: 212 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,77 
•  40’-Container: 0,85 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

162 min 
162 min 
594 min 
432 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
63 min 
10 min 
1.483 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

129 min 
129 min 
473 min 
344 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
99 min 
10 min 
1.244 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

675 min 
338 min 

675 min 
338 min 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

0 min 
0 min 
324 min 
432 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
826 min 

75 min 
6 min 

0 min 
0 min 
258 min 
344 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
672 min 

75 min 
6 min 

246 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

32,84 h 

22,84 h 

217 h 

202 h 

4,02 h 

3,74 h 

31,96 h 

21,96 h 

181 h 

166 h 

4,20 h 

3,85 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

740,0 m 

2,6 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

1.924 m² 

 173.160 €  

80 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

 m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

 m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

740,0 m 

15,0 m 

1 

90 €/m² 

11.100 m² 

 999.000 €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

28.203 m² 

 1.410.125 €  

 2.820.250 €  

247 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

 7.175.510 €  

 1.435.102 €  

 8.610.612 €  

 3.995.324 €  

 12.518.108 €  

25 

581.852 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Reach stacker 

480.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

2 

2 

960.000 € 

200.000 € 

5 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 1.160.000 €  

 232.000 €  

 1.392.000 €  

283.013 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 10.002.612 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 864.865 €  

3.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

41.599 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Reach stacker 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

358.776 € 

26.880 € 

5.600 € 

391.256 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

31.023 kWh 

3.878 € 

248 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Reach stacker 

Diesel 

0,9 l 

74.879 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

83.864 € 

87.742 € 

 1.818 €  

 5.622 €  

 69.076 €  

 102.483 €  

 70.895 €  

 108.105 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

0,5 

1 

2 

2 

7 

0 

2 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

555.500 €  

 120.321 €  

 896.421 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

141.013 € 

0,00 € - 282.025 € 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

2.040.375 € 

20,79 € 

 13,35 €  

 2,11 €  

249 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 9,41 €  

 24,87 €  

 3,39 €  

 49,05 €  

23,65 € 

70,56 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

16 

1 

1.360.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

15,73 € 

57,82 € 

 6.360.000 €  

 73,54 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

96.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

20,00 € 

62,50 € 

82,50 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.389 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

173,68 € 

173,68 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

120 € 

120 € 

250 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Personnel costs main leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

251 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

4.811 € 

89,10 € 

2.649 € 

49,05 € 

6.325 € 

117,13 € 

11.338 € 

209,97 € 

2.649 € 

49,05 € 

4.575 € 

84,72 € 

106 € 

1,96 € 

150 € 

2,77 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

5.278,60 € 

97,75 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.542,85 € 

121,16 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

21.114 € 

488,76 € 

26.171 € 

605,82 € 

437,96 € 

531,78 € 

555,02 € 

648,84 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 4.778 €  

 88,49 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 14 €  

 0,26 €  

 8.597 €  

 159,21 €  

 16.239 €  

 300,72 €  

 14 €  

 0,26 €  

 4.778 €  

 88,49 €  

 18.154 €  

 336,70 €  

 25.795 €  

 478,22 €  

3.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

36.648 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

5 

358.776 € 

252 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Reach stacker 

Spreader 

2,8 

2,8 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

26.880 € 

5.600 € 

391.256 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Reach stacker 

Diesel 

- 

0,9 l 

31.023 kWh 

65.966 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

3.878 € 

73.882 € 

77.760 € 

 1.818 €  

 5.622 €  

 60.854 €  

 90.284 €  

 62.672 €  

 95.906 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

0,5 

1 

2 

2 

7 

0 

2 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

555.500 €  

 120.321 €  

 896.421 €  

141.013 € 

253 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

0,00 € - 282.025 € 

Total costs per year 

2.030.393 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

23,60 € 

 15,16 €  

 2,12 €  

 10,68 €  

 27,96 €  

 3,85 €  

 55,40 €  

26,62 € 

79,76 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

25 

1 

2.125.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

24,57 € 

57,82 € 

 7.125.000 €  

 82,39 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

150.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

31,25 € 

62,50 € 

93,75 € 

254 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.451 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

181,34 € 

181,34 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

255 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Personnel costs road leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.831 € 

89,10 € 

2.382 € 

55,40 € 

6.811 € 

158,39 € 

12.101 € 

281,43 € 

2.382 € 

55,40 € 

3.643 € 

84,72 € 

114 € 

2,64 € 

162 € 

3,78 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.790,77 € 

111,41 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.125,67 € 

142,46 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

19.163 € 

557,07 € 

24.503 € 

712,29 € 

499,50 € 

605,78 € 

654,72 € 

761,00 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

 11 €  

 0,26 €  

 8.976 €  

 208,75 €  

 16.955 €  

 394,31 €  

 11 €  

 0,26 €  

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

256 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Full transport chain per LU 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 16.937 €  

 394,41 €  

 24.916 €  

 579,97 €  

3.1.2  Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – Rail/Road – Semi-trailer” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck 

Loco, T3000e rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Semi-trailer craneable on T3000e wagons with no further special 
equipment (assuming 85% load factor) 

42 (36) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

257 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

7,5 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

7,5 min 

7,5 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

82,8 min 

10,0 min 

92,8 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

7,5 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

7,5 min 

7,5 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

5,0 min 

258 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 20 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 7,5 min 

•  All process steps: 15 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 7,5 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  135 min 

Unloading 

•  135 min 

Loading 

•  228 min 

Unloading 

•  175 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  1,04 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 

Checker 
Gate agent  

75 min 
6 min 

108 min 
108 min 
432 min 
270 min 
0 min 
270 min 
30 min 
30 min 
83 min 
10 min 
1.341 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 

259 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

252 min 
270 min 
0 min 
30 min 
270 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
862 min 

75 min 
6 min 

30,46 h 

20,46 h 

166 h 

151 h 

4,62 h 

4,21 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

250,0 m 

32,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

1 

2 

- 

1 

- 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 50.000 €  

90 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

80 €/m² 

8.000 m² 

 640.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 -   €  

260 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

- 

12.000 
€/unit 

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

 m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

740,0 m 

15,0 m 

1 

90 €/m² 

11.100 m² 

 999.000 €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

31.689 m² 

 1.584.425 €  

 3.168.850 €  

 7.961.175 €  

 1.592.235 €  

 9.553.410 €  

 4.432.782 €  

 13.888.747 €  

25 

645.560 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

2 

2 

960.000 € 

300.000 € 

5 

10 

Reach 
stackere 

Spreader with 
gripper arms 

480.000 € 

150.000 € 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 1.260.000 €  

 252.000 €  

 1.512.000 €  

297.814 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 11.065.410 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 943.374 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

37.537 

261 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Reach stacker 

Spreader with gripper arms 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

398.059 € 

26.880 € 

8.400 € 

1.083.369 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Reach stacker 

Diesel 

- 

0,9 l 

34.857 kWh 

33.784 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

4.357 € 

37.838 € 

42.195 € 

 2.043 €  

 6.317 €  

 31.166 €  

 46.238 €  

 33.209 €  

 52.555 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

7 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

602.000 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

262 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 130.393 €  

 971.458 €  

158.443 € 

0,00 € - 316.885 € 

2.179.350 € 

25,13 € 

 16,04 €  

 1,12 €  

 11,54 €  

 28,71 €  

 4,22 €  

 58,06 €  

27,56 € 

83,80 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer 
craneable 

27.000 € 

11 

810,00 € 

0,81 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

T3000e 

140.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

21 

1 

2.940.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

34,00 € 

57,82 € 

 7.940.000 €  

 91,82 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

T3000e 

5 

146.790 € 

30,58 € 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Loco 

6 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

62,50 € 

93,08 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.428 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

178,53 € 

178,53 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1:3,0 

1:4,2 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

1.000 km 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

264 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Other operational costs road leg 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.156 € 

87,66 € 

2.090 € 

58,06 € 

6.847 € 

190,20 € 

12.197 € 

338,81 € 

2.090 € 

58,06 € 

3.003 € 

83,42 € 

599 € 

16,65 € 

877 € 

24,37 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.446,40 € 

123,51 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

5.853,37 € 

162,59 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

17.786 € 

617,56 € 

23.413 € 

812,97 € 

556,57 € 

669,04 € 

751,98 € 

864,46 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.185 €  

 88,49 €  

450 km 

850 km 

 10 €  

 0,27 €  

 8.837 €  

 245,48 €  

 16.693 €  

 463,68 €  

265 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 10 €  

 0,27 €  

 3.185 €  

 88,49 €  

 15.208 €  

 422,98 €  

 23.063 €  

 641,19 €  

4 

Fact sheet for “Reach stacker – IWW/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: Liebherr 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A reach stacker is an industrial truck with variable reach that can lift and move intermodal loading 
units. Until today, only combustion engine powered primary drives are available. Reach stackers 
drive on six rubberised wheels, have a driver's cab and a lifting arm that reaches in front of the 
vehicle and can lift loading units with the help of a spreader. In addition to reach stackers for moving 
intermodal  loading  units  in  combined  transport,  there  are  also  reach  stackers  designed  only  for 
empty loading units. These are much lighter and do not require high motorisation and power. In 
some cases, the lifting arm is replaced by a forklift mast because the load units are lighter. 

•  Reach stacker moves to the loading unit 
•  Spreader is positioned above the loading unit 
•  Spreader is locked or gripper arms are closed 
•  Reach stacker lifts the loading unit 
•  Reach stacker drives with loading unit to destination 
•  Reach stacker sets down the loading unit at the destination 
•  Spreader is opened or unlocked 
•  Spreader is lifted and reach stacker moves to next order 

266 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network. Used 
rather rarely in the inland waterway sector. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Standardised  system  and  compatible 
with common craneable loading units 

•  Fast transhipment rate 
•  Easy to implement: only traffic areas 

and one track necessary 

•  Large area for manoeuvring necessary 
•  Further terminal infrastructure necessary 
•  Automation and digitalisation not easy to 

implement 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

40,5 t 

4.1.1  Fact Sheet “Gantry Crane (with/without cantilever) – IWW/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Barges (110 m, 2.800 t, 200 TEU) 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

267 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For 20’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

For 40’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

126 (107) 

100 (85) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4 min 

4 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

4 min 

4 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

4 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

non 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30 min 

0 min 

25 min 

40 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

268 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

non 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

25 min 

0 min 

30 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

4 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

4 min 

4 min 

6 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 15 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 8 min 

•  All process steps: 12 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 8 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  11 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 856 min 
•  40’-Container: 680 min 

•  20’-Container: 856 min 
•  40’-Container: 680 min 

•  20’-Container: 896 min 
•  40’-Container: 720 min 

•  20’-Container: 896 min 
•  40’-Container: 720 min 

269 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Ships that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,25 
•  40’-Container: 0,31 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full ship: 
The LU is transhipped using 
the transhipment technology 
as described in detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 3.400 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 1.800 min 

Second transhipment full 
ship: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

321 min 
321 min 
1177 min 
856 min 
0 min 
0 min 
32 min 
30 min 
25 min 
2762 min 

255 min 
255 min 
935 min 
680 min 
0 min 
0 min 
33 min 
30 min 
25 min 
2213 min 

3.400 min 

3.400 min 

1.800 min 

1.800 min 

0 min 
0 min 
642 min 
856 min 
0 min 
32 min 
0 min 
0 min 
25 min 
1555 min 

75 min 
6 min 

89,03 h 

62,37 h 

532 h 

452 h 

4,97 h 

0 min 
0 min 
510 min 
680 min 
0 min 
33 min 
0 min 
0 min 
25 min 
1248 min 

75 min 
6 min 

83,17 h 

56,50 h 

458 h 

378 h 

5,39 h 

270 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

600 km 

4,22 h 

4,45 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60 

Driving lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Loading lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

240,0 m 

2,6 

240,0 m 

10 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0 

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

240,0 m 

17 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

0 

1 

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

1.680 m² 

 134.400 €  

80 €/m² 

840 m² 

 67.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

1.872 m² 

 168.480 €  

45.000 €/m 

2.400 m² 

 10.800.000  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

90 €/m² 

4.080 m² 

 367.200 €  

17.497 m² 

 874.850 €  

 1.749.700 €  

 14.688.705 €  

 2.937.741 €  

 17.626.446 €  

 8.178.671 €  

 25.625.327 €  

25 

1.191.085,41 € 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

271 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Reach stacker 

480.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

1 

1 

480.000 € 

100.000 € 

5 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 580.000 €  

 116.000 €  

 696.000 €  

141.507 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 18.322.446 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 1.332.592 €  

4.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – IWW/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

26.250 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Reach stacker 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

734.435 € 

13.440 € 

2.800 € 

750.675 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

19.247 kWh 

Reach stacker 

Diesel 

0,9 kWh 

47.250 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

Terminal personnel 

2.129 € 

52.920 € 

55.326 € 

 1.128 €  

 3.488 €  

 43.589 €  

 64.669 €  

 44.717 €  

 68.157 €  

272 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

2 

2 

3,5 

0 

0 

3,5 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

0,5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

 598.690 €  

87.485 € 

0,00 € - 174.970 € 

2.597.078 € 

50,77 € 

 14,13 €  

 2,11 €  

 28,60 €  

 44,84 €  

 3,33 €  

 98,94 €  

56,92 € 

134,47 € 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

273 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

 3.000.000 €  

 38,72 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Barge (110 m) 

2,7 

80.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

233 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

167,42 € 

167,42 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2,86 € 

274 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Chassis 

10% 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

9.534 € 

89,10 € 

10.586 € 

98,94 € 

18.609 € 

173,91 € 

26.161 € 

244,49 € 

10.586 € 

98,94 € 

9.065 € 

84,72 € 

573 € 

5,36 € 

818 € 

7,65 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

14.738,20 € 

137,74 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

16.687,49 € 

155,96 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

58.953 € 

688,70 € 

66.750 € 

779,79 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

604,66 € 

759,77 € 

695,75 € 

850,85 € 

275 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.525 €  

 23,60 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 28 €  

 0,26 €  

 33.135 €  

 309,67 €  

 62.588 €  

 584,93 €  

 28 €  

 0,26 €  

 2.525 €  

 23,60 €  

 38.184 €  

 357,39 €  

 67.637 €  

 632,65 €  

4.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Reach stacker – IWW/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

26.250 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Reach stacker 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

734.435 € 

13.440 € 

2.800 € 

750.675 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

19.247 kWh 

Reach stacker 

Diesel 

0,9 kWh 

47.250 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.129 € 

52.920 € 

55.326 € 

 1.128 €  

 3.488 €  

 43.589 €  

 64.669 €  

 44.717 €  

 68.157 €  

276 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

0,5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 

2 

3,5 

0 

0 

3,5 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

 598.690 €  

87.485 € 

0,00 € - 174.970 € 

2.597.078 € 

50,77 € 

 14,13 €  

 2,11 €  

 28,60 €  

 44,84 €  

 3,33 €  

 98,94 €  

56,92 € 

134,47 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

277 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

3.000.000 €  

 38,72 € 

Equipment 

Barge  
(110 m) 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

2,7 

80.000 € 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

211 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

152,19 € 

152,19 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

278 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

7.573 € 

89,10 € 

8.410 € 

98,94 € 

15.800 € 

185,88 € 

22.946 € 

269,96 € 

8.410 € 

98,94 € 

7.201 € 

84,72 € 

578 € 

6,80 € 

850 € 

10,00 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

11.992,86 € 

141,09 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

13.847,53 € 

162,91 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

47.971 € 

705,46 € 

55.390 € 

814,56 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

621,42 € 

279 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

598,13 € 

730,52 € 

885,63 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.098 €  

 24,68 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 22 €  

 0,26 €  

 30.122 €  

 354,37 €  

 56.896 €  

 669,37 €  

 22 €  

 0,26 €  

 2.098 €  

 24,68 €  

 34.318 €  

 404,26 €  

 61.093 €  

 719,26 €  

280 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

5  FACT SHEET FOR “HYDRAULIC MATERIAL HANDLING CRANE” 

5.1  Fact sheet for “Hydraulic material handling crane – Rail/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.sennebogen.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A hydraulic material handling crane (hydraulic crane) is mainly used in ports for handling mass and 
bulk goods. The crane resembles an excavator and the grab arm is moved exclusively hydraulically 
(without ropes). For the handling of intermodal loading units, a spreader must be coupled to the 
grab arm. 
The hydraulic material handling crane is mobile and can be used on various chassis. The crane 
can be moved for loading and unloading.  

Process: 

•  Hydraulic crane moves to the transhipment place  
•  The crane extends the support legs and starts the handling operation 
•  Crane moves the Spreader to the loading unit. Spreader locks the twist locks 
•  Crane lift the loading unit via spreader and hoist rope 

281 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Crane moves the loading unit the destination 
•  Hoist rope lowers spreader with loading unit 
•  Spreader is opened or unlocked 
•  Spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order 
•  Spreader is lifted and reach stacker moves to next order 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network with 
other vertical handling systems. The focus of the technology is 
more on transhipment of conventional goods, but can also be 
used for transhipment of intermodal loading units. Currently, the 
technology is rarely used for intermodal tasks. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Flexible use in the port 
•  Can also be used for other goods, not 
only for intermodal loading units 

•  High acquisition costs 
•  Special structure needed to withstand the 

weight of the crane. 

•  due to hydraulic quick-change systems 

•  Acquisition costs need to be compared 

speed is considerably faster 

the change between various 
attachments (grabs/spreader) can be 
done without mechanics and in a few 
minutes 

•  Using a material handling crane the 

cargo is not affected by wind the same 
way a rope spreader is. 

•  Due to rigid fixation of the spreader to 
the material handling boom a more 
precise positioning is possible 

•  The cycle speed of a material handler 
in comparison to a crane seriously 
faster 

•  A material Handler is classed as an 
excavator which reduces the regular 
inspection costs 

•  Operators for hydraulic material 

handlers are easier to find then crane 
operators 

•  Energy Recovery Systems (Green 
Hybrid) support the lift and reduce 
energy consumption  

•  hydraulic cabin elevation reduce time 

for climbing up to cabin 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

282 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

• 

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets (Not used in 

practice) 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

22 t 

5.1.1  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – Rail/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Loco, Sggrss 80’ rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

For 40’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

64 (54) 

52 (44) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

2,0 min 

283 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

1,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

1,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

1,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

30,0 min 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Train driver 

Departure duration: 

 Total 

20’: 63,2 min 
40’: 102,4 min 

10,0 min 

20’: 73,2 min 
40’: 112,4 min 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

1,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

1,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

0,0 min 

284 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

1,0 min 

4,0 min 

5,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 11 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

•  All process steps: 8 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 235 min 
•  40’-Container: 208 min 

•  20’-Container: 235 min 
•  40’-Container: 208 min 

•  20’-Container: 308 min 
•  40’-Container: 321 min 

•  20’-Container: 275 min 
•  40’-Container: 248 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,72 
•  40’-Container: 0,74 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 

162 min 
162 min 
486 min 
216 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 

132 min 
132 min 
396 min 
176 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 

285 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

30 min 
63 min 
10 min 
1.159 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

30 min 
102 min 
10 min 
1.008 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

675 min 
338 min 

675 min 
338 min 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

0 min 
0 min 
324 min 
216 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
610 min 

75 min 
6 min 

33,47 h 

23,47 h 

208 h 

193 h 

3,85 h 

3,57 h 

0 min 
0 min 
264 min 
176 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
510 min 

75 min 
6 min 

33,24 h 

23,24 h 

177 h 

162 h 

4,02 h 

3,67 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

286 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

740,0 m 

2,6 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

3,0 m 

1 

- 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

90 €/m² 

1.924 m² 

 173.160 €  

80 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

 m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

 m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

740,0 m 

15,0 m 

1 

90 €/m² 

11.100 m² 

 999.000 €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

28.203 m² 

 1.410.125 €  

 2.820.250 €  

 7.175.510 €  

 1.435.102 €  

 8.610.612 €  

 3.995.324 €  

 12.518.108 €  

25 

581.852 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Spreader 

2.700.000 € 

100.000 € 

1 

1 

2.700.000 € 

100.000 € 

14 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

 2.800.000 €  

287 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 560.000 €  

 3.360.000 €  

326.532 € 

 11.970.612 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 908.383 €  

288 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

5.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – Rail/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

38.902 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Hydraulic crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

8 

2,8 

358.776 € 

215.285 € 

2.800 € 

576.861 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Hydraulic crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,17 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

31.023 kWh 

3.878 € 

90.772 l 

101.664 € 

105.542 € 

 1.818 €  

 5.622 €  

              83.738 €  

           124.235 €  

 85.556 €  

 129.857 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

3,5 

3,5 

3,5 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

289 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

568.750 € 

 123.191 €  

 917.802 €  

141.013 € 

0,00 € - 282.025 € 

2.300.548 € 

23,35 € 

 14,62 €  

 2,71 €  

 14,83 €  

 32,16 €  

 3,62 €  

 59,14 €  

31,03 € 

82,96 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

16 

1 

1.360.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

15,73 € 

57,82 € 

 6.360.000 €  

 73,54 €  

290 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

96.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

20,00 € 

62,50 € 

82,50 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.381 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

172,60 € 

172,60 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

291 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

4.717 € 

87,35 € 

3.193 € 

59,14 € 

6.335 € 

117,31 € 

11.337 € 

209,95 € 

3.193 € 

59,14 € 

4.575 € 

84,72 € 

109 € 

2,02 € 

153 € 

2,83 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

5.530,47 € 

102,42 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.792,02 € 

125,78 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

External costs 

22.122 € 

512,08 € 

27.168 € 

628,89 € 

455,87 € 

559,72 € 

572,68 € 

676,53 € 

Total 

Per LU 

292 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

 4.751 €  

 87,98 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 18 €  

 0,34 €  

 8.544 €  

 158,22 €  

 16.138 €  

 298,85 €  

 18 €  

 0,34 €  

 4.751 €  

 87,98 €  

 18.045 €  

 334,84 €  

 25.639 €  

 475,47 €  

5.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

32.467 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Hydraulic crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

8 

2,8 

358.776 € 

215.285 € 

2.800 € 

576.861 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Hydraulic crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,17 l 

31.023 kWh 

75.755 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

Terminal personnel 

3.878 € 

84.846 € 

88.724 € 

 1.818 €  

 5.622 €  

 69.885 €  

 103.683 €  

 71.703 €  

 109.305 €  

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

3,5 

3,5 

3,5 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

568.750 € 

 123.191 €  

 917.802 €  

141.013 € 

0,00 € - 282.025 € 

2.283.730 € 

27,98 € 

 17,52 €  

 2,73 €  

 17,77 €  

 38,02 €  

 4,34 €  

 70,34 €  

36,75 € 

98,77 € 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

294 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

26 

1 

2.210.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

25,55 € 

57,82 € 

7.210.000 € 

 83,37 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

156.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

32,50 € 

62,50 € 

95,00 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.429 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

178,60 € 

178,60 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

295 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.843 € 

87,35 € 

3.095 € 

70,34 € 

6.899 € 

156,80 € 

12.185 € 

276,92 € 

3.095 € 

70,34 € 

3.728 € 

84,72 € 

123 € 

2,79 € 

173 € 

3,93 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

5.195,72 € 

118,08 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.529,63 € 

148,40 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

20.783 € 

590,42 € 

26.119 € 

742,00 € 

296 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

523,25 € 

647,27 € 

674,83 € 

798,85 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.871 €  

 87,98 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 15 €  

 0,34 €  

 8.841 €  

 200,93 €  

 16.699 €  

 379,53 €  

 15 €  

 0,34 €  

 3.871 €  

 87,98 €  

 16.583 €  

 377,55 €  

 24.441 €  

 556,15 €  

6 

Fact sheet for “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

297 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Source: www.sennebogen.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A hydraulic material handling crane (hydraulic crane) is mainly used in ports for handling mass and 
bulk goods. The crane resembles an excavator and the grab arm is moved exclusively hydraulically 
(without ropes). For the handling of intermodal loading units, a spreader must be coupled to the 
grab arm. 
The hydraulic material handling crane is mobile and can be used on various chassis. The crane 
can be moved for loading and unloading.  

Process: 

•  Hydraulic crane moves to the transhipment place  
•  The crane extends the support legs and starts the handling operation 
•  Crane moves the Spreader to the loading unit. Spreader locks the twist locks 
•  Crane lift the loading unit via spreader and hoist rope 
•  Crane moves the loading unit the destination 
•  Hoist rope lowers spreader with loading unit 
•  Spreader is opened or unlocked 
•  Spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order 
•  Spreader is lifted and reach stacker moves to next order 

298 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network with 
other vertical handling systems. The focus of the technology is 
more on transhipment of conventional goods, but can also be 
used for transhipment of intermodal loading units. Currently, the 
technology is rarely used for intermodal tasks. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Flexible use in the port 
•  Can also be used for other goods, not 
only for intermodal loading units 

•  High acquisition costs 
•  Special structure needed to withstand the 

weight of the crane. 

•  due to hydraulic quick-change systems 

•  Acquisition costs need to be compared 

speed is considerably faster 

the change between various 
attachments (grabs/spreader) can be 
done without mechanics and in a few 
minutes 

•  Using a material handling crane the 

cargo is not affected by wind the same 
way a rope spreader is. 

•  Due to rigid fixation of the spreader to 
the material handling boom a more 
precise positioning is possible 

•  The cycle speed of a material handler 
in comparison to a crane seriously 
faster 

•  A material Handler is classed as an 
excavator which reduces the regular 
inspection costs 

•  Operators for hydraulic material 

handlers are easier to find then crane 
operators 

•  Energy Recovery Systems (Green 
Hybrid) support the lift and reduce 
energy consumption  

•  hydraulic cabin elevation reduce time 

for climbing up to cabin 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets (Not used in 

practice) 

299 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

22 t 

6.1.1  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Barges (110 m, 2.800 t, 200 TEU) 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

For 40’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

126 (107) 

100 (85) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3 min 

5 min 

3 min 

2 min 

7 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

2 min 

1 min 

0 min 

0 min 

300 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

0 min 

3 min 

1 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

1 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

non 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30 min 

0 min 

25 min 

40 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

non 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

25 min 

0 min 

30 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

1 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

1 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

1 min 

4 min 

5 min 

301 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 11 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

•  All process steps: 8 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

Ships that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 431 min 
•  40’-Container: 343 min 

•  20’-Container: 431 min 
•  40’-Container: 343 min 

•  20’-Container: 471 min 
•  40’-Container: 383 min 

•  20’-Container: 471 min 
•  40’-Container: 383 min 

•  20’-Container: 0,49 
•  40’-Container: 0,62 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full ship: 
The LU is transhipped using 
the transhipment technology 
as described in detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 3.400 min 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

321 min 
321 min 
963 min 
428 min 
0 min 
0 min 
36 min 
30 min 
25 min 
2.124 min 

255 min 
255 min 
765 min 
340 min 
0 min 
0 min 
37 min 
30 min 
25 min 
1.707 min 

Crew: 

3.400 min 

3.400 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 

Crew: 

1.800 min 

1.800 min 

302 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Duration: 1.800 min 

Second transhipment full 
ship: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

0 min 
0 min 
642 min 
428 min 
0 min 
36 min 
0 min 
0 min 
25 min 
1.131 min 

75 min 
6 min 

74,86 h 

48,19 h 

514 h 

434 h 

4,80 h 

4,06 h 

0 min 
0 min 
510 min 
340 min 
0 min 
37 min 
0 min 
0 min 
25 min 
912 min 

75 min 
6 min 

71,92 h 

45,26 h 

444 h 

364 h 

5,22 h 

4,28 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

240,0 m 

2,6 m 

240,0 m 

10,0 m 

Crane tracks 

240,0 m 

3,0 m 

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 

240,0 m 

15,0 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

0 

1 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

1.680 m² 

 134.400 €  

80 €/m² 

840 m² 

 67.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

2.496 m² 

 224.640 €  

45.000 €/m 

2.400 m² 

 10.800.000  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

90 €/m² 

3.600 m² 

 324.000 €  

303 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

harbour 
crane/HMHC 

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

17.641 m² 

 882.050 €  

 1.764.100 €  

 14.723.265 €  

 2.944.653 €  

 17.667.918 €  

 8.197.914 €  

 25.685.619 €  

25 

1.193.887,83 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Spreader 

2.700.000 

100.000 € 

1 

1 

2.700.000 

100.000 € 

9 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

 2.800.000 €  

 560.000 €  

 3.360.000 €  

448.930 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 21.027.918 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 1.642.818 €  

6.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

52.500 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Hydraulic crane 

5 

8 

736.163 € 

215.285 € 

304 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Spreader 

2,8 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

2.800 € 

954.248 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Hydraulic Crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,17 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

19.405 kWh 

2.426 € 

122.500 l 

137.200 € 

139.626 € 

 1.137 €  

 3.517 €  

 113.007 €  

 167.660 €  

 114.145 €  

 171.176 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

0,5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

2 

3,5 

0 

0 

3,5 

2 

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

 598.690 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

88.205 € 

0,00 € - 176.410 € 

305 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total costs per year 

3.195.897 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

31,29 € 

 7,07 €  

 2,66 €  

 18,18 €  

 27,90 €  

 1,68 €  

 60,87 €  

36,40 € 

81,69 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

 3.000.000 €  

 38,72 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Barge (110 m) 

2,7 

80.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

233 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

167,42 € 

167,42 € 

306 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

307 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

9.346 € 

87,35 € 

6.514 € 

60,87 € 

13.766 € 

128,66 € 

21.294 € 

199,01 € 

6.514 € 

60,87 € 

9.065 € 

84,72 € 

443 € 

4,14 € 

688 € 

6,43 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

11.411,85 € 

106,65 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

13.354,98 € 

124,81 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

45.647 € 

533,26 € 

53.420 € 

624,06 € 

484,32 € 

574,90 € 

575,12 € 

665,70 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.510 €  

 23,46 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 35 €  

 0,32 €  

 32.952 €  

 307,96 €  

 62.242 €  

 581,70 €  

 35 €  

 0,32 €  

 2.510 €  

 23,46 €  

 37.972 €  

 355,53 €  

 67.263 €  

 629,27 €  

6.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – IWW/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

52.500 

Terminal maintenance costs 

308 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Hydraulic crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

8 

2,8 

736.163 € 

215.285 € 

2.800 € 

954.248 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Hydraulic Crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,17 l 

19.405 kWh 

2.426 € 

122.500 l 

137.200 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

139.626 € 

 1.137 €  

 3.517 €  

             113.007 €  

             167.660 €  

 114.145 €  

 171.176 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

0,5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 

2 

3,5 

0 

0 

3,5 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

309 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maximum value personnel costs 

 598.690 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

88.205 € 

0,00 € - 176.410 € 

3.195.897 € 

31,29 € 

 7,07 €  

 2,66 €  

 18,18 €  

 27,90 €  

 1,68 €  

 60,87 €  

36,40 € 

81,69 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

3.000.000 €  

 38,72 € 

Equipment 

Barge  
(110 m) 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

2,7 

80.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

310 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

211 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

152,19 € 

152,19 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

311 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

7.425 € 

87,35 € 

5.174 € 

60,87 € 

11.882 € 

139,79 € 

18.852 € 

221,78 € 

5.174 € 

60,87 € 

7.201 € 

84,72 € 

463 € 

5,44 € 

735 € 

8,65 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

9.329,67 € 

109,76 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

11.140,28 € 

131,06 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

37.319 € 

548,80 € 

44.561 € 

655,31 € 

499,86 € 

590,44 € 

606,36 € 

696,95 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 1.994 €  

 23,46 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 28 €  

 0,32 €  

 28.814 €  

 338,98 €  

 54.426 €  

 640,30 €  

 28 €  

 0,32 €  

 1.994 €  

 23,46 €  

 32.802 €  

 386,55 €  

 58.414 €  

 687,87 €  

312 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

7 

Fact sheet for “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.sennebogen.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A hydraulic material handling crane (hydraulic crane) is mainly used in ports for handling mass and 
bulk goods. The crane resembles an excavator and the grab arm is moved exclusively hydraulically 
(without ropes). For the handling of intermodal loading units, a spreader must be coupled to the 
grab arm. 
The hydraulic material handling crane is mobile and can be used on various chassis. The crane 
can be moved for loading and unloading.  

Process: 

•  Hydraulic crane moves to the transhipment place  
•  The crane extends the support legs and starts the handling operation 
•  Crane moves the Spreader to the loading unit. Spreader locks the twist locks 
•  Crane lift the loading unit via spreader and hoist rope 
•  Crane moves the loading unit the destination 
•  Hoist rope lowers spreader with loading unit 
•  Spreader is opened or unlocked 
•  Spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order 
• 

Spreader is lifted and reach stacker moves to next order 

313 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network with 
other vertical handling systems. The focus of the technology is 
more on transhipment of conventional goods, but can also be 
used for transhipment of intermodal loading units. Currently, the 
technology is rarely used for intermodal tasks. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Flexible use in the port 
•  Can also be used for other goods, not 
only for intermodal loading units 

•  High acquisition costs 
•  Special structure needed to withstand the 

weight of the crane. 

•  due to hydraulic quick-change systems 

•  Acquisition costs need to be compared 

speed is considerably faster 

the change between various 
attachments (grabs/spreader) can be 
done without mechanics and in a few 
minutes 

•  Using a material handling crane the 

cargo is not affected by wind the same 
way a rope spreader is. 

•  Due to rigid fixation of the spreader to 
the material handling boom a more 
precise positioning is possible 

•  The cycle speed of a material handler 
in comparison to a crane seriously 
faster 

•  A material Handler is classed as an 
excavator which reduces the regular 
inspection costs 

•  Operators for hydraulic material 

handlers are easier to find then crane 
operators 

•  Energy Recovery Systems (Green 
Hybrid) support the lift and reduce 
energy consumption  

•  hydraulic cabin elevation reduce time 

for climbing up to cabin 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets (Not used in 

practice) 

314 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

22 t 

315 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

7.1.1  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Short sea container ships (1.000 TEU) 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

For 40’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

590 (501) 

500 (425) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3 min 

5 min 

3 min 

2 min 

7 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

2 min 

1 min 

0 min 

0 min 

2 min 

0 min 

3 min 

316 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

1 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

1 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Crew 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

10 min 

20 min 

10 min 

30 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

Crew 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

10 min 

20 min 

20 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

1 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

1 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

1 min 

4 min 

5 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

317 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 11 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

•  All process steps: 8 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 4 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 1.005 min 
•  40’-Container: 853 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.005 min 
•  40’-Container: 853 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.035 min 
•  40’-Container: 883 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.045 min 
•  40’-Container: 893 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,21 
•  40’-Container: 0,25 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.619 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 857 min 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

1.503 min 
1.503 min 
4.509 min 
2.004 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
9.839 min 

1.275 min 
1.275 min 
3.825 min 
1.700 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
8.395 min 

1.619 min 

1.619 min 

857 min 

857 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 

0 min 
0 min 
3.006 min 

0 min 
0 min 
2.550 min 

318 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

technology as described in 
detail above. 

Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

2.004 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
100 min 
240 min 
5.380 min 

75 min 
6 min 

1.700 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
100 min 
240 min 
4.620 min 

75 min 
6 min 

64,14 h 

51,44 h 

1.826 h 

59,07 h 

46,38 h 

1.584 h 

1.725 h 

1.482 h 

3,65 h 

3,44 h 

3,73 h 

3,49 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60 

Driving lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Loading lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

240,0 m 

2,6 

320,0 m 

10 

Crane tracks 

240,0 m 

0 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

0 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

1.680 m² 

 134.400 €  

80 €/m² 

840 m² 

 67.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

2.496 m² 

 224.640 €  

75.000 €/m 

3.200 m² 

 24.000.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

240,0 m 

15 

1 

90 €/m² 

3.600 m² 

 324.000 €  

Total area complete terminal 

18.441 m² 

319 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

 922.050 €  

 1.844.100 €  

 28.043.265 €  

 4.206.490 €  

 32.249.755 €  

 14.963.886 €  

 46.884.693 €  

25 

2.179.237 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Spreader 

2.700.000 € 

100.000 € 

2 

2 

5.600.000 € 

200.000 € 

9 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

 5.600.000 €  

 1.120.000 €  

 6.720.000 €  

897.860 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 38.969.755 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 3.077.097 €  

7.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

105.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Hydraulic crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

6 

2,8 

1.402.163 € 

162.645 € 

5.600 € 

1.570.408 € 

320 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobil harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,17 l 

20.285 kWh 

2.536 € 

245.000 l 

176.400 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

178.936 € 

 1.189 €  

 3.676 €  

 145.295 €  

 215.563 €  

 146.484 €  

 219.239 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

0 

3,5 

0 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

561.750 € 

 121.675 €  

 906.506 €  

92.205 € 

0,00 € - 184.410 € 

5.480.396 € 

321 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

29,31 € 

 5,35 €  

 1,70 €  

 14,96 €  

 22,01 €  

 0,88 €  

 52,19 €  

31,11 € 

70,04 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
Container 
Ship 

20.000.000 € 

1 

20.000.000 € 

25 

281,56 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

20.000.000 € 

281,56 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

2,2 

430.647 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

89,72 € 

89,72 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

Gas oil 

1,75 

25 

47 

Other operational costs main leg 

322 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Cost type 

Port 

Costs 

1.494 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

1.494 € 

Personnel costs main leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

323 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

43.761 € 

87,35 € 

26.149 € 

52,19 € 

34.720 € 

69,30 € 

52.360 € 

104,51 € 

26.149 € 

52,19 € 

42.444 € 

84,72 € 

2.214 € 

4,42 € 

2.761 € 

5,51 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

43.859,54 € 

87,54 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

48.406,19 € 

96,62 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

175.438 € 

437,72 € 

193.625 € 

483,10 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

395,55 € 

440,92 € 

411,12 € 

518,78 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 44.075 €  

 87,98 €  

450 km 

850 km 

 160 €  

 0,32 €  

 66.219 €  

 132,17 €  

 125.081 €  

 249,66 €  

 160 €  

 0,32 €  

Second road leg 

75 km 

 44.075 €  

 87,98 €  

Full transport chain per LU 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 154.370 €  

 308,76 €  

 213.232 €  

 426,25 €  

7.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Hydraulic material handling crane – SSS/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

105.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

324 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Hydraulic crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

6 

2,8 

1.402.163 € 

162.645 € 

5.600 € 

1.570.408 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobil harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,17 l 

20.285 kWh 

2.536 € 

245.000 l 

176.400 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

178.936 € 

 1.189 €  

 3.676 €  

             145.295 €  

             215.563 €  

             146.484 €  

             219.239 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

0 

3,5 

0 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

561.750 € 

 121.675 €  

325 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maximum value personnel costs 

 906.506 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

92.205 € 

0,00 € - 184.410 € 

5.480.396 € 

29,31 € 

 5,35 €  

 1,70 €  

 14,96 €  

 22,01 €  

 0,88 €  

 52,19 €  

31,11 € 

70,04 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
Container 
Ship 

20.000.000 € 

1 

20.000.000 € 

25 

281,56 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

20.000.000 € 

281,56 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

2,2 

430.647 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

89,72 € 

89,72 € 

326 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

Gas oil 

1,75 

25 

47 

Other operational costs main leg 

Cost type 

Costs 

Port 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

1.494 € 

1.494 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

327 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Personnel costs road leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

37.123 € 

87,35 € 

22.183 € 

52,19 € 

32.839 € 

77,27 € 

50.479 € 

118,77 € 

22.183 € 

52,19 € 

36.006 € 

84,72 € 

2.371 € 

5,58 € 

3.020 € 

7,10 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

38.175,73 € 

89,83 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

42.748,01 € 

100,58 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

152.703 € 

449,13 € 

170.992 € 

502,92 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

406,95 € 

484,81 € 

460,75 € 

538,61 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 37.389 €  

 87,98 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

 136 €  

 0,32 €  

 60.953 €  

 143,42 €  

 115.133 €  

 270,90 €  

 136 €  

 0,32 €  

 37.389 €  

 87,98 €  

328 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Full transport chain per LU 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 135.731 €  

 320,01 €  

 189.911 €  

 447,49 €  

329 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

8  FACT SHEET FOR “MOBILE HARBOUR CRANE” 

8.1  Fact sheet for “Mobile harbour crane – Rail/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: Liebherr 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A mobile harbour crane is a crane that can be used flexibly in the harbour area due to its rubberised 
wheels. It combines the performance of normal fixed or rail-mounted cranes with the advantage of 
being  able  to  be  used  flexibly  along  transhipment  tracks  or  quays.  Due  to  the  crane's  mass, 
however, a corresponding area structure is necessary. In addition to handling bulk goods, this crane 
can also handle intermodal loading units with the help of a spreader. 
Generally equipped with a hoist rope, wire ropes or chains, and sheaves, that can be used both to 
lift and lower cargo like intermodal loading units. 
The mobile crane can be operated in two ways when transhipping from rail or waterway to road. 
One variant is to extend the crane at the place of its support legs and to carry out the transhipment 
from this place. Once the working area of the crane has been worked through, the train or ship is 
moved and the crane can work on the next section. With this variant, additional vehicles such as 
reach stackers are usually used. The second variant is after the working area has been completed, 
the crane moves to the next working area and carries out the handling there. Since the crane can 
only  move  slowly  and  the  extension  and  retraction  of  the  support  legs  is  time-consuming,  this 
variant is slow when handling between the modes of transport. 

Process: 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Mobile Harbour Crane moves to the transhipment place  
The crane extends the support legs and starts the transhipment operation. 
Crane moves the Spreader to the loading unit. Spreader is locked or closed. 
Crane lift the loading unit via spreader and hoist rope 

330 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Crane moves the loading unit to the destination 
Hoist rope lowers spreader with loading unit 
Spreader is opened or unlocked 
Spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network with 
other vertical handling systems. The focus of the technology is 
more on transhipment of conventional goods, but can also be 
used for transhipment of intermodal loading units. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Flexible use in the port 
•  Can also be used for other goods, not 
only for intermodal loading units 

•  High acquisition costs 
•  Special structure needed to withstand the 

weight of the crane. 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets (Not used in 

practice) 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

84 t 

8.1.1  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – Rail/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

331 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Loco, Sggrss 80’ rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

For 40’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

64 (54) 

50 (43) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

1,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

1,0 min 

0,0 min 

4,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

332 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Train driver 

Departure duration: 

 Total 

30,0 min 

20’: 63,2 min 
40’: 98,8 min 

10,0 min 

20’: 73,2 min 
40’: 108,8 min 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

4,0 min 

4,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 13 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 6 min 

•  All process steps: 8 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 6 min 

333 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 380 min 
•  40’-Container: 364 min 

•  20’-Container: 380 min 
•  40’-Container: 346 min 

•  20’-Container: 453 min 
•  40’-Container: 455 min 

•  20’-Container: 420 min 
•  40’-Container: 386 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,48 
•  40’-Container: 0,50 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

162 min 
162 min 
486 min 
324 min 
0 min 
108 min 
30 min 
30 min 
63 min 
10 min 
1.375 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

129 min 
129 min 
387 min 
258 min 
0 min 
86 min 
30 min 
30 min 
99 min 
10 min 
1.158 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

675 min 
338 min 

675 min 
338 min 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 

0 min 
0 min 
324 min 
324 min 
0 min 
30 min 
108 min 

0 min 
0 min 
258 min 
258 min 
0 min 
30 min 
86 min 

334 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
826 min 

75 min 
6 min 

38,30 h 

28,30 h 

215 h 

200 h 

3,98 h 

3,71 h 

30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
672 min 

75 min 
6 min 

37,76 h 

27,76 h 

179 h 

164 h 

4,17 h 

3,82 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

7,0 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

57,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

11,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

1 

2 

2 

1 

- 

2 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

1.924 m² 

 173.160 €  

80 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

 m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

 m² 

 -   €  

335 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

11.100 m² 

 999.000 €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

28.203 m² 

 1.410.125 €  

 2.820.250 €  

 7.175.510 €  

 1.435.102 €  

 8.610.612 €  

 3.995.324 €  

 12.518.108 €  

25 

581.852 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Hydraulic 
crane 

Spreader 

2.400.000 € 

100.000 € 

1 

1 

2.400.000 € 

100.000 € 

9 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 2.500.000 €  

 500.000 €  

 3.000.000 €  

400.693 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 11.610.612 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 982.545 €  

8.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – Rail/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

25.973 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

336 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Mobile harbour crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

7 

2,8 

358.776 € 

168.000 

2.800 € 

529.576 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobile harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

0,8 l 

31.023 kWh 

41.557 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

3.878 € 

46.544 € 

50.422 € 

 1.818 €  

 5.622 €  

 38.337 €  

 56.878 €  

 40.155 €  

 62.500 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

0,5 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3,5 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

479.500 € 

 103.860 €  

 773.778 €  

337 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

141.013 € 

0,00 € - 282.025 € 

2.175.002 € 

45,74 € 

 22,32 €  

 1,97 €  

 24,65 €  

 48,95 €  

 6,56 €  

 101,26 €  

52,28 € 

142,76 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

16 

1 

1.360.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

15,73 € 

57,82 € 

 6.360.000 €  

 73,54 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

96.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

20,00 € 

62,50 € 

82,50 € 

338 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.389 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

173,68 € 

173,68 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

339 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Personnel costs road leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

4.717 € 

87,35 € 

4.539 € 

84,05 € 

6.520 € 

120,75 € 

11.534 € 

213,58 € 

4.539 € 

84,05 € 

4.575 € 

84,72 € 

131 € 

2,43 € 

175 € 

3,24 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

6.255,15 € 

115,84 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

7.519,39 € 

139,25 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

25.021 € 

579,18 € 

30.078 € 

696,24 € 

498,05 € 

647,96 € 

615,11 € 

765,02 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 4.778 €  

 88,49 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

 13 €  

 0,25 €  

 8.597 €  

 159,21 €  

 16.239 €  

 300,72 €  

 13 €  

 0,25 €  

 4.778 €  

 88,49 €  

340 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Full transport chain per LU 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 18.154 €  

 336,67 €  

 25.795 €  

 478,19 €  

8.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

21.480 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Mobile harbour crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

7 

2,8 

358.776 € 

168.000 € 

2.800 € 

529.576 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobile harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

0,8 l 

31.023 kWh 

34.367 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

3.878 € 

38.491 € 

42.369 € 

 1.818 €  

 5.622 €  

 31.704 €  

 47.037 €  

 33.522 €  

 52.659 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

1 

0 

2 

2 

3,5 

0 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

341 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

1 

1 

3,5 

3,5 

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

479.500 € 

 103.860 €  

 773.778 €  

141.013 € 

0,00 € - 282.025 € 

2.175.002 € 

45,74 € 

 22,32 €  

 1,97 €  

 24,65 €  

 48,95 €  

 6,56 €  

 101,26 €  

52,28 € 

142,76 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

25 

1 

2.125.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

24,57 € 

57,82 € 

 7.125.000 €  

342 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

 82,39 €  

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

7 

6 

150.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

31,25 € 

62,50 € 

93,75 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.451 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

181,34 € 

181,34 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

343 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.756 € 

87,35 € 

4.354 € 

101,26 € 

7.134 € 

165,92 € 

12.425 € 

288,96 € 

4.354 € 

101,26 € 

3.643 € 

84,72 € 

144 € 

3,34 € 

192 € 

4,48 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

5.846,29 € 

135,96 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

7.181,18 € 

167,00 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

External costs 

23.385 € 

679,80 € 

28.725 € 

835,02 € 

581,83 € 

762,81 € 

737,05 € 

918,03 € 

344 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 11 €  

 0,25 €  

 8.976 €  

 208,75 €  

 16.955 €  

 394,31 €  

 11 €  

 0,25 €  

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

 16.937 €  

 394,39 €  

 24.916 €  

 579,94 €  

345 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

9 

Fact sheet for “Mobile harbour crane – IWW/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: Liebherr 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A mobile harbour crane is a crane that can be used flexibly in the harbour area due to its rubberised 
wheels. It combines the performance of normal fixed or rail-mounted cranes with the advantage of 
being  able  to  be  used  flexibly  along  transhipment  tracks  or  quays.  Due  to  the  crane's  mass, 
however, a corresponding area structure is necessary. In addition to handling bulk goods, this crane 
can also handle intermodal loading units with the help of a spreader. 
Generally equipped with a hoist rope, wire ropes or chains, and sheaves, that can be used both to 
lift and lower cargo like intermodal loading units. 
The mobile crane can be operated in two ways when transhipping from rail or waterway to road. 
One variant is to extend the crane at the place of its support legs and to carry out the transhipment 
from this place. Once the working area of the crane has been worked through, the train or ship is 
moved and the crane can work on the next section. With this variant, additional vehicles such as 
reach stackers are usually used. The second variant is after the working area has been completed, 
the crane moves to the next working area and carries out the handling there. Since the crane can 
only  move  slowly  and  the  extension  and  retraction  of  the  support  legs  is  time-consuming,  this 
variant is slow when handling between the modes of transport. 

Process: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Mobile Harbour Crane moves to the transhipment place  
The crane extends the support legs and starts the transhipment operation. 
Crane moves the Spreader to the loading unit. Spreader is locked or closed. 
Crane lift the loading unit via spreader and hoist rope 
Crane moves the loading unit to the destination 
Hoist rope lowers spreader with loading unit 
Spreader is opened or unlocked 
Spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order 

346 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network with 
other vertical handling systems. The focus of the technology is 
more on transhipment of conventional goods, but can also be 
used for transhipment of intermodal loading units. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Flexible use in the port 
•  Can also be used for other goods, not 
only for intermodal loading units 

•  High acquisition costs 
•  Special structure needed to withstand the 

weight of the crane. 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets (Not used in 

practice) 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

84 t 

9.1.1  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – IWW/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Barges (110 m, 2.800 t, 200 TEU) 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

347 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For 20’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

For 40’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

126 (107) 

100 (85) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

2 min 

2 min 

0 min 

0 min 

2 min 

0 min 

4 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

non 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30 min 

0 min 

25 min 

40 min 

Time 

348 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

non 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

25 min 

0 min 

30 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

2 min 

4 min 

6 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 13 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 6 min 

•  All process steps: 10 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 6 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one ship 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

•  20’-Container: 650 min 
•  40’-Container: 518 min 

•  20’-Container: 650 min 
•  40’-Container: 518 min 

•  20’-Container: 690 min 
•  40’-Container: 558 min 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 690 min 

349 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  40’-Container: 558 min 

Ships that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,33 
•  40’-Container: 0,41 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full ship: 
The LU is transhipped using 
the transhipment technology 
as described in detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 3.400 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 1.800 min 

Second transhipment full 
ship: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

321 min 
321 min 
963 min 
642 min 
0 min 
0 min 
34 min 
30 min 
25 min 
2336 min 

255 min 
255 min 
765 min 
510 min 
0 min 
0 min 
35 min 
30 min 
25 min 
1875 min 

3.400 min 

3.400 min 

1.800 min 

1.800 min 

0 min 
0 min 
642 min 
642 min 
0 min 
34 min 
214 min 
0 min 
25 min 
1557 min 

75 min 
6 min 

0 min 
0 min 
510 min 
510 min 
0 min 
35 min 
170 min 
0 min 
25 min 
1250 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

82,17 h 

55,50 h 

525 h 

77,77 h 

51,10 h 

452 h 

350 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

445 h 

4,90 h 

4,16 h 

372 h 

5,32 h 

4,38 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60 

Driving lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Loading lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

180,0 m 

2,6 

240,0 m 

10 

Crane tracks 

240,0 m 

0 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

0 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

1.680 m² 

 134.400 €  

80 €/m² 

840 m² 

 67.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

1.872 m² 

 168.480 €  

45.000 €/m 

2.400 m² 

 10.800.000  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

240,0 m 

15 

1 

90 €/m² 

3.600 m² 

 324.000 €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

17.017 m² 

 850.850 €  

 1.701.700 €  

 14.573.505 €  

 2.914.701 €  

 17.488.206 €  

 8.114.528 €  

 25.424.354 €  

25 

1.181.744,01 € 

351 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal equipment 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Mobile 
harbour crane 

2.400.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

1 

1 

2.400.000 € 

100.000 € 

9 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 2.500.000 €  

 500.000 €  

 3.000.000 €  

400.693 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 20.488.206 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 1.582.437 €  

9.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – IWW/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

35.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Mobile harbour crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

728.675 € 

67.200 € 

2.800 € 

798.675 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobile harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,2 l 

18.719 kWh 

84.000 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

2.340 € 

94.080 € 

96.420 € 

 1.097 €  

 3.392 €  

 77.491 €  

 114.967 €  

352 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

 78.588 €  

 118.359 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

0,5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

2 

3,5 

0 

0 

3,5 

2 

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

 598.690 €  

85.085 € 

0,00 € - 170.170 € 

2.933.617 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

45,21 € 

 10,60 €  

 2,75 €  

 22,82 €  

 36,17 €  

 2,43 €  

 83,82 €  

48,34 € 

113,90 € 

353 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

 3.000.000 €  

 38,72 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Barge (110 m) 

2,7 

80.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

233 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

167,42 € 

167,42 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

354 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

9.346 € 

87,35 € 

8.968 € 

83,82 € 

16.284 € 

152,18 € 

23.836 € 

222,76 € 

8.968 € 

83,82 € 

9.065 € 

84,72 € 

510 € 

4,77 € 

755 € 

7,06 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

13.285,45 € 

124,16 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

15.234,74 € 

142,38 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

53.142 € 

620,82 € 

60.939 € 

711,90 € 

355 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

549,86 € 

680,98 € 

640,95 € 

772,07 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.525 €  

 23,60 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 36 €  

 0,34 €  

 33.135 €  

 309,67 €  

 62.588 €  

 584,93 €  

 36 €  

 0,34 €  

 2.525 €  

 23,60 €  

 38.184 €  

 357,54 €  

 67.637 €  

 632,80 €  

9.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – IWW/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

35.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Mobile harbour crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

728.675 € 

67.200 € 

2.800 € 

798.675 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobile harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,2 l 

18.719 kWh 

84.000 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

2.340 € 

94.080 € 

96.420 € 

 1.097 €  

 3.392 €  

356 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

 77.491 €  

 114.967 €  

 78.588 €  

 118.359 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 

2 

3,5 

0 

0 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 122.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

371.000 € 

 80.359 €  

 598.690 €  

85.085 € 

0,00 € - 170.170 € 

2.933.617 € 

45,21 € 

 10,60 €  

 2,75 €  

 22,82 €  

 36,17 €  

 2,43 €  

 83,82 €  

357 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

48,34 € 

113,90 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Barge  
(110 m) 

3.000.000 € 

1 

3.000.000 € 

30 

38,72 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

3.000.000 €  

 38,72 € 

Equipment 

Barge  
(110 m) 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

2,7 

80.000 € 

16,67 € 

16,67 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Barge (110 m) 

Gas oil 

0,006 

211 l 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

152,19 € 

152,19 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Inland shipping tax 

0,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

0 € 

0 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

60,40 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

3,83 € 

358 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Chassis 

26.000 € 

11 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

7.425 € 

87,35 € 

7.124 € 

83,82 € 

14.054 € 

165,34 € 

21.200 € 

249,41 € 

7.124 € 

83,82 € 

7.201 € 

84,72 € 

522 € 

6,15 € 

795 € 

9,35 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

10.862,74 € 

127,80 € 

359 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

12.717,41 € 

149,62 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

43.451 € 

638,98 € 

50.870 € 

748,08 € 

568,03 € 

699,15 € 

677,13 € 

808,24 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.098 €  

 24,68 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 29 €  

 0,34 €  

 30.122 €  

 354,37 €  

 56.896 €  

 669,37 €  

 29 €  

 0,34 €  

 2.098 €  

 24,68 €  

 34.318 €  

 404,42 €  

 61.093 €  

 719,41 €  

360 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

10 

Fact sheet for “Mobile harbour crane – SSS/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: Liebherr 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A mobile harbour crane is a crane that can be used flexibly in the harbour area due to its rubberised 
wheels. It combines the performance of normal fixed or rail-mounted cranes with the advantage of 
being  able  to  be  used  flexibly  along  transhipment  tracks  or  quays.  Due  to  the  crane's  mass, 
however, a corresponding area structure is necessary. In addition to handling bulk goods, this crane 
can also handle intermodal loading units with the help of a spreader. 
Generally equipped with a hoist rope, wire ropes or chains, and sheaves, that can be used both to 
lift and lower cargo like intermodal loading units. 
The mobile crane can be operated in two ways when transhipping from rail or waterway to road. 
One variant is to extend the crane at the place of its support legs and to carry out the transhipment 
from this place. Once the working area of the crane has been worked through, the train or ship is 
moved and the crane can work on the next section. With this variant, additional vehicles such as 
reach stackers are usually used. The second variant is after the working area has been completed, 
the crane moves to the next working area and carries out the handling there. Since the crane can 
only  move  slowly  and  the  extension  and  retraction  of  the  support  legs  is  time-consuming,  this 
variant is slow when handling between the modes of transport. 

Process: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Mobile Harbour Crane moves to the transhipment place  
The crane extends the support legs and starts the transhipment operation. 
Crane moves the Spreader to the loading unit. Spreader is locked or closed. 
Crane lift the loading unit via spreader and hoist rope 
Crane moves the loading unit to the destination 
Hoist rope lowers spreader with loading unit 
Spreader is opened or unlocked 
Spreader is lifted and crane moves to next order 

361 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☒ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network with 
other vertical handling systems. The focus of the technology is 
more on transhipment of conventional goods, but can also be 
used for transhipment of intermodal loading units. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Flexible use in the port 
•  Can also be used for other goods, not 
only for intermodal loading units 

•  High acquisition costs 
•  Special structure needed to withstand the 

weight of the crane. 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All  

Inland container 

•  All craneable 

•  Swap body 

•  All craneable 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes; top lift or with grappler pockets (Not used in 

practice) 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

84 t 

10.1.1  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – SSS/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis 

Short sea container ships (1.000 TEU) 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

362 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For 20’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

For 40’ containers on barge with no further special equipment (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

585 (497) 

500 (425) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

2,0 min 

2,0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

2 min 

0 min 

4 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Crew 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

10 min 

20 min 

10 min 

30 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

363 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

Crew 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

10 min 

20 min 

20 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

2 min 

4 min 

6 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 13 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 6 min 

•  All process steps: 10 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 6 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  9 min 

Unloading 

•  6 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 1.499 min 
•  40’-Container: 1.283 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.499 min 
•  40’-Container: 1.283 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.529 min 
•  40’-Container: 1.313 min 

•  20’-Container: 1.529 min 
•  40’-Container: 1.313 min 

364 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,14 
•  40’-Container: 0,16 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container 

40’ Container 

75 min 
6 min 

75 min 
6 min 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.619 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 857 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1.491 min 
1.491 min 
4.473 min 
2.982 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
10.757 min 

1.275 min 
1.275 min 
3.825 min 
2.550 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
9.245 min 

1.619 min 

1.619 min 

857 min 

857 min 

0 min 
0 min 
2.982 min 
2.982 min 
0 min 
30 min 
994 min 
100 min 
240 min 
7.328 min 

75 min 
6 min 

80,62 h 

67,92 h 

1.863 h 

1.762 h 

3,75 h 

0 0 min 
0 min 
2.550 min 
2.550 min 
0 min 
30 min 
850 min 
100 min 
240 min 
6.320 min 

75 min 
6 min 

73,42 h 

60,72 h 

1.626 h 

1.525 h 

3,83 h 

365 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

600 km 

3,54 h 

3,59 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60 

Driving lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Loading lane 

240,0 m 

3,5 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

240,0 m 

2,6 

320,0 m 

10 

Crane tracks 

240,0 m 

0 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

0 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

1.680 m² 

 134.400 €  

80 €/m² 

840 m² 

 67.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

2.496 m² 

 224.640 €  

75.000 €/m 

3.200 m² 

 24.000.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

240,0 m 

15 

1 

90 €/m² 

3.600 m² 

 324.000 €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

18.441 m² 

 922.050 €  

 1.844.100 €  

 28.043.265 €  

 4.206.490 €  

 32.249.755 €  

 14.963.886 €  

 46.884.693 €  

25 

2.179.237 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

366 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Mobil harbour 
crane 

2.400.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

2 

2 

4.800.000 € 

200.000 € 

9 

10 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 5.000.000 €  

 1.000.000 €  

 6.000.000 €  

801.387 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 38.249.755 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 2.980.624 €  

10.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – SSS/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

70.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Mobil harbour crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

1.402.163 € 

134.400 € 

5.600 € 

1.542.163 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobil harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,2 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

20.285 kWh 

2.536 € 

168.000 l 

120.960 € 

123.496 € 

 1.189 €  

 3.676 €  

 99.630 €  

 147.814 €  

 100.819 €  

 151.490 €  

367 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

1 

0 

2 

2 

7 

0 

3,5 

0 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

472.500 € 

 102.344 €  

 762.482 €  

92.205 € 

0,00 € - 184.410 € 

5.210.988 € 

42,58 € 

 6,75 €  

 1,76 €  

 22,03 €  

 30,55 €  

 1,32 €  

 74,44 €  

44,69 € 

99,63 €                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

368 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
Container 
Ship 

20.000.000 € 

1 

20.000.000 € 

25 

281,56 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

20.000.000 € 

281,56 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

2,2 

430.647 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

89,72 € 

89,72 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

Gas oil 

1,75 

25 

47 

Other operational costs main leg 

Cost type 

Port 

Costs 

1.494 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

1.494 € 

Personnel costs main leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

369 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

43.412 € 

87,35 € 

36.998 € 

74,44 € 

40.838 € 

82,17 € 

58.478 € 

117,66 € 

36.998 € 

74,44 € 

42.105 € 

84,72 € 

2.900 € 

5,83 € 

3.442 € 

6,93 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

50.812,62 € 

102,24 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

55.358,18 € 

111,38 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

203.250 € 

511,19 € 

221.433 € 

556,92 € 

Costs range in EU 

370 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

451,69 € 

561,56 € 

497,42 € 

607,29 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 43.977 €  

 88,49 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 165 €  

 0,33 €  

 66.255 €  

 133,31 €  

 125.149 €  

 251,81 €  

 165 €  

 0,33 €  

 43.977 €  

 88,49 €  

 154.209 €  

 310,94 €  

 213.103 €  

 429,44 €  

10.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “Mobile harbour crane – SSS/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

70.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Mobil harbour crane 

Spreader 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

1.402.163 € 

134.400 € 

5.600 € 

1.542.163 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Mobil harbour crane 

Diesel 

- 

1,2 l 

20.285 kWh 

2.536 € 

168.000 l 

120.960 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

123.496 € 

 1.189 €  

 3.676 €  

371 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

 99.630 €  

 147.814 €  

 100.819 €  

 151.490 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

1 

0 

2 

2 

7 

0 

3,5 

0 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

472.500 € 

 102.344 €  

 762.482 €  

92.205 € 

0,00 € - 184.410 € 

5.210.988 € 

42,58 € 

 6,75 €  

 1,76 €  

 22,03 €  

 30,55 €  

 1,32 €  

 74,44 €  

372 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

44,69 € 

99,63 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
Container 
Ship 

20.000.000 € 

1 

20.000.000 € 

25 

281,56 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

20.000.000 € 

281,56 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

2,2 

430.647 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

89,72 € 

89,72 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea Container 
Ship 

Gas oil 

1,75 

25 

47 

Other operational costs main leg 

Cost type 

Costs 

Port 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

1.494 € 

1.494 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

373 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

37.123 € 

87,35 € 

31.638 € 

74,44 € 

38.165 € 

89,80 € 

55.805 € 

131,31 € 

31.638 € 

74,44 € 

36.006 € 

84,72 € 

3.104 € 

7,30 € 

374 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

3.753 € 

8,83 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

44.418,15 € 

104,51 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

48.990,43 € 

115,27 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

177.673 € 

522,57 € 

195.962 € 

576,36 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

463,06 € 

572,93 € 

516,85 € 

626,72 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 39.340 €  

 92,57 €  

450 km 

850 km 

 141 €  

 0,33 €  

 63.362 €  

 149,09 €  

 119.684 €  

 281,61 €  

 141 €  

 0,33 €  

Second road leg 

75 km 

 39.340 €  

 92,57 €  

Full transport chain per LU 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 142.043 €  

 334,88 €  

 198.365 €  

 467,40 €  

375 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

FACT  SHEET  FOR  “DECK  CRANE  ON  SHORT  SEA  CONTAINER  SHIP  –  CRANE  SHIP  – 

11 
SSS/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:    https://www.liebherr.com/en/ind/products/maritime-cranes/ship-cranes/cylinder-luffing-ship-cranes/cylinder-
luffing-onboard-cranes.html#!/accordion-start-module=accordion-item-start-module-1+accordion-item-start-module-3; April 
2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

Crane ships, as defined for this study, are short sea container ships with cranes build onto the 
ships deck for the transhipment of containers to/from the ship. The number, positioning and design 
of the deck cranes varies depending on the vessel and the operational characteristics. 
The ship's crane is invariably permanently mounted on its vessel, usually on the side or in the area 
behind. It consists of a foundation, a mounted turnstile and the crane itself, which can be 
controlled via the ship's internal technology. The most common implementation of the ship's crane 
allows the crane arm to rotate 360 degrees, which makes it easier to pick up and set down loads in 
all circumstances.  

376 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☐ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The technology is fully developed; however, our research 
did not reveal any regular inner European use of the technology 
for the transhipment of intermodal loading units. Rather, we 
learned that even outside Europe, ports which previously had no 
own means for the loading and unloading of container vessels are 
increasingly switching to their own flexible equipment like a mobile 
harbor crane. There are two reasons for this. On the one hand, the 
technology has limited attractiveness to shipping companies as the 
deck cranes weight and required space reduce the shippable 
cargo. On the other hand, ports without their own equipment are 
unattractive for other types of container ships but still need to keep 
additional handling equipment on shore, as the crane ship only 
deposits the loading units at the quay and does not load them 
further. The technology therefore offers limited savings potentials. 
The result of our research is therefore that crane ships do not play 
a relevant role in intermodal transport in Europe and are also 
losing importance worldwide. For these reasons the technology 
will be excluded from the further evaluation of technologies in this 
study. 

12 

FACT SHEET FOR “FURMIA RTS 500 – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20060727_150345_76487_INHOTRA_Final_Report
.pdf ; April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

377 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

The Furmia RTS 500 technology consists of a horizontal transfer machine which can be used for 
the transhipment of standardized containers and swap bodies below the catenary. The machine is 
running  parallel  to  the  loading  track  on  its  own  standard  gauge  track.  The  machine  has  two  but 
similar lifting devices on each end which can be moved independent to adjust to loading units of 
different lengths. For the transhipment process two support legs have to be extended and put on 
the ground to stabilize the machine. 

Source: 
https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20060727_150345_76487_INHOT
RA_Final_Report.pdf ; April 2021 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes 
of transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical 
readiness level 
and prevalence of 
the technology: 

TRL 7: The technology was originally (1999/2000) developed by Neuweiler 
AG, Switzerland. Development was continued eventually by Bosch Rexroth 
Hungary in the European InHoTra project between 2000 and 2004. The 
technology reached the demonstrator stage of the InHoTra project and a 
prototype was built in the Freeport in Budapest. Although initial plans to 
build a full terminal for the technology in Budapest were made, this project 
was dropped and no further market implementation of the technology took 
place. Our research did not reveal any further indications of current use or 
further development of the technology. For this reason the technology will 
be excluded from the further evaluation of technologies in this study.  

Source: 
https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20100506_
153150_87620_ERRAC_Project_Evaluation_InHoTra.pdf ; April 2021 

378 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

13  FACT SHEET FOR “RORO RAMP TO/FROM SHIP” 
13.1  Fact sheet for “RoRo Ramp to/from Ship – SSS/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:    Port  of  Kiel;  https://www.portofkiel.com/news-reader-en/port-of-kiel-can-nearly-maintain-
its-cargo-handling-volumes.html; May 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

Roll-on/roll-off (RoRo) is a transhipment technology, where wheeled cargo like trucks, trailers or 
other loading units on special trailers or cassettes is driven onto an especially designed roro-ship, 
either on its own or with the help of terminal equipment. This is done either with ramps built into the 
ship, through shore-based ramps or a combination of both. The doors through which the vehicles 
enter the ship can  be located on the stern, bow or to  the sides of the ship. Once on board, the 
loading  units  are  dropped  off  at  their  designated  transport  space  and  are  secured  in  place  via. 
lashing. RoRo ships come in a wide variety of sizes, layouts and characteristics. There are mixed 
forms  of  RoRo-ships,  combining  the  transport  of  wheeled  cargo  with  container  (RoCon)  or 
passenger (RoPax) transport. For this study we will look at pure RoRo-ships with the doors/ramp 
located at the stern, a capacity of 2500 lane meters on 3 decks and built-in ramps. Furthermore, 
we will focus on the unaccompanied transport of non-craneable trailers and 45’ containers on rolling 
trailers and on double stacking cassettes which are all driven onto the ship with a tug master.  
Trailers can be picked up directly from the intermediate storage area by a tug master to be brought 
on the ship. There are specialized trestles which can be used for securing the trailers on the ship 
without additional lashing. For containers on roll trailers an additional device, called gooseneck, is 
necessary,  which  attached  to  the  front  of  the  roll  trailer,  for  the  tug  master  to  pick  them  up.  An 
additional device called translifter is used to pick up containers on cassettes with the tug master. 
The translifter is driven under the length of the cassette and then lifts it up from below. Depending 
on the ships deck height, the cassettes can be used for the transhipment and transport of double 
stacked containers, however ships enabling this are uncommon.  

379 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☐ Rail 

☒ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The technology is fully developed and widely used 
throughout Europe. We will only evaluate unaccompanied RoRo 
transport in this study for different reasons: 

• 

• 

The traffic distribution between shorter and longer 
routes correlates to the proportions of accompanied 
and unaccompanied RoRo transports and the 
transport distances of 600km/1000km evaluated in 
this study are comparatively long. 
Most RoRo ships have a low passenger capacity 
(below 12) compared to the total loading capacity. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

• 
• 
• 

High flexibility 
Short and easy transhipment 
Few requirements towards 
terminal infrastructure 

Transhipable loading units: 

•  Many requirements for the vessel 
•  Low cargo capacity for total ship size→ 

low utilization of cargo space 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All; on special equipment 

Inland container 

•  All; on special equipment 

•  Swap body 

•  All; on special equipment 

•  Semi-Trailer 

•  All 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  All 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

90 t 

380 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

13.1.1  Fact Sheet “RoRo Ramp to/from Ship – SSS/Road” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Truck for semi-trailer 
Truck and chassis for Container 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

RoRo ship, further special equipment depending on the type of 
loading unit as described 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Semitrailers (assuming 15 lm per semi-trailer and 85% load factor) 

166 (141) 

For 40’ containers on roll-trailers (assuming 13 lm per roll-trailer and 85% load 
factor) 

For 40’ containers on cassettes (assuming 13 lm per cassette and 85% load 
factor) 

192 (163) 

384 (326) 

13.1.1.1  Fact Sheet “RoRo Ramp to/from Ship – SSS/Road – Semi-trailers” 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3 min 

5 min 

3 min 

2 min 

7 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Groundsman 

5 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

381 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

12 min 

0 min 

14 min 

12 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Crew 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

10 min 

20 min 

10 min 

30 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

Crew 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

10 min 

20 min 

20 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

12 min 

0 min 

14 min 

12 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

5 min 

5 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

2 min 

382 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 24 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 12 min 

•  All process steps: 19 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 12 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Loading 

•  172 min 

Unloading 

•  172 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  202 min 

Unloading 

•  212 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  1,24 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.619 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 857 min 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 

Checker 
Gate agent  

75 min 
6 min 

423 min 
423 min 
1.692 min 
0 min 
1.692 min 
1.974 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
6.524 min 

1.619 min 

857 min 

0 min 
0 min 

383 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

987 min 
0 min 
1.692 min 
30 min 
1.974 min 
100 min 
240 min 
5.023 min 

75 min 
6 min 

36,38 h 

23,68 h 

790 h 

689 h 

5,60 h 

4,88 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

500,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Turning area 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

370,0 m 

32,0 m 

420,0 m 

10,0 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

2 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

3.500 m² 

 280.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

m² 

m² 

 -   €  

 -   €  

90 €/m² 

23.680 m² 

 2.131.200 €  

75.000 €/m 

4.200 m² 

 31.500.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

37.380 m² 

384 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

 1.869.000 €  

 3.738.000 €  

 39.998.200 €  

 5.999.730 €  

 45.997.930 €  

 21.343.040 €  

 66.871.791 €  

25 

3.108.254 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

10 

1.500.000 € 

5 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 1.500.000 € 

 300.000 € 

 1.800.000 € 

395.957 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 47.797.930 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 3.504.210 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

175.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Terminal truck 

5 

2,8 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

1.999.910 € 

42.000 € 

2.041.910 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

41.118 kWh 

5.140 € 

385 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal truck 

Diesel 

3 l 

1.050.000 l 

756.000 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

761.140 € 

 2.410 €  

 7.451 €  

 622.693 €  

 923.840 €  

 625.103 €  

 931.291 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

2 

2 

0 

10 

12 

1 

7 

7 

0 

33 

39,5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 185.500 €  

 33.000 €  

 231.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 -   €  

 32.000 €  

 1.056.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 1.224.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

2.826.500 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

 612.220 €  

 4.561.175 €  

186.900 € 

0,00 € - 373.800 € 

9.320.660 € 

20,02 € 

 16,15 €  

 4,35 €  

386 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 11,67 €  

 32,17 €  

 1,07 €  

 53,26 €  

28,03 € 

74,30 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer non 
craneable 

26.000 € 

11 

780 € 

0,78 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
RoRo Ship 
(Semi-
Trailer) 

50.000.000 € 

1 

50.000.000 € 

Trestle 

3.000 € 

166 

498.000 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

25 

10 

703,89 € 

17,55 € 

 50.498.000 €  

 721,44 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea RoRo Ship 
(Semi-Trailer) 

Trestle 

1,3 

2,8 

638.685 € 

1.719,82 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

133,06 € 

0,49 € 

133,55 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea RoRo Ship 
(Semi-Trailer) 

Gas oil 

2,38 

34 

64 

Other operational costs main leg 

387 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Cost type 

Port 

Costs 

1.494 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

1.494 € 

Personnel costs main leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

 3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

12.687 € 

89,98 € 

388 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

7.510 € 

53,26 € 

39.484 € 

280,03 € 

67.234 € 

476,84 € 

7.510 € 

53,26 € 

12.069 € 

85,59 € 

2.616 € 

18,56 € 

4.019 € 

28,51 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

20.469 € 

145,17 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

27.757 € 

196,86 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

81.875 € 

725,84 € 

111.029 € 

984,30 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

675,38 € 

767,92 € 

933,84 € 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

1.026,38 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 12.261 €  

 86,96 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 115 €  

 0,82 €  

 59.064 €  

 418,90 €  

 111.566 €  

 791,25 €  

 115 €  

 0,82 €  

 12.261 €  

 86,96 €  

 83.586 €  

 594,44 €  

 136.087 €  

 966,79 €  

13.1.1.2  Fact Sheet “RoRo Ramp to/from Ship – SSS/Road – Roll-trailers” 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Checker 

Truck driver 

3 min 

5 min 

389 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3 min 

2 min 

7 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

3 min 

3 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

3 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

15 min 

0 min 

18 min 

15 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Crew 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

10 min 

20 min 

10 min 

30 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

Crew 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

10 min 

20 min 

20 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

15 min 

0 min 

18 min 

15 min 

390 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

3 min 

3 min 

3 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 25 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 15 min 

•  All process steps: 20 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 15 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  10 min 

Unloading 

•  5 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Loading 

•  247 min 

Unloading 

•  247 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  277 min 

Unloading 

•  287 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  0,86 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Rolltrailers 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 

75 min 
6 min 

489 min 
489 min 
1.630 min 
489 min 
2.445 min 

391 

 
  
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.619 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 857 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

2.934 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
8.796 min 

1.619 min 

857 min 

0 min 
0 min 
815 min 
489 min 
2.445 min 
30 min 
2.934 min 
100 min 
240 min 
7.053 min 

75 min 
6 min 

38,89 h 

26,19 h 

921 h 

820 h 

5,65 h 

5,03 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

500,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Turning area 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

2 

0 

0 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

3.500 m² 

 280.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

m² 

m² 

 -   €  

 -   €  

392 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

370,0 m 

32,0 m 

420,0 m 

10,0 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

2 

1 

0 

90 €/m² 

23.680 m² 

 2.131.200 €  

75.000 €/m 

4.200 m² 

 31.500.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

37.380 m² 

 1.869.000 €  

 3.738.000 €  

 39.998.200 €  

 5.999.730 €  

 45.997.930 €  

 21.343.040 €  

 66.871.791 €  

25 

3.108.254 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

Goose neck 

18.000 € 

Reach stacker 

480.000 € 

10 

10 

2 

1.500.000 € 

180.000 € 

960.000 € 

5 

20 

5 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 2.640.000 €  

 528.000 €  

 3.168.000 €  

665.876 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 49.165.930 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 3.774.130 €  

393 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

140.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Terminal truck 

Goose neck 

Reach stacker 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

2,8 

1 

2,8 

1.999.910 € 

42.000 € 

1.800 € 

26.880 € 

2.070.590 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Terminal truck 

Reach stacker 

Diesel 

Diesel 

- 

3 l 

1,65 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

41.118 kWh 

5.140 € 

1.050.000 l 

756.000 € 

252.000 

181.440 € 

942.580 € 

 2.410 €  

 7.451 €  

 772.140 €  

 1.145.561 €  

 774.550 €  

 1.153.013 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1 

1 

2 

10 

12 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

33 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 1.056.000 €  

39,5 

 31.000 €  

 1.224.500 €  

394 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Dispatcher 

1 

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

2.863.250 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 620.180 €  

 4.620.479 €  

186.900 € 

0,00 € - 373.800 € 

9.837.449 € 

26,96 € 

 20,45 €  

 6,73 €  

 14,79 €  

 41,97 €  

 1,34 €  

 70,27 €  

37,26 € 

97,89 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’-Container 

4.200 € 

12 

126 € 

0,12 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
RoRo Ship 
(Roll-Trailer) 

50.000.000 € 

1 

50.000.000 € 

Roll-Trailer 

12.500 € 

192 

2.400.000 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

25 

10 

703,89 € 

68,57 € 

 52.400.000 €  

 772,46 €  

395 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea RoRo Ship 
(Roll-Trailer) 

Roll-Trailer 

1,3 

2,8 

638.685 € 

6.720,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

133,06 € 

1,92 € 

134,98 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea RoRo Ship 
(Semi-Trailer) 

Gas oil 

2,38 

34 

64 

Other operational costs main leg 

Cost type 

Port 

Costs 

1.494 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

1.494 € 

Personnel costs main leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

396 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

14.380 € 

88,22 € 

11.454 € 

70,27 € 

42.386 € 

260,04 € 

70.803 € 

434,37 € 

11.454 € 

70,27 € 

13.666 € 

83,84 € 

513 € 

3,15 € 

762 € 

4,68 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

23.463 € 

143,95 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

30.630 € 

187,91 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

93.854 € 

719,74 € 

122.519 € 

939,57 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

653,72 € 

774,98 € 

873,55 € 

994,81 € 

External costs 

Total 

Per LU 

397 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

 17.166 €  

 105,32 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 206 €  

 1,26 €  

 62.037 €  

 380,60 €  

 117.182 €  

 718,91 €  

 206 €  

 1,26 €  

 17.166 €  

 105,32 €  

 96.370 €  

 593,75 €  

 151.514 €  

 932,06 €  

13.1.1.3  Fact Sheet “RoRo Ramp to/from Ship – SSS/Road – Cassettes (2LU)” 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

6 min 

10 min 

6 min 

4 min 

14 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Groundsman 

6 min 

6 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

6 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

15 min 

0 min 

18 min 

15 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

398 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman ship 

Further procedures for departure:  

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Crew 

Crew 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

10 min 

20 min 

10 min 

30 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Further arrival procedures:  

Crew 

Crew 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman ship 

 Total 

10 min 

20 min 

20 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

15 min 

0 min 

18 min 

15 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

6 min 

6 min 

6 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4 min 

4 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 35 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 15 min 

•  All process steps: 25 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 15 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  20 min 

Unloading 

•  10 min 

399 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  291 min 

Unloading 

•  291 min 

Loading 

•  321 min 

Unloading 

•  331 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  0,73 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Rolltrailers 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.619 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 857 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Crew: 

Crew: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per ship 
Groundsman 
Groundsman ship 
Crew 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

75 min 
6 min 

1.152 min 
1.152 min 
3.840 min 
1.152 min 
2.880 min 
3.456 min 
30 min 
50 min 
240 min 
13.952 min 

1.619 min 

857 min 

0 min 
0 min 
1.920 min 
1.152 min 
2.880 min 
30 min 
3.456 min 
100 min 
240 min 
9.778 min 

75 min 
6 min 

400 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

40,34 h 

27,64 h 

1.131 h 

1.030 h 

5,89 h 

5,36 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

500,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Turning area 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Intermediate 
buffer area 
(stackable) 

Inland port quay 
per metre 

370,0 m 

32,0 m 

420,0 m 

10,0 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

2 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

3.500 m² 

 280.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

m² 

m² 

 -   €  

 -   €  

90 €/m² 

23.680 m² 

 2.131.200 €  

75.000 €/m 

4.200 m² 

 31.500.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

0 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

37.380 m² 

 1.869.000 €  

 3.738.000 €  

 39.998.200 €  

 5.999.730 €  

 45.997.930 €  

401 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

 21.343.040 €  

 66.871.791 €  

25 

3.108.254 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

Translifter 

330.000 € 

Reach stacker 

480.000 € 

10 

10 

2 

1.500.000 € 

3.300.000 € 

960.000 € 

5 

8 

5 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 5.760.000 €  

 1.152.000 €  

 6.912.000 €  

1.232.891 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 52.909.930 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 4.341.145 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

140.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Terminal truck 

Translifter 

Reach stacker 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

2,8 

1.999.910 € 

42.000 € 

92.400 € 

26.880 € 

2.161.190 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Terminal truck 

Reach stacker 

Diesel 

Diesel 

- 

3 l 

1,65 

41.118 kWh 

5.140 € 

1.050.000 l 

756.000 € 

504.000 l 

362.880 € 

402 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

1.124.020 € 

 2.410 €  

 7.451 €  

 921.586 €  

 1.367.283 €  

 923.996 €  

 1.374.734 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1 

1 

2 

10 

12 

1 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

33 

39,5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 1.056.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 1.224.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

2.863.250 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

 620.180 €  

 4.620.479 €  

186.900 € 

0,00 € - 373.800 € 

10.676.505 € 

31,01 € 

 20,45 €  

 8,03 €  

 15,44 €  

403 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 43,92 €  

 1,34 €  

 76,26 €  

40,85 € 

106,01 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’-Container 

4.200 € 

12 

126 € 

0,12 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Short Sea 
RoRo Ship 
(Roll-Trailer) 

50.000.000 € 

1 

50.000.000 € 

Cassette 

7.500 € 

192 

1.440.000 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

25 

10 

703,89 € 

41,14 € 

 51.440.000 €  

 745,04 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Short Sea RoRo Ship 
(Roll-Trailer) 

Cassette 

1,3 

1,5 

638.685 € 

2.160,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

133,06 € 

0,62 € 

133,68 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Energy 
consumption per 
t/h 

Energy 
consumption per 
450 km transport 
(ton) 

Energy 
consumption per 
850 km transport 
(ton) 

Short Sea RoRo Ship 
(Semi-Trailer) 

Gas oil 

2,38 

34 

64 

Other operational costs main leg 

Cost type 

Port 

Costs 

1.494 € 

404 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

1.494 € 

Personnel costs main leg 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Crew 

Road leg investments  

142,88 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

31.617 € 

96,98 € 

405 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

24.861 € 

76,26 € 

43.161 € 

132,39 € 

71.213 € 

218,44 € 

24.861 € 

76,26 € 

28.761 € 

88,22 € 

1.084 € 

3,32 € 

1.582 € 

4,85 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

38.586 € 

118,36 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

45.723 € 

140,26 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

154.344 € 

591,81 € 

182.894 € 

701,28 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

521,00 € 

651,31 € 

630,47 € 

760,78 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 32.254 €  

 98,94 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 491 €  

 1,51 €  

 74.257 €  

 227,78 €  

 140.264 €  

 430,26 €  

 491 €  

 1,51 €  

 32.254 €  

 98,94 €  

 138.766 €  

 428,68 €  

 204.773 €  

 631,15 €  

14 

FACT SHEET FOR “METROCARGO – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

406 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Source: metrocargo.it 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

Metrocargo is a horizonal transhipment system able to operate under the overhead catenary to 
shift loading units from train to train or from train to terminal. It has been developed by I-LOG Srl 
with the engineering support of Metrocargo Automazzione Srl in different EU Projects80. The 
intended operation is highly automated. It can work with standard rail wagon and standard 
containers without modification. The system can also be used to shift loading units between wagon 
of different rail gauges. One Metrocargo module consist of four lifting towers (each for one corner 
of a container), one shuttle (made of two semi-shuttles to adapt to different container length) and 
stacking platforms. The shuttle is operating on dedicated rails next to or between two rail tracks. 
The shuttle together with the four lifting towers is able to move containers between the 
neighbouring rail tracks or stacking platform. The transhipment from rail to platform vs was 
demonstrated while the handling of trucks was not. 
It is therefore assumed that the containers are loaded from truck to platform manually by a Reach 
Stacker or equipment of the truck (Mobiler etc). The platform lifts the container so that carriage 

80 http://www.mitproject.eu/ 

407 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

beams of the shuttle can move laterally under the container. After the platform has lowered the 
containers, the shuttle transfers the container on itself and moves them longitudinal to the wagon 
appointed for loading. Then the four lifting towers are moved to the same place. After that the 
carriage beams with the containers are laterally moved above the (empty) wagon. When placed 
above the wagon the lifting towers lift the containers in the four lower corner castings and place 
them on the pins of the wagon. The beam returns to the shuttle and the container is lowered to the 
pins. The lifting tower is detached and moves similar as the shuttle to the next loading/unloading 
place. Adjustment of the pins to different length and weight of containers is possible by a “pin 
changer” machine. 
For a full train unloading and reloading it is necessary to operate from both sides of the rail track in 
order to make sure that sufficient number of loading units are available. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 6: Technology demonstrated in relevant environment in the 
framework of an EU RTD project until 2013 but not brought to 
market use since then. The company Metrocargo Italia Srl is an 
intermodal operator using standard intermodal equipment for its 
real-life operation between Italy and France rather than the 
“Metrocargo” system. Our research did not reveal any further 
indications of current use or further development of the 
technology. For this reason, the technology will be excluded from 
the further evaluation of technologies in this study. 

408 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

15 

FACT SHEET FOR “N.E.H.T.S. (NEUWEILER) – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20060727_150345_76487_INHOTRA_Final_Report
.pdf/ ; April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The N.E.H.T.S. is a horizontal transhipment technology which can handle standardized containers 
up to 35t by using two top lift beams which are hanging on chains. Additional swap bodies up to 
20t can be handled by using grapple arms. The technology consists of two lifting devices which 
can be moved parallel to the transhipment track. The lifting devices can move independently in 
order to facilitate the transhipment of different loading unit sizes. The technology can be operated 
by the truck driver semi-automatically. 

Classific
ation 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

409 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Connect
ed 
modes 
of 
transpor
t 

Technic
al 
readines
s level 
and 
prevalen
ce of the 
technolo
gy: 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

TRL 7: The technology was originally (1999/2000) developed by Neuweiler AG, 
Switzerland. It was part of the European InHoTra project between 2000 and 2004 and 
reached the demonstrator stage and a prototype was build in Zurich. Although the 
technology could prove its functionality, it was eventually dropped and no further 
market implementation of the technology took place. Our research did not reveal any 
further indications of current use or further development of the technology. For this 
reason the technology will be excluded from the further evaluation of technologies in 
this study. 

Source: 
https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20100506_153150_87
620_ERRAC_Project_Evaluation_InHoTra.pdf ; April 2021 

410 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1FACT SHEET FOR “IUT - INNOVATIVER UMSCHLAGTERMINAL (INNOVATIVE TRANSHIPMENT 

16 
TERMINAL) – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.railcargo.com ; April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

Basic Idea of this research project was to split the common terminal activities – loading/unloading 
train, storage and loading/unloading truck in up to 3 different system components. The aim was to 
get the processes more flexible, to increase throughput and to reduce investment cost. Another 
issue was to create a storage facility for loading units, which offers random access to the units 
(instead of block storage as in common terminals). The most benefits would be realized in 
gateway-terminals. 
Approx. 2003 a prototype of a handling machine for the storage part was build and technically 
tested in the premises of ÖBB at Wien-Nordwestbahnhof.  
The project was discontinued due to technical, commercial and organisational reasons approx. 
2006. The prototype was teared down approx. 2010. There were no documents and also no 
responsible people available for the further investigation. 

Classific
ation 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

411 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Connect
ed 
modes 
of 
transpor
t 

Technic
al 
readines
s level 
and 
prevalen
ce of the 
technolo
gy: 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

TRL 7: The technology was originally developed by Rail Cargo Austria. It was part of 
the European InHoTra project between 2000 and 2004 and reached the demonstrator 
stage and a prototype was build in Vienna. Although the technology could prove its 
functionality, it was eventually dropped and no further market implementation of the 
technology took place. Our research did not reveal any further indications of current 
use or further development of the technology. For this reason, the technology will be 
excluded from the further evaluation of technologies in this study. 

Source: 
https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20100506_153150_87
620_ERRAC_Project_Evaluation_InHoTra.pdf ; April 2021 

412 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

17 

FACT SHEET FOR “CARCONTRAIN – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: 
https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20060727_150345_76487_INHOTRA_Final_Report.pdf ; 
April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The CarConTrain technology was designed for the horizontal transfer of standardized containers 
and swap bodies between specific road and rail vehicles which had to be equipped with special 
lifting pins. The transhipment is conducted with the help of a transfer vehicle equipped with arms 
for the freight transfer which is placed between the rail and the road vehicle on a separate 
transhipment track and which transfers loading units to and from both sides. The technology 
requires an even surface and the transhipment can be conducted under the catenary. 

Sources: 
https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20060727_150345_76487_INHOT
RA_Final_Report.pdf 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

413 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 7: The technology was part of the European InHoTra project 
between 2000 and 2004. The technology failed to reach the 
demontrator stage of the InHoTra project due to commercial 
reasons within the developing company and general reasons like 
a lack of interest from commercial actors in intermodal transport. 
The development of the technology was eventually continued 
under the name AMCCT outside of the InHoTra project and a 
prototype of this new technology was tested in Sweden but it did 
not reach the market in regular operation. Our research did not 
reveal any further indications of current use or further 
development of the technology. For this reason the technology will 
be excluded from the further evaluation of technologies in this 
study. 

414 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

18 

FACT SHEET FOR “SIDELIFTER – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: https://hammarlift.com/products/hammar-110/, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The Sidelifter- technology is a container/swap body loading device for trucks and rail wagons, which 
is  mounted  on  a  truck  or  chassis  and  enables  the  transfer  and  transport  of  standardized  swap 
bodies  or  ISO  containers  at  any  location.  The  loading  unit  can  be  set  down  on  the  ground,  on 
another truck, chassis or rail car or on the vehicle it is mounted on independent of other working 
steps or handling equipment. For the usage of the technology, two lifting devices are necessary on 
the front and the back of the trailer. Each construction consists of a main lifting arm and a supporting 
leg movable with hydraulic cylinders. The devices can be moved along the chassis in order to adjust 
the  technology  to  loading  units  of  different  lengths.  The  sidelifter  is  usually  powered  through  a 
power  take  off  from  the  truck  unit,  alternatively  a  variant  with  a  trailer  mounted  engine  (diesel, 
electric or gasoline) can be used.  

For transhipments from the sidelifter onto a rail wagon in general, first the sidelifter chassis stops 
next to the empty rail wagon. Then the supporting legs are extended over, under or on to the wagon 
to  the  side  of  the  loading  position.  Then  From  the  lifting  arm  lifting  lugs  are  fixed  to  the  bottom 
corner castings of the container. In practice, the lifting lugs might still be attached from the loading 
process. Then the container is lifted up using the hydraulic lifting arm and moved over to the wagon. 
Transhipment under the line is possible. A stacking option is available with extra supporting legs 
on the other side, which we will not include in this study. In practice, the Sidelifter can be used in 
addition to other transhipment technologies, for example using a crane to unload the train and then 
using  the  Sidelifter  truck  for  the  distribution  of  loading  units  to  sites  where  no  other  dedicated 
transhipment equipment is feasible. 
As  a  reference  for  this  study,  we  are  using  values  close  to  those  of  the  Hammar  110  line  of 
sidelifters, as this product line is specifically designed to facilitate transhipments directly onto rail 
wagons with its double-mode support legs. The product line offers a variety of configurations, for 
our study the model 110 S is used as a reference, which is mounted on a fixed gooseneck chassis 
and  uses  sliding  cranes.  The  cranes  can  slide  between  20’-40’  and  have  a  Safe  Working  Load 
(SWL) of 36 metric tonnes. It is equipped with an optional top spreader for handling containers in 

415 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

the  top  corner  castings  with  a  higher  transhipment  speed  (total  costs  are  185.000  €;  already 
included are the cost of the spreader of 29.500 €). 

Other notable configurations/options for Sidelifter are: 

lifting boom for lifting special loads; 

• 
•  extendable cranes for lifting loads further away from chassis or for stacking a container two 

rows deep, two containers high; 

•  extra support legs, that can be placed below rail wagons if there is no other space for the 

support legs; 

•  higher lifting capacity. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The technology is fully developed and has been proven in 
different operational environments. It is used in different European 
countries, however its usage in intermodal operations and 
especially in a terminal setting is a niche where it is typically used 
as supporting equipment and not as the main transhipment 
technology. Its prevalence in the intermodal market is low. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Additional equipment weight lowers max. 
load weight when driving on public roads 
by 1 to 6 tons depending on Sidelifter 
configuration; 

• 

•  not suitable for large scale transhipment 
operations due to lower manouverability 
of trucks and length of handling process; 
for Sidelifters free space is required for 
the support legs next to the container or 
below the rail wagon. Therefore, certain 
settings of specific containers on specific 
rail wagons might not be possible to load 
or unload. 

•  High flexibility and possibility of multi-
purpose usage as transhipment 
equipment as well as road transport 
equipment; 

•  no special infrastructure other than a 
loading lane next to the tracks for 
transhipments necessary – no ground 
reinforcements; 

•  no adaptation of wagon or auxiliary 

• 

• 

equipment; 
linking transhipment and road leg 
transport/distribution within one 
vehicle; 
truck driver is the only necessary 
transhipment personnel; 

•  LUs can be placed on/picked-up from 

the ground without special 
platforms/ramps; 

•  high safety: only a single operator 

used, operator is operating outside the 
vehicle at a safe distance away from 
the Sidelifter; 

•  easy to move between multiple 

locations. 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

416 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

• 

ISO container 

• 

Inland container 

•  Swap body 

•  All; above 40’ with telescopic chassis due to road 

regulations 

•  All; above 40’ with telescopic chassis due to road 

regulations 

•  All; class A with telescopic chassis due to road 

regulations 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Not possible 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

36 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis; the Sidelifter chassis could in another setting 
also be used for road transport. 

Loco, Sggrss 80’ rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 40’ containers on Sggrss 80’’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

50 (43) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

3,0 min 

7,0 min 

3,0 min 

417 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

10,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

4,0 min 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

4,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

99,0 min 

10,0 min 

108,8 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman train 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

4,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Truck driver 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

7,0 min 

7,0 min 

418 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

10,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Check-out duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 21 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 14 min 

•  All process steps: 16 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 14 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  10 min 

Unloading 

•  9 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  301 min 

Unloading 

•  301 min 

Loading 

•  410 min 

Unloading 

•  341 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  0,56 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  
Duration Full vehicle: 91 
min 

Main leg 1000 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Full Vehicle 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker: 
Gate agent:  
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Groundsman: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

75 min 
6 min 

129 min 
129 min 
430 min 
602 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
99 min 
10 min 
1459 min 

1295 min 
648 min 

695 min 
348 min 

419 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 
Duration Full Vehicle: 22 
min 

Checker: 
Gate agent: 
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

0 min 
0 min 
387 min 
602 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
1059 min 

75 min 
6 min 

36,26 h 

26,26 h 

191 h 

176 h 

4,44 h 

4,09 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

 1  

 1  

 1  

 2  

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

80 €/m² 

1.250 m² 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

 -    

90 €/m² 

 m² 

 -      

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

600,0 m 

2,6 m 

 1  

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

 1  

 1  

 1  

1.560 m² 

 m² 

80 €/m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

420 

 
 
 
            
            
            
           
            
           
           
            
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

 -    

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

 1  

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

15,0 m 

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

 -    

 -    

 m² 

71 m² 

 m² 

 m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

1.250 €/m 

90 €/m² 

 -      

 -      

 -      

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

14.774 m² 

 738.675 €  

 1.477.350 €  

 3.953.475 €  

 790.695 €  

4.744.170 € 

 2.201.295 €  

 6.897.074 €  

25 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Sidelifter unit 

185.000 € 

Truck 

100.000 € 

2 

2 

370.000 € 

200.000 € 

20 

9 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

570.000 € 

114.000 € 

684.000 € 

66.089 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 5.428.170 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 386.670 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

24.054 

421 

 
           
          
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Sidelifter unit 

Truck 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

2 

10 

197.674 € 

7.400 € 

20.000 € 

225.074 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Equipment 

Diesel 

- 

2,4 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

16.251 kWh 

2.031 € 

57.730 l 

64.658 € 

66.689 € 

 953 €  

 2.945 €  

 53.257 €  

 79.013 €  

 54.209 €  

 81.958 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

0,5 

0 

2 

2 

7 

0 

2 

0 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 26.500 €  

 185.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

366.500 € 

 79.384 €  

422 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

 591.428 €  

73.868 € 

0,00 € - 147.735 € 

Total costs per year 

1.044.934 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 
Maintenance costs 
Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

16,07 € 

 15,24 €  

 2,77 €  
 9,36 €  
 27,37 €  

3,07 € 

46,51 € 

22,37 € 

66,86 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

ISO-Container 40’ 

4.200 € 

12 

126,00 € 

0,12 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

25 

1 

2.125.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

24,57 € 

57,82 € 

7.125.000 € 

82,39 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagon 

Loco 

7 

6 

150.000 € 

300.000 € 

31,25 € 

62,50 € 

423 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

93,75 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.451 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

181,34 € 

181,34 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

424 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

0,187 € 

11,97 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.794 € 

88,22 € 

2.000 € 

46,51 € 

7.056 € 

164,10 € 

12.347 € 

287,13 € 

2.000 € 

46,51 € 

3.756 € 

87,35 € 

136 € 

3,16 € 

185 € 

4,30 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.685,36 € 

108,96 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.020,26 € 

140,01 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

18.741 € 

544,81 € 

24.081 € 

700,03 € 

496,53 € 

585,51 € 

651,75 € 

740,73 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

 29 €  

 0,67 €  

 8.976 €  

 208,75 €  

 16.955 €  

 394,31 €  

 29 €  

 0,67 €  

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

 16.937 €  

 395,21 €  

425 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1.000 km 

 24.916 €  

 580,77 €  

426 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

19  FACT SHEET FOR “BOXMOVER – SIDE LODER – Rail/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: 
content/uploads/2018/03/BOXmover_Pressemappe_2018-02_final.pdf; June 2021 

http://www.boxmover.gmbh/wp-

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The  BOXmover  -  side  loader  –  transhipment  technology  enables  the  transfer  of  standardized 
containers or swap bodies at any location.  Although swap bodies can technically be transhipped, 
there is no demand for this in practice. The transhipment technology can be mounted on a truck, 
chassis or railcar. In this study we will look at the trailer mounted variant of the technology as the 
most common and relevant one.  
The technology consists of two loading devices with a weight of 1,2 t each. Each device consists 
of  a  main  lifting  arm  and  supporting  leg  designed  as  hydraulic  cylinders  as  well  as  an  anti-slip 
device designed as a safety rope which together form a closed load triangle.  
The BOXmover is available in different variants, which differ among other things in price, weight 
and handling speed. Further variations concern the length of the chassis, movability of the lifting 
units along the trailer to adjust to different loading unit lengths and the power supply. The energy 
is commonly either supplied by the truck or by a power pack (tank and generator) on the chassis. 
There  is  a  variant  with  an  electric  plug  in  which  can  be  supplied  through  a  power  cord  at  the 
terminal. A battery on the chassis is not feasible as this would be too heavy and thereby limit the 
load weight too much. With the energy supplied by a powerpack (Euro 3/Euro 4) in the chassis, 
around 50 transhipments can be conducted with 30l of diesel. Depending on the available power 
output,  the  transhipment  time  is  4  minutes  for  the  powerful  and  up  to  7-8  minutes  for  the  less 
powerful configurations. 

427 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Depending  on  the  chosen  variant  and  additional  equipment,  the  cost  for  a  BOXmover  chassis 
ranges between 98k € and 165k €. A 40’ chassis with moveable lifting units, a steering axle and a 
powerpack with sufficient output for a fast transhipment time of 4 minutes weighs 8,5 t and costs 
125k to 130k €. We will assume this configuration for this study.  
For a chassis with further optional equipment the weight can go up to 9,15 t.  
The loading unit can be transhipped to the ground, another truck, chassis or rail car and onto the 
vehicle the device is mounted on. In theory, the BOXmover could also be used to, at least partially, 
load or unload a barge, however this is not done in practice.  
For a transhipment from the BOXmover onto a rail wagon, first the loaded BOXmover chassis stops 
next to the empty rail wagon. Then the supporting legs are extended on to the wagon and the safety 
rope is tightened closing the load triangle. Then the loading unit is lifted up using the hydraulic lifting 
arm  and  lifting  straps  attached  to  the  bottom  corner  castings  and  moved  over  to  the  wagon  by 
extension of the lifting arm and respective shortening of the supporting leg, before setting down the 
loading unit. Afterwards the lifting straps are detached and the lifting arms and support legs are 
retracted to the BOXmover chasis.  
Transhipment under the line is possible. In practice there are no pure BOXmover terminals. Rather, 
the BOXmover is often used either on its own as a road or transhipment vehicle that can load or 
unload  containers  flexibly  without  additional  equipment,  or  as  a  supplement  to  other  terminal 
equipment for pre- and post-rail distribution (usually in close proximity to the terminal when public 
roads need to be used). Another important area of application is for the transhipment and transport 
of dangerous goods containers, which can be quickly, directly and safely transferred to a secured 
storage area, for example in chemical parks. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The technology is fully developed and has been proven in 
different operational environments. It is used in different European 
countries, however its usage in intermodal operations and 
especially in a terminal setting is a niche where it is typically used 
as supporting equipment. Its prevalence in the intermodal market 
is low. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  High flexibility 
•  No special infrastructure for 

transhipments necessary – no ground 
reinforcements 

•  No adaptation of wagon or auxiliary 

equipment 

•  Linking transhipment and road leg 

transport/distribution within one vehicle 

•  Truck driver is the only necessary 

transhipment personnel 

•  Additional equipment weight lowers max. 

load weight in road transport 

•  Not suitable for large scale transhipment 
operations due to size of trucks and 
length of handling process 

•  Free space is required for the support 

legs next to the container 

•  Thus a typical setting of 3 20’ containers 
placed side-to-side on a 60’ wagon 
cannot be handled 

•  LUs can be placed on/picked-up from 

•  Relatively expensive truck/trailer 

the ground without special 
platforms/ramps 

•  No torques, only linear forces 
•  High safety: only a single operator 

used, operator is operating outside the 

combination when used as a standard 
road vehicle compared to standard 
truck/trailer combinations. 

428 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

vehicle at a safe distance away from 
the BOXmover 

•  Easy to move between multiple 

locations 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

ISO container 

• 

Inland container 

•  Swap body 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  All; above 40’ with telescopic chassis due to road 

regulations 

•  All; above 40’ with telescopic chassis due to road 

regulations 

•  All; class A with telescopic chassis due to road 

regulations 

•  Not possible 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

35 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck and chassis; the BOXmover chassis could in another setting 
also be used for road transport. 

Loco and Sggrss 80’’ rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 40’ containers on Sggrss 80’’ wagons with no further special equipment 
(assuming 85% load factor) 

50 (43) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

429 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

Total LU 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

4,0 min 

10,0 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

15,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

98,8 min 

10,0 min 

108,8 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman train 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

430 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

10,0 min 

10,0 min 

15,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Check-out duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 27 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 20 min 

•  All process steps: 22 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 20 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  11 min 

Unloading 

•  12 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Loading 

•  430 min 

Unloading 

•  430 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  539 min 

Unloading 

•  470 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  0,42 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  
Duration Full vehicle: 91 
min 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Full Vehicle 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker: 
Gate agent:  
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Groundsman: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman train: 

75 min 
6 min 

129 min 
129 min 
473 min 
860 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 

431 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg 1000 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 
Duration Full Vehicle: 22 
min 

Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker: 
Gate agent: 
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

99 min 
10 min 
1.760 min 

1295 min 
648 min 

695 min 
348 min 

0 min 
0 min 
516 min 
860 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
1.446 min 

75 min 
6 min 

40,56 h 

30,56 h 

202 h 

187 h 

4,70 h 

4,35 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

1 

1 

1 

2 

0 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

90 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

1.250 m² 

 93.750 €  

 m² 

 -   €  

432 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

600,0 m 

2,6 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

15,0 m 

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

1.560 m² 

 124.800 €  

 m² 

 62.500 €  

80 €/m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

14.774 m² 

 738.675 €  

 1.477.350 €  

 3.953.475 €  

 790.695 €  

4.744.170 € 

 2.201.295 €  

 6.897.074 €  

25 

320.581 € 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Trailer 
mounted 
BOXmover 
unit 

130.000 € 

Truck 

100.000 € 

2 

2 

260.000 € 

200.000 € 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total 

20 

9 

 460.000 €  

 92.000 € 

 552.000 € 

433 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

56.001 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 5.296.170 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 376.583 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

17.902 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Trailer mounted BOXmover unit 

Truck 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

0,8 

10 

197.674 € 

2.080 € 

20.000 € 

219.754 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Equipment 

Diesel 

- 

2,4 

16.251 kWh 

2.031 € 

42.966 l 

48.122 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

50.153 € 

 953 €  

 2.945 €  

 39.636 €  

 58.805 €  

 40.589 €  

 61.750 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Checker  

Gate agent 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

2 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

434 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

7 

0 

2 

0 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

2 

0 

0,5 

0 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

 26.500 €  

 185.500 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

366.500 € 

 79.384 €  

 591.428 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

73.868 € 

0,00 € - 147.735 € 

Total costs per year 

1.086.857 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 
Maintenance costs 
Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

21,04 € 

 20,47 €  

 2,80 €  
 12,28 €  
 35,55 €  

 4,13 €  

 60,71 €  

28,74 € 

87,59 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

ISO-Container 40’ 

4.200 € 

12 

126,00 € 

0,12 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

435 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

25 

1 

2.125.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

24,57 € 

57,82 € 

7.125.000 € 

82,39 € 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagon 

Loco 

7 

6 

150.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

31,25 € 

62,50 € 

93,75 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.451 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

181,34 € 

181,34 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2,86 € 

436 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Chassis 

10% 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,97 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.831 € 

89,10 € 

2.611 € 

60,71 € 

7.291 € 

169,55 € 

12.581 € 

292,59 € 

2.611 € 

60,71 € 

3.869 € 

89,98 € 

158 € 

3,68 € 

207 € 

4,81 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

5.092,52 € 

118,43 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.427,42 € 

149,47 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

20.370 € 

592,15 € 

25.710 € 

747,37 € 

528,21 € 

645,92 € 

683,43 € 

801,14 € 

437 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 29 €  

 0,67 €  

 8.976 €  

 208,75 €  

 16.955 €  

 394,31 €  

 29 €  

 0,67 €  

 3.980 €  

 92,57 €  

 16.937 €  

 395,22 €  

 24.916 €  

 580,78 €  

438 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

20  FACT SHEET FOR “MOBILER – Rail/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.railcargo.com 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The system consists of a truck-mounted hydraulic loading device, which enables the transfer of a 
loading unit directly from a rail wagon to the truck and vice versa without any other loading devices. 
The system uses specific loading units; they were equipped with two so called “Mobiler-tunnels” on 
the bottom side of the unit. The tunnels are used to move the loading device of the truck under the 
loading unit for lifting and lateral moving. 
On the wagon only a small piece of sheet metal is needed to support the movement of the device. 
A bigger share of wagons used within Rail Cargo Austria are equipped with that already. 
From the terminal infrastructure view point no special requirements needed, the ground has to be 
flat and solid for the movement of loaded trucks next to the rail track. The system can therefore use 
all types of loading places and also industrial sidings in the whole rail network.  
The handling process is performed by the truck driver itself; no additional staff is needed. 
In  an  unloading-process  of  a  wagon  the  truck  is  placed  beside  the  wagon,  so  that  the  loading 
devices are  in  line  with the two tunnels.  Via remote-control device the truckdriver is moving the 
device in a step-by-step-movement (combination of short lifts and movements) under the loading 
unit. By removing the loading device back also with a step-by-step-movement the specific loading 
unit is transferred on the truck and will be placed there on standard corner-casting for load securing 
during road haulage. 
Vice versa a loaded truck is also placed beside a wagon and the specific loading unit is transferred 
on the wagon by the same step-by-step-movement. During rail transport the loading units is locked 
to the standard pins on the rail wagon. 
Alternatively,  the  specific  loading  units  can  be  handled  also  with  any  other  standard  intermodal 
loading device (crane, reach stacker) by vertical lifting. 

439 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

The system is mainly used in dedicated logistic chains and therefore the specific loading units were 
mostly  built  specifically  for  the  goods  to  be  transported.  Main  commodities  are  bulk  products, 
construction materials, environmental cargo, waste wood or paper, recycling glass and all kind of 
palettized cargo. Also liquid cargo and dangerous goods are possible. Standard 20’ ISO or Tank 
Containers  can  generally  be  handled  with  the  aid  of  a  Mobiler  adapter  unit.  Mobiler  trucks  are 
owned by different (regional) trucking companies. Purchase of the equipment is co-financed by the 
Austrian  Ministry  of  Transport  (BMK).  The  transport  operators  are  contracted  by  RCA  or  other 
railway undertakings performing the main (rail) haulage. 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, mainly used within and to/from 
Austria and EU relations  

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  No 

need 

of 

specific 

terminal 

•  Specific loading units needed (although 

infrastructure 

•  Short road leg to/from the costumer 
•  Rail  connection  of  production  sides  or 
industrial parks without rail siding. 

•  Decentralized  addition 

to 

terminal 

network 

•  Max. technical weights possible if no 

public roads are used. 

an adapter-solution is possible: in that 
case the adapter bears the Mobiler 
tunnels and the standard loading unit sits 
on the adapter during road and rail 
transport) 

•  Special Mobiler truck needed for pre- and 

on-carriage 

•  Dead weight of about 3.5 tons of the 

Mobiler loading device on the truck 
reducing the payload during road haulage 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

ISO container 

•  20’ (MOBILER-Adapter unit required) 

• 

Inland container 

•  20’ (MOBILER-Adapter Unit required) 
•  30’-MOBILER-Container 

•  Swap body 

•  Not possible 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Not possible 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

32 t 

440 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck with MOBILER-loading device or Truck and chassis with 
MOBILER-loading device 

Loco, Sggmrrss-y 2 x 60' rail wagons or similar 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 30’ containers on Sggmrrss-y 2 x 60'’ wagons with no further special 
equipment (assuming 85% load factor) 

56 (48) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2,5 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

7,5 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

441 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

72,0 min 

10,0 min 

82,0 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

2,5 min 

7,5 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

442 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 20 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

•  All process steps: 15 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  10 min 

Unloading 

•  5 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  240 min 

Unloading 

•  240 min 

Loading 

•  322 min 

Unloading 

•  280 min 

•  0,7 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

30’ Container 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 

75 min 
6 min 

144 min 
144 min 
456 min 
480 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
72 min 
10 min 
1.366 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
216 min 

443 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

technology as described in 
detail above. 

Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

480 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
766 min 

75 min 
6 min 

33,78 h 

23,78 h 

198 h 

183 h 

4,12 h 

3,81 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

500,0 m 

2,6 m 

300,0 m 

15,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

90 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

 m² 

 -   €  

4.500 m² 

 360.000 €  

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

62.500 
€/unit 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

 m² 

 -   €  

444 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

3,0 m 

1 

- 

12.000 
€/unit 

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

 m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

740,0 m 

10,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

17.089 m² 

 854.425 €  

 1.708.850 €  

 4.489.050 €  

 897.810 €  

 5.386.860 €  

 2.499.503 €  

 7.831.417 €  

25 

364.010 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Truck 

Chassis 

MOBILER 
equipment 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

160.000 € 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

2 

2 

2 

200.000 € 

52.000 € 

320.000 € 

12 

12 

13 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 572.000 € 

 114.400 € 

 686.400 € 

71.426 € 

 6.073.260 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 435.437 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

33.488 

445 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Truck 

Chassis 

MOBILER equipment 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

5 

5 

6 

224.453 € 

10.000 € 

2.600 € 

19.200 € 

256.253 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

Truck 

Diesel 

- 

1,2 l 

18.797 kWh 

40.186 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.350 € 

45.008 € 

47.358 € 

 1.102 €  

 3.406 €  

 37.072 €  

 55.001 €  

 38.174 €  

 58.407 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

0,5 

1 

2 

2 

7 

0 

2 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

555.500 €  

446 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 120.321 €  

 896.421 €  

85.443 € 

0,00 € - 170.885 € 

1.382.339 € 

13,00 € 

 16,59 €  

 1,48 €  

 7,65 €  

 25,72 €  

 2,55 €  

 41,28 €  

18,47 € 

60,26 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

30’ Mobiler-
Container 

20.000 € 

12 

300 € 

0,51 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Sggmrrss-y 2 
x 60' 

130.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

14 

1 

1.820.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

21,04 € 

57,82 € 

 6.820.000 €  

 78,86 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

447 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Sggmrrss-y 2 x 60' 

Loco 

6 

6 

111.972 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

23,33 € 

62,50 € 

85,83 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.422 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

177,80 € 

177,80 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

 126.000 €  

 4,68 €  

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

19,8 l 

22,18 € 

448 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

22,18 € 

Other operational costs road leg 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

4.214 € 

87,79 € 

1.981 € 

41,28 € 

6.603 € 

137,56 € 

11.744 € 

244,66 € 

1.981 € 

41,28 € 

4.003 € 

83,40 € 

582 € 

12,13 € 

820 € 

17,08 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.841,31 € 

100,86 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.185,86 € 

128,87 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

19.365 € 

504,30 € 

24.743 € 

644,36 € 

458,70 € 

542,26 € 

598,75 € 

682,32 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 4.712 €  

 98,18 €  

 16 €  

 0,34 €  

450 km 

 8.801 €  

 183,36 €  

449 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

850 km 

 16.624 €  

 346,34 €  

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 16 €  

 0,34 €  

 4.712 €  

 98,18 €  

 18.226 €  

 380,38 €  

 26.049 €  

 543,37 €  

450 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

21  FACT SHEET FOR “CONTAINERMOVER – Rail/Road” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: InnovaTrain, July 2020 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The ContainerMover (CM) is a transhipment device mounted on the chassis of the 3-axle-lorry, 2-
axle terminal truck or 3-axle semi-trailer chassis. Two support beams slightly raise the loading unit 
(swap body or container) and carry it to (or from) the rail wagon. The standard rail wagon must be 
equipped with a detachable intermediate frame, the so called “wagon adapter unit”, which remains 
on the wagon in between operations The transhipment operation is controlled by the lorry driver 
who needs to be trained for it. The ContainerMover (lorry) enables the driver to perform without 
interruption both transhipment and pre- or on-carriage, for example to (or from) a nearby factory. 
Thus, the ContainerMover lorry may carry out transports like an ordinary truck.  However, distances 
should preferably be kept short to make optimal use of its transhipment function. To this purpose, 
so  called  Container  Docking  Stations  can  be  placed  on  site  for  intermediate  deposit.  The 
ContainerMover parks the loading unit in a Container Docking Station for an ordinary truck to pick 
it up – or vice versa. The ContainerMover terminal consists of at least a single track and a paved 
loading  lane  next  to  it  and  may  or  may  not  be  equipped  with  an  overhead  catenary  line.  The 
technology can be used in “stand alone” terminals, for example on industrial sites where a rail track 
is already available, or as an additional support in conventional RMG or reach stacker terminals. 
ContainerMover transhipment may also be used in combination with a conventional RMG terminal 
or reach stacker at the other side of the transport route.  
Process: 
The ContainerMover (lorry) arrives in the terminal and is positioned laterally next to the rail wagon 
by the truck driver. The four lower twist locks are “unlocked”. The supporting legs are lowered. The 
two support beams slightly raise the loading unit and carry it to the rail wagon. During transhipment 
these beams are supported by two fixed rails between the lorry and the wagon frame and the wagon 
adapter unit on the wagon. After the correct position on the wagon has been reached, the support 
beam is lowered and the loading unit rests on the pins of the wagon adapter unit. The beams return 
to the Container Mover. The supporting fixed rail and the supporting legs are elevated and the lorry 
can perform the next transhipment process. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

451 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Actual system proven in operational environment; 
operational in Switzerland and Germany. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Use of standard loading units 
•  No 

terminal 
infrastructure, thus very basic terminal 
layout possible 

specific 

need 

of 

•  ContainerMover vehicle can be used on 
short road leg to/from the customer 
•  Rail  connection  of  production  sites  or 
industrial  parks  without  direct 
rail 
siding. 

•  Decentralized  supplement  to  terminal 

network 

•  Compatible with vertical lifting 

terminals 

•  No stacking in terminals possible  
•  As  a  vehicle  with  a  defined  length,  one 
single ContainerMover lorry cannot handle 
loading units that need different footprints 
(for example 20’ and 40’). 

•  Dead  weight  of  about  2.5  tons  of  the 
ContainerMover  loading  device  on  the 
truck  reducing  the  payload  during  road 
haulage 

•  Dead weight of Wagon adapter unit reduce 

payload during rail transport 

•  Wagon Adapter Unit reducing also the 
loading height by about 15 index points 

•  Device tested with respect to the 
limitation of noise emissions. 

• 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  All, weight not over 18 t (up to34 t prototype) 

Inland container 

•  All, weight not over 18 t (up to34 t prototype) 

•  Swap body 

•  All, weight not over 18 t (up to34 t prototype) 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Not possible 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

18 t 

452 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

22 

Fact Sheet „ContainerMover – Rail/Road – Containers” 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Depending on type of loading units used, most probably a 3 axle 
truck or a 2 axle truck and 3-4 axle semi-trailer chassis (5 to 6 
axles in total) with ContainerMover handling technology 
For the purposes of this EU-Study the ContainerMover vehicle 
remains in the terminal and the road leg is carried out by an 
ordinary road truck and trailer instead 

Loco, Sggrss 80’ rail wagons or similar with wagon adapter unit 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For 20’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with wagon adapter unit (assuming 
85% load factor) 

For 40’ containers on Sggrss 80’ wagons with wagon adapter unit (assuming 
85% load factor) 

80 (68) 

52 (44) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

3 min 

5 min 

3 min 

2 min 

7 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area 
at the Container Docking Station. From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for 
transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

2,5 min 

0,0 min 

2,5 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

453 

Gate areaIntermediate bufferareaCheck-InTranshipmenttrackTTLoadinglaneDrivinglaneTurningareaTTDSDS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

7,5 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

7,5 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Train driver 

Departure duration: 

 Total 

30 min 

20’: 79 min 
40’: 102 min 

10 min 

20’: 89 min 
40’: 112 min 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman train 

 Total 

10 min 

0 min 

30 min 

40 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

7,5 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

7,5 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area at the Container Docking 
Station and is handed over to the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,5 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

2,5 min 

5,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

454 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Check-out duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 20 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

•  All process steps: 15 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  10 min 

Unloading 

•  5 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

Unloading 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  20’-Container: 340 min 
•  40’-Container: 220 min 

•  20’-Container: 340 min 
•  40’-Container: 220 min 

•  20’-Container: 429 min 
•  40’-Container: 332 min 

•  20’-Container: 380 min 
•  40’-Container: 260 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  20’-Container: 0,52 
•  40’-Container: 0,71 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 80 km. 
Duration: 80 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  
Duration 20’: 429 min 
Duration 40’: 332 min 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 840 km. 
Duration: 1.280 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 440 km. 
Duration: 680 min 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

20’ Container  40’ Container 

80 min 
7 min 

80 min 
7 min 

Checker: 
Gate agent:  
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Groundsman: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 

204 min 
204 min 
646 min 
680 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
79 min 
10 min 

132 min 
132 min 
418 min 
440 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
30 min 
102 min 
10 min 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

1.280 min 
640 min 

1.280 min 
640 min 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

680 min 
340 min 

680 min 
304 min 

455 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 
Duration 20’: 380 min 
Duration 40’: 260 min 

Checker: 
Gate agent: 
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 80 
km. 
Duration: 80 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

0 min 
0 min 
306 min 
680 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 

80 min 
7 min 

27,23 h 

27,23 h 

266 h 

251 h 

3,90 h 

3,68 h 

0 min 
0 min 
198 min 
440 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 

80 min 
7 min 

23,62 h 

23,62 h 

185 h 

170 h 

4,20 h 

3,86 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m)  Number 
of units 
(#) 

Length  Width 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

300,0 m 

30,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

3,0 m 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 - €  

9.000 m² 

 720.000 €  

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

 m² 

 - €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

 m² 

 - €  

456 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Driving range reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

740,0 m 

10,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

 m² 

 - €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Total building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

21.589 m² 

 1.079.425 €  

 2.158.850 €  

 5.524.050 €  

 1.104.810 €  

 6.628.860 €  

 3.075.791 €  

 9.637.037 €  

25 

447.937 € 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

ContainerMover 

330.000 € 

Container 
Docking Station 

18.000 € 

2 

70 

660.000 € 

144.000 € 

8 

12 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 1.920.000 €  

 384.000 €  

 2.304.000 €  

279.173 € 

 8.932.860 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 727.110 €  

23 

Fact Sheet „ContainerMover – Rail/Road – 20’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

35.312 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

457 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal Infrastructure 

ContainerMover 

Container Docking Station 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

6 

1 

276.203 € 

 40.000 € 

 14.000 € 

330.203 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

23.747 kWh 

2.968 € 

ContainerMover 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

42.374 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

47.459 € 

50.427 € 

 1.392 €  

 4.303 €  

 39.090 €  

 57.995 €  

 40.482 €  

 62.299 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

0,5 

1 

2 

2 

7 

0 

2 

 26.500 €  

 33.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 53.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

555.500 € 

 120.321 €  

 896.421 €  

458 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

107.943 € 

0,00 € - 215.885 € 

Total costs per year 

1.771.182 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 
Maintenance costs 
Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment cost range 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

20,59 € 

 15,73 €  

 1,43 €  
 9,35 €  
 26,51 €  

 3,06 €  

 50,16 €  

23,46 € 

72,55 € 

20’ Container 

3.000 € 

12 

90 € 

0,09 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

Wagon 
adapter unit 

3.500 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

20 

1 

80 

1.700.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

280.000 € 

40 

40 

12 

19,66 € 

57,82 € 

8,60 € 

 6.980.000 €  

 86,07 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

Wagon adapter unit 

7 

6 

0 

120.000 € 

300.000 € 

0 € 

25,00 € 

62,50 € 

0 € 

459 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

87,50 € 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.402 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

175,20 € 

175,20 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Attendant 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

 30,96 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

126.000,00 € 

4,68 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Equipment 

Truck 

Chassis 

10% 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

460 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,97 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

440 km main leg 

840 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

5.969 € 

87,79 € 

3.411 € 

50,16 € 

6.844 € 

100,65 € 

12.048 € 

177,17 € 

3.411 € 

50,16 € 

5.672 € 

83,40 € 

159 € 

2,34 € 

214 € 

3,15 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

6.366,39 € 

93,62 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

7.681,10 € 

112,96 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

25.466 € 

468,12 € 

30.724 € 

564,79 € 

414,72 € 

512,90 € 

511,39 € 

609,57 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

80 km 

 5.289 €  

 77,78 €  

440 km 

840 km 

80 km 

600 km 

 23 €  

 0,34 €  

 8.672 €  

 127,54 €  

 16.381 €  

 240,90 €  

 23 €  

 0,34 €  

 5.289 €  

 77,78 €  

 19.250 €  

 283,77 €  

461 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

1.000 km 

 26.959 €  

 397,13 €  

24 

Fact Sheet „ContainerMover – Rail/Road – 40’ Container” 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

31.195 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

ContainerMover 

Container Docking Station 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

6 

1 

276.203 € 

40.000 € 

14.000 € 

330.203 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

23.747 kWh 

2.968 € 

ContainerMover 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

37.434 l 

Total energy costs per year (€) 

Terminal energy costs range 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

41.926 € 

44.895 € 

 1.392 €  

 4.303 €  

 34.533 €  

 51.234 €  

 35.925 €  

 55.538 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

0 

2 

2 

7 

0 

 26.500 €  

 33.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 53.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

462 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

0,5 

1 

2 

3,5 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

555.500 €  

 120.321 €  

 896.421 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

107.943 € 

0,00 € - 215.885 € 

Total costs per year 

1.765.650 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 
Maintenance costs 
Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Costs range operational costs transhipment 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

23,31 € 

 17,81 €  

 1,44 €  
 10,59 €  
 29,83 €  

 3,46 €  

 56,60 €  

26,41 € 

81,91 € 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

40’ Container 

4.200 € 

12 

126 € 

0,12 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Sggrss 80’ 
wagon 

85.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

Wagon 
adapter unit 

3.500 € 

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

26 

1 

52 

2.210.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

182.000 € 

40 

40 

12 

25,55 € 

57,82 € 

5,59 € 

463 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total main leg investment costs(€) 

Total investment costs per operating hour (€) 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

 7.392.000 €  

 88,96 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Sggrss 80’ wagons 

Loco 

Wagon adapter unit 

8 

6 

0 

175.000 € 

300.000 € 

0 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour (€) 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Loco 

Electricity 

Total energy costs per operating hour (€) 

Other operational costs main leg 

ton-km 

0,02 

Consumption per 
hour 

1.225 kWh 

32,50 € 

62,50 € 

0 € 

95,00 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

153,12 € 

153,12 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour (€) 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Attendant 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

 30,96 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

Chassis 

100.000 € 

26.000 € 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

9 

11 

3,83 € 

0,85 € 

126.000,00 € 

4,68 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

2,86 € 

464 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Chassis 

10% 

2.600,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

0,74 € 

3,60 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,97 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

440 km main leg 

840 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per Lu 

3.863 € 

87,79 € 

2.490 € 

56,60 € 

6.690 € 

152,04 € 

11.776 € 

267,65 € 

2.490 € 

56,60 € 

3.670 € 

83,40 € 

125 € 

2,84 € 

175 € 

3,98 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.832,00 € 

109,82 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.116,18 € 

139,00 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

19.328 € 

549,09 € 

24.465 € 

695,02 € 

488,71 € 

599,71 € 

634,64 € 

745,64 € 

465 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

External costs 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

80 km 

 3.422 €  

 77,78 €  

440 km 

840 km 

80 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 15 €  

 0,34 €  

 7.579 €  

 172,26 €  

 14.317 €  

 325,38 €  

 15 €  

 0,34 €  

 3.422 €  

 77,78 €  

 14.424 €  

 328,50 €  

 21.161 €  

 481,62 €  

466 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

FACT  SHEET  FOR  “CARGOBEAMER  –  RAIL/ROAD  HORIZONTAL  FIRST  GENERATION  – 

25 
RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:  www.cargobeamer.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The CargoBeamer is a special transhipment technology in which craneable and non-craneable 
semi-trailers can be transferred from road to rail. The technology consists of special wagons and 
the corresponding pallet per wagon. Semi-trailers can be loaded into the pallets and then the 
pallets are transferred horizontally or vertically into the wagons. At the destination terminal, the 
pallets are again transferred horizontally or vertically from the wagon and the semi-trailer can be 
pulled out of the pallet with the help of a truck.  
Special CargoBeamer terminals are needed for horizontal transhipment, which require 
corresponding rails for the transverse transfer of the pallets and parking areas for the pallets to 
the left and right of the track. 
The focus is on the horizontal transhipment in the analysis of this study. 

Process: 
• 

loading unit arrives at the terminal and is either loaded directly onto the pallet by truck or 
parked on a separate area. If parking space is used, the semi-trailer is driven into the 
pallet by a terminal truck; 

467 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  when the train arrives at the terminal, the arriving pallets are automatically pushed off the 

train and then the pallet to be transported is pushed onto the train; 
the train leaves the terminal; 

• 

trucks / terminal trucks can pull the arrived semi-trailers out of the pallets and leave the terminal 
or take them to a parking area. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Technology is fully developed and used on selected routes 
in Europe. However only the newer generation is being further 
developed and produced and it will replace the first generation 
over time. For this reason the CargoBeamer first generation 
technology will be excluded from further analysis. 

468 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

26  FACT SHEET FOR “CARGOBEAMER HORIZONTAL NEXT GENERATION – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: CargoBeamer, Mai 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The CargoBeamer is a rail/road transhipment technology in which craneable and non-craneable 
semi-trailers  can  be  transferred  from  road  to  rail.  The  technology  consists  of  CargoBeamer  rail 
wagons “Sdkmss” and the corresponding pallet, automated terminals (“CargoBeamer Gates”) and 
a  dedicated  logistics  software  (“CargoBeamer  eLogistics”).  Semi-trailers  can  be  loaded  into  the 
pallets  and  then  the  pallets  with  semi-trailers  are  transferred  horizontally  or  vertically  into  the 
wagons.  All  kinds  of  terminals  may  be  used:  container  cranes,  reach  stacker  or  automated 
CargoBeamer  terminals  with  high  throughput.  At  the  destination  terminal,  the  pallets  are  again 
transferred horizontally or vertically from the wagon and the semi-trailer can be pulled out of the 
pallet with the help of a truck.  
Process in container crane or reach stacker terminals: 

•  Reach stacker/crane unloads CB loading pallets from the wagons. 
•  Terminal truck driver move semi-trailer from the pallet to the parking area, drop off the 

semi-trailer and pick up the next semi-trailer for transhipment on the wagon. 

•  Terminal truck driver move the semi-trailer on the pallet. 
•  Reach stacker/crane load the CB loading pallet on to the CB wagon. 
•  Semi-trailers are picked up or dropped off by customer’s truck drivers at the parking area. 

Process in CargoBeamer automated terminals: 

•  Loading unit arrives at the terminal and is parked on a parking area.  
•  The semi-trailer is driven into one of the free pallets by a terminal truck. 
•  When the train arrives at the terminal, the arriving pallets are automatically pushed off the 
train and then the preloaded group of pallets waiting for departure is pushed onto the 
train. 

•  The train leaves the terminal. 

469 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Trucks / terminal trucks can pull the arrived semi-trailers out of the pallets and leave the 

terminal or take them to a parking area. 

Trucks / terminal trucks load the incoming pallets with new semi-trailers for the next train. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Market-ready technology that is ready to use and can be 
integrated into existing networks. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Cargo wagons are heavier 
• 

Investment cost of wagons (currently) 
20% higher than pocket-wagon (resulting 
in 7-10 € cost per day) 

•  All  kinds  of  semi-trailers  (silo,  flat, 
curtainsider, Mega, Frigo, Euro-Trailer, 
walking-floor-trailer may be used. 
•  No  additional  codification  or  hardware 
stiffening  or  crane  edges  are  required 
for  the  semi-trailers,  100%  of  trailers 
are  compatible  with  the  CB  wagon 
(huge market share) 

•  Wagons  are  fully  compatible  with  all 

other wagons 

•  Robust  wagons  (no  electrification,  no 
hydraulics, no sensors, no actuators on 
the  wagon  →  actual  overall  wagon 
availability is >98% 

less 

personnel, 

•  Significantly  less  transshipment  cost 
(less 
energy, 
automated, parallelized transshipment  
•  Fast transshipment (20 minutes to load 
and  unload  a  full  train);  therefore, 
higher  capacity  and  asset  utilization 
than crane terminals 

•  Up  to  1.000  trailers  per  day  can  be 
un/loaded  in  a  compact  terminal  (half 
train rail length 400m) 

•  Works under electrified tracks 
• 

compatible with conventional terminals, 
as pallets can be craned 
•  Low space requirement 
•  Less 

investment 

required 

CargoBeamer 
conventional crane terminals 

terminals 

than 

for 
for 

•  Possibility 

to  complete  automated 

loading/unloading process 
•  Low railcar profile enables the 

transport of semi-trailers with greater 
heights. CargoBeamer wagon loading 
level (22-24cm) is lowest in Europe 

Transhipable loading units: 

470 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  Not possible 

Inland container 

•  Not possible 

•  Swap body 

•  Not possible 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Possible (craneable and non-cranable) 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

37 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck 

Loco, CargoBeamer rail wagons “Sdkmss” 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Semi-trailer non-craneable on CargoBeamer rail wagons “Sdkmss” with 
corresponding pallet (assuming 85% load factor) 

34 (29) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

5,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

471 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

10,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

10,0 min 

93,2 min 

10,0 min 

113,2 min 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman train 

 Total 

10,0 min 

10,0 min 

30,0 min 

50,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

472 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

10,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 17 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

•  All process steps: 12 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  20 min 

Unloading 

•  20 min 

Loading 

•  133 min 

Unloading 

•  70 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  2,07 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

75 min 
6 min 

145 min 
87 min 
348 min 
0 min 
145 min 
0 min 
30 min 
10 min 
93 min 
10 min 
868 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

473 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
203 min 
0 min 
145 min 
30 min 
0 min 
40 min 
0 min 
10 min 
428 min 

75 min 
6 min 

27,14 h 

17,14 h 

132 h 

117 h 

4,56 h 

4,05 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

7,0 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

57,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

11,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

2 

2 

1 

- 

2 

1 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

10.360 m² 

 828.800 €  

80 €/m² 

10.360 m² 

 828.800 €  

80 €/m² 

1.425 m² 

 106.875 €  

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

80 €/m² 

16.000 m² 

 1.280.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

m² 

 62.500 €  

474 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

44.929 m² 

 2.246.425 €  

 4.492.850 €  

 10.888.250 €  

 2.177.650 €  

 13.065.900 €  

 6.062.578 €  

 18.995.205 €  

25 

882.912 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

CB Module 

580.000 € 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

CB pallet 

20.000 € 

34 

4 

34 

19.720.000 € 

600.000 € 

680.000 

40 

5 

5 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 21.000.000 € 

 4.200.000 € 

 25.200.000 € 

1.651.306 € 

 38.265.900 €  

475 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 2.534.219 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

59.941 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

CB Module 

Terminal truck 

CB pallet 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

0,4 

2,8 

2,8 

544.413 € 

69.020 € 

16.800 € 

19.040 € 

649.273 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

CB Module 

Electricity 

Electricity 

- 

49.421 kWh 

1,2 kWh 

71.929 kWh 

Terminal truck 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

71929 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

6.178 € 

8.991 € 

80.561 € 

95.729 € 

 7.113 €  

 21.991 €  

 66.355 €  

 98.446 €  

 73.468 €  

 120.437 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

1 

1 

0 

3,5 

3,5 

0 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 -   €  

476 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

4 

1 

0 

13,5 

3,5 

0 

 32.000 €  

 432.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

 37.000 €  

 -   €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

748.750 €  

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 162.179 €  

 1.208.272 €  

224.643 € 

0,00 € - 449.285 € 

4.252.613 € 

42,28 € 

 12,49 €  

 1,60 €  

 10,83 €  

 24,92 €  

 3,75 €  

 70,95 €  

34,38 € 

101,96 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer non 
craneable 

26.000 € 

11 

780,00 € 

0,78 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

“Sdkmss” with 
„CargoBeamer 
JetModule“ 

130.000 € 

34 

4.420.000 € 

40 

51,11 € 

477 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

1 

5.000.000 € 

40 

57,82 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

 9.420.000 €  

 108,92 €  

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Equipment 

“Sdkmss” with 
„CargoBeamer 
JetModule“ 

Loco 

5 

6 

238.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption 
per hour 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.478 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

49,58 € 

62,50 € 

112,08 € 

Costs per 
operating 
hour(€) 

184,74 € 

184,74 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1:2,9 

1:4,2 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

1.000 km 

478 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

2.542 € 

87,66 € 

2.057 € 

70,95 € 

7.265 € 

250,52 € 

13.039 € 

449,60 € 

2.057 € 

70,95 € 

2.419 € 

83,42 € 

389 € 

13,43 € 

605 € 

20,86 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.182,68 € 

144,23 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

5.679,89 € 

195,86 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

16.731 € 

721,15 € 

22.720 € 

979,29 € 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

648,02 € 

783,18 € 

479 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

906,16 € 

1.041,32 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.522 €  

 86,96 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 11 €  

 0,38 €  

 9.145 €  

 315,33 €  

 17.273 €  

 595,63 €  

 11 €  

 0,38 €  

 2.522 €  

 86,96 €  

 14.188 €  

 489,99 €  

 22.317 €  

 770,29 €  

480 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

27 

FACT SHEET FOR “MODALOHR 1ST GENERATION (AFA) – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.lohr.fr, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A Lohr terminal is made up of stations with devices for loading and unloading the special wagon 
pockets (pockets turning - opening). The devises are hydraulic ground systems making it possible 
to open the pockets of the wagons. The special wagons are equipped with pivoting pockets for direct 
horizontal loading of semi-trailers and complete trucks (split into tractor and semi-trailer). 

After the train has entered the terminal and stopped at the intended position, the wagon pockets are 
rotated by 30 degrees by the turning devices embedded in the track and positioned on the intended 
ramps. For loading the empty ramps and pockets, the tractor unit and semi-trailer separately are 
placed on the pocket. After that, the wagon pockets are swiveled back into the track axis and lowered 
onto the transport wagon with which they are anchored. Then the journey takes place to a suitably 
equipped destination terminal, where the procedure is repeated in reverse. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☒ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

481 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The system has been in operation on one particular route 
(Aiton – Orbassano) since 2003, but the transport of tractor units / 
complete trucks was only for about the first 2-3 years. From then, 
only semi-trailers were transported. Modalohr AFA wagons are still 
in operation, as the life cycle of all Lohr Wagons generations is 30 
years, even if those wagons are replaced at the Lohr production 
line by UIC Wagons. The AFA (and NA) wagons are the wagons of 
first generation, adapted to the low loading gauge GI3. The 
technical progress allows Lohr to develop more universal wagons 
UIC type. This new generation of Modalohr UIC Wagons has the 
same level of performances as AFA and NA wagons, but also 
adapted to all EU loading gauges and thus can run on all EU 
railway network. The beforementioned terminals are already 
modernised in a way that they can handle also the new Modalohr 
UIC wagons. There are already services running with Modalohr 
UIC wagons from and to these terminals. 
The Aiton – Orbassano service could also be run with the 
Modalohr UIC wagons from technical point of view. For this reason 
the technology will be excluded from the further evaluation of 
technologies in this study. 

482 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

28 

FACT SHEET FOR “MODALOHR 2ND GENERATION (LOHR INDUSTRIE) – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.lohr.fr, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A Lohr terminal is made up of stations with devices for loading and unloading the special wagon 
pockets (pockets turning - opening). The devises are hydraulic ground systems making it possible 
to open the pockets of the wagons. The special wagons are equipped with pivoting pockets for direct 
horizontal loading of semi-trailers and complete trucks (split into tractor and semi-trailer). 
After the train has entered the terminal and stopped at the intended position, the wagon pockets are 
rotated by 30 degrees by the turning devices embedded in the track and positioned on the intended 
ramps. For loading the empty ramps and pockets, the tractor unit and semi-trailer separately are 
placed on the pocket. After that, the wagon pockets are swiveled back into the track axis and lowered 
onto the transport wagon with which they are anchored. Then the journey takes place to a suitably 
equipped destination terminal, where the procedure is repeated in reverse. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☒ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

483 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The system has been in operation on one particular route 
(Le Boulou – Bettembourg) since 2007. Modalohr NA wagons are 
still in operation, as the life cycle of all Lohr Wagons generations is 
30 years, even if those wagons are replaced at the Lohr 
production line by UIC Wagons. The NA (and AFA) wagons are 
the wagons of first generation, adapted to the low loading gauge 
GI3. The technical progress allows Lohr to develop more universal 
wagons UIC type. This new generation of Modalohr UIC Wagons 
has the same level of performances as AFA and NA wagons, but 
also adapted to all EU loading gauges and thus can run on all EU 
railway network. The beforementioned terminals are already 
modernised in a way that they can handle also the new Modalohr 
UIC wagons. There are already services running with Modalohr 
UIC wagons from and to these terminals. 
The Le Boulou - Bettembourg service could also be run with the 
Modalohr UIC wagons from technical point of view. For this reason 
the technology will be excluded from the further evaluation of 
technologies in this study.  

484 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

29  FACT SHEET FOR “MODALOHR UIC (LOHR INDUSTRIE) – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: VIIA.com, March 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

A Lohr terminal is made up of stations with devices for loading and unloading the special wagon 
pockets (pockets turning - opening). The devises are hydraulic ground systems making it possible 
to open the  pockets of the wagons. The special  wagons are equipped with pivoting  pockets for 
direct horizontal loading of semi-trailers and complete trucks (split into tractor and semi-trailer). 

After the train has entered the terminal and stopped at the intended position, the wagon pockets 
are  rotated  by  30  degrees  by  the  turning  devices  embedded  in  the  track  and  positioned  on  the 
intended  ramps.  For  loading  the  empty  ramps  and  pockets,  the  tractor  unit  and  semi-trailer 
separately are placed on the pocket. After that, the wagon pockets are swiveled back into the track 
axis and lowered onto the transport wagon with which they are anchored. Then the journey takes 
place to a suitably equipped destination terminal, where the procedure is repeated in reverse. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

485 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: the system has been in operation on one particular route 
(Aiton – Orbassano) since 2003, but the transport of tractor units / 
complete trucks was only for about the first 2-3 years. From then, 
only semi-trailers were transported. Thus, the wagon of the type 
Modalohr AFA is still used, but will not be manufactured anymore. 
Only Modalohr UIC wagon type is still further developed. That is 
why this technology will be excluded from further analysis. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Cargo wagons are heavier 
• 

Investment cost of wagons (currently) 
20% higher than pocket-wagon (resulting 
in 7-10 € cost per day) 

•  Optimized technology for the rapid 
transfer of all standard EU semi-
trailers from road to rail. Can be used 
for both: craneable and non-craneable 
units and all types of semi-trailers 
(including tank, dump trailers, 
containers trailers, vans flatted trailers) 

•  Compatible with vertical loading 
•  Maximal number of LU loaded for 

linear meter of train  

•  Maximal utile loaded mass per train 
•  Terminal size could be optimized 
depending to the capacity needed 
•  No hydraulic equipment on-board the 
wagon, the ground devices on the 
terminal are available to the 
maintenance 
In case of the problem on one loading 
station, Service on terminal is not 
interrupted because of the station’s 
interchangeability 

• 

•  Adapted to all EU loading gauges, 
even to the smallest one like in 
France, Italy and Spain 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  Not possible 

Inland container 

•  Not possible 

•  Swap body 

•  Not possible 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Possible (craneable and non-cranable) 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

38 t 

486 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck 

Loco, UIC 2 Intermediate wagon 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Semi-trailer non-craneable on UIC 2 Intermediate wagon with no further 
special equipment (assuming 85% load factor) 

40 (34) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

5,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

487 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

33,0 min 

78,8 min 

10,0 min 

121,8 min 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman train 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

33,0 min 

43,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

5,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

488 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 17 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 5 min 

•  All process steps: 12 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 5 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Loading 

•  43 min 

Unloading 

•  43 min 

Loading 

•  164 min 

Unloading 

•  86 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  1,68 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 

75 min 
6 min 

170 min 
102 min 
408 min 
0 min 
170 min 
0 min 
30 min 
33 min 
79 min 
10 min 
1.002 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
238 min 
0 min 
170 min 
30 min 

489 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

0 min 
33 min 
0 min 
10 min 
481 min 

75 min 
6 min 

27,91 h 

17,91 h 

149 h 

134 h 

4,38 h 

3,94 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

7,0 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

57,0 m 

25,0 m 

 1  

 2  

 2  

 1  

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

10.360 m² 

 828.800 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

1.425 m² 

 106.875 €  

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

 -    

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

740,0 m 

11,0 m 

 2  

80 €/m² 

16.280 m² 

 1.302.400 €  

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

 1  

62.500 
€/unit 

m² 

 62.500 €  

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

 1  

 1  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

Transhipment 
track  

Terminal switch 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

 -    

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

 1  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

490 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

 -    

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

40.029 m² 

 2.001.425 €  

 4.002.850 €  

 9.761.250 €  

 1.952.250 €  

 11.713.500 €  

 5.435.064 €  

 17.029.086 €  

25 

791.525 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Hydraulic 
ground 
systems 

155.000 € 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

34 

4 

5.270.000 € 

600.000 € 

40 

5 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

 5.870.000 € 

 1.174.000 € 

 7.044.000 € 

550.178 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 18.757.500 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 1.341.704 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

57.166 

Terminal maintenance costs 

491 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Hydraulic ground systems 

Terminal truck 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

3,2 

2,8 

488.063 € 

168.640 € 

16.800 € 

673.503 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Terminal 
Infrastructure 

Hydraulic ground 
systems 

Electricity 

- 

44.031 kWh 

5.504 € 

Electricity 

7 kWh 

400.160 kWh 

50.020 € 

Terminal truck 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

68.599 l 

76.831 € 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

132.355 €  

 26.035 €  

 80.496 €  

 63.283 €  

 93.888 €  

 89.318 €  

 174.384 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

2 

2 

0 

4 

0,5 

1 

7 

7 

0 

13,5 

2 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 185.500 €  

 33.000 €  

 231.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 -   €  

 32.000 €  

 432.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 62.000 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

1.040.000 € 

492 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 225.264 €  

 1.678.267 €  

200.143 € 

0,00 € - 400.285 € 

3.387.703 € 

23,47 € 

 18,19 €  

 2,32 €  

 11,78 €  

 32,29 €  

 3,50 €  

 59,26 €  

28,17 € 

85,31 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer non 
craneable 

Main leg investments  

26.000 € 

11 

780,00 € 

0,78 € 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

UIC 2 

UIC 2 

Loco 

325.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

20 

1 

6.500.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

75,16 € 

57,82 € 

 11.500.000 €  

 132,98 €  

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

493 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

UIC 2 

Loco 

3 

6 

200.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption 
per hour 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.447 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

41,67 € 

62,50 € 

104,17 € 

Costs per 
operating 
hour(€) 

180,84 € 

180,84 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1:2,9 

1:4,2 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

1.000 km 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

19,8 l 

22,18 € 

494 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

22,18 € 

Other operational costs road leg 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

2.981 € 

87,66 € 

2.015 € 

59,26 € 

7.548 € 

221,99 € 

13.444 € 

395,40 € 

2.015 € 

59,26 € 

2.836 € 

83,42 € 

477 € 

14,04 € 

730 € 

21,47 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.467,87 € 

131,41 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.004,95 € 

176,62 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

17.871 € 

657,04 € 

24.020 € 

883,08 € 

594,87 € 

709,14 € 

820,91 € 

935,19 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.956 €  

 86,96 €  

 18 €  

 0,52 €  

450 km 

 8.952 €  

 263,28 €  

495 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

850 km 

 16.909 €  

 497,31 €  

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 18 €  

 0,52 €  

 2.956 €  

 86,96 €  

 14.865 €  

 438,24 €  

 22.821 €  

 672,26 €  

496 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

30 

FACT SHEET FOR “HELROM – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: www.helrom.com, April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

Helrom GmbH, Frankfurt am Main is moving freight volumes from road to rail using the HELROM 
rail wagon and terminal technology. The HELROM technology allows to transport all kinds of 
standard semi-trailers on rail. The HELROM wagon is an articulated six axle wagon which opens 
(and closes) to be horizontally loaded (and unloaded) from any paved area next to the loading 
track. For loading the wagon is parked on a paved area, the loading platform disconnects from the 
bogy, swivels to one side and lowers itself down to the ground. The truck (or a terminal tractor) 
pushes the semi-trailer backwards onto the loading platform under the surveillance of an operator. 
The margin between the wheels and the side walls of the trailers and the wagon are quite small so 
that a certain training of the driver and sufficient illumination is needed. The trailer is lowered on its 
legs and the truck (or terminal truck) leave the area for the next duty. The platform is lifted and 

497 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

swivelled back to the rail side where is hooks with the bogy. Finally, the king pin support plate is 
lifted and fixes the king pin during rail transport. Electric energy for the hydraulics installed on the 
wagon is provided from a mobile device in the terminal.  

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Actual system proven in operational environment; in 
service on the route Düsseldorf (DE) – Wien (AT) since autumn 
2020. However, Helrom did not disclose technical data relevant to 
complete the fact sheet. Therefore we are unable to conduct an in-
depth analysis of the technology and it will be excluded from 
further evaluation in this study. 

498 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

31  FACT SHEET FOR “NIKRASA – RAIL/ROAD” (CRANE TERMINAL) 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: TX LOGISTIK 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The  NiKRASA  system  consists  of  the  terminal  platform  and  the  transport  platform,  which  must 
additionally be present in a normal transshipment terminal. 

The  terminal  platform  is  located  on  the  ground  and  serves  to  hold  the  transport  platform.  The 
terminal truck drives onto the terminal platform for transhipment and positions the trailer centrally 
on the transport platform. There are gripping edges for the transhipment equipment. The terminal 
transhipment equipment can pick up the transport platform using a spreader with grapple arms. For 
transhipment and transport on the pocket wagon, the trailer and the transport platform form a unit 
that is transported together and thus behaves like a craneable trailer. On the pocket wagon, the 
transport platform is positioned so that the king pin of the trailer fits exactly into the support frame. 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network. 
Currently in use and easily integrated into the existing intermodal 
network. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

499 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Standardised system and compatible 
with common craneable loading units 

•  Fast transhipment rate 
•  Automation and digitalisation easy to 

•  Weight of a frame of 2.275 tonnes 
reduces payload of the train 

•  higher transport costs compared to 

craneable trailers 

implement  

•  Remote control is more employee-

• 

friendly (more interesting for employee 
recruitment) 
- Large working area is covered, which 
is used very efficiently (a lot of storage 
area and transshipment area in 
relation to the traffic area of the crane 
(crane track)). 

•  Compact storage area under crane, 

which can be used to 100%. 

•  Efficient technology for consumption 

and transhipment speed 

•  Low life cycle costs 
•  Long service life 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  Not possible 

Inland container 

•  Not possible 

•  Swap body 

•  Not possible 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

38,725 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

The terminal consists of a normal crane terminal and two loading lanes with 40 NiKRASA terminal 
modules. 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck 

Loco, T3000e rail wagons or similar with two transport platforms 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

500 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

For Semi-trailer non-craneable on T3000e wagons with two transport 
platforms (assuming 85% load factor) 

40 (34) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

5,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

10,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

3,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

78,8 min 

10,0 min 

88,8 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

10,0 min 

501 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

3,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

Truck driver 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

12,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 20 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 3 min 

•  All process steps: 17 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 3 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Loading 

•  51 min 

Unloading 

•  51 min 

Loading 

•  140 min 

Unloading 

•  91 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  4,12 

502 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

75 min 
6 min 

170 min 
102 min 
408 min 
102 min 
170 min 
102 min 
30 min 
30 min 
79 min 
10 min 
1.203 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
238 min 
102 min 
238 min 
30 min 
102 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
750 min 

75 min 
6 min 

27,60 h 

17,60 h 

157 h 

142 h 

4,61 h 

4,17 h 

503 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

32,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

1 

2 

2 

1 

- 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

4 

2 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

80 €/m² 

23.680 m² 

 1.894.400 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

13.912 m² 

 2.960.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

450 m² 

 187.500 €  

282 m² 

 48.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

6.956 m² 

 1.850.000 €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

62.500 m² 

 3.125.000 €  

 6.250.000 €  

 17.783.075 €  

 3.556.615 €  

 21.339.690 €  

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

 9.901.616 €  

Terminal building costs range in EU 

504 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

 31.023.641 €  

25 

1.442.003 € 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Gantry crane 

3.550.000 € 

Spreader with 
gripper arms 

150.000 € 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

Terminal 
module 

22.500 € 

Equipment costs terminal 

2 

2 

5 

40 

7.100.000 € 

300.000 € 

750.000 € 

900.000 

25 

10 

5 

20 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 9.050.000 € 

 1.810.000 € 

 10.860.000 € 

900.644 € 

 32.199.690 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 2.342.647 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

140.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader with gripper arms 

Terminal truck 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

2,8 

889.154 € 

198.800 € 

8.400 € 

21.000 € 

1.083.369 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

68.750 kWh 

8.594 € 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

350.000 kWh 

43.750 € 

Terminal truck 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

168.000 l 

188.160 € 

505 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

240.504 € 

 24.544 €  

 75.886 €  

 154.981 €  

 229.933 €  

 179.525 €  

 305.819 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1,5 

1,5 

2 

5 

1,5 

1 

5 

5 

7 

16,5 

5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 132.500 €  

 33.000 €  

 165.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 528.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 155.000 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

1.355.000 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

 293.493 €  

 2.186.588 €  

312.500 € 

0,00 € - 599.100 € 

5.368.005 € 

16,73 € 

 9,68 €  

 1,72 €  

 7,98 €  

506 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 19,38 €  

 2,23 €  

 38,34 €  

19,12 € 

54,58 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer non 
craneable 

26.000 € 

11 

780,00 € 

0,78 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

T3000e 

140.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

Transport 
platform 

17.500 € 

20 

1 

34 

2.800.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

595.000 € 

40 

40 

10 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

32,38 € 

57,82 € 

15,29 € 

 8.395.000 €  

 105,48 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

T3000e 

Loco 

Transport platform 

5 

6 

0,6 

139.800 € 

300.000 € 

3.400,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

29,13 € 

62,50 € 

0,71 € 

92,33 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.414 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

176,74 € 

176,74 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

507 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1:2,9 

1:4,2 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

1.000 km 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

508 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

2.981 € 

87,66 € 

1.304 € 

38,34 € 

6.780 € 

199,43 € 

12.242 € 

360,06 € 

1.304 € 

38,34 € 

2.836 € 

83,42 € 

469 € 

13,79 € 

721 € 

21,22 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

3.918,32 € 

115,24 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

5.346,83 € 

157,26 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

15.673 € 

576,22 € 

21.387 € 

786,30 € 

537,79 € 

608,69 € 

747,86 € 

818,76 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.956 €  

 86,96 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 14 €  

 0,40 €  

 8.749 €  

 257,31 €  

 16.525 €  

 486,04 €  

 14 €  

 0,40 €  

 2.956 €  

 86,96 €  

 14.662 €  

 432,02 €  

 22.438 €  

 660,75 €  

509 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

32  FACT  SHEET  FOR  “ISU  –  INNOVATIVER  SATTELANHÄNGER  UMSCHLAG/INNOVATIVE 

SAMI-TRAILER TRANSHIPMENT – RAIL/ROAD” (CRANE TERMINAL) 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: RCA 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The  system  addresses  the  market  of  non-craneable  semi-trailers.  The  system  was  designed 
starting 2005 in the framework of the EU-FP7-project BRAVO and was implemented during 2011 
till 2013 within the EU-FP7 project CREAM and is in operation since then. 
The idea is, to lift a standard road semi-trailer on the wheels and on the kingpin with special adapter 
parts, the so called “ISU-king-pin beam” and the “ISU-wheel gripper”. These special designed parts 
were placed  on  a steel ramp in special recesses. In  turn the ramp is placed beside the train.  A 
terminal tractor or standard truck pulls the trailer on the ramp and place it there on its support legs. 
A steel frame with elastic belts is fixed on the twist locks of the spreader of the standard handling 
equipment.  The  frame  is  placed  above  the  ramp,  the  belts  are  connected  with  the  ISU  king-pin 
beam and the ISU wheel grippers and the trailer is lifted into the wagon. In the wagon, the trailer is 
fixed to the king-pin support of the standard pocket wagon and the belts are disconnected. The ISU 
king-pin beam and the ISU wheel grippers remain on the wagon during the rail transport. 
During the  unloading  process of  a wagon the  loading device with the ISU-steel frame  is placed 
above the trailer on the wagon, the belts are connected to king pin beam and the wheel grippers, 
the semi-trailer is lifted and placed on the ISU-ramp. The ISU-king pin beam and the wheel grippers 
sinking in special recesses in the ramp and a terminal tractor or standard road truck pulls the trailer 
to the yard and the next trailer for loading can be placed on the ramp. 
The ISU-king-pin beam and the wheel grippers are part of the wagon to avoid additional logistic 
processes and to ensure that the equipment is always available. The king pin beam enlarges the 
loading profile of the trailer by about 15 cm. This can be compensated by the variation of the height 
of the king pin support on the wagon. 
The system is designed as a “bridge technology” to help clients to start with intermodal business; 
the aim is, to lead this companies to invest in craneable equipment if they are satisfied with the 
intermodal transport service. 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, mainly used to/from Austria and 
EU relations. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

510 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  No additional investment in fixed 

•  Handling process takes longer compared 

terminal infrastructure, terminal 
handling equipment, wagons and 
trailers needed. 

to craneable trailer mainly due to 
longitudinal movement to/from the ISU 
ramp(s) 

•  Can be implemented in a normal 

•  Additional staff necessary for handling the 

terminal process. 

•  Rail transportation is similar to normal 

intermodal trains. 

•  Small investment in additional 

equipment 

•  Simple technology which can be 

moved from one terminal to the other if 
market changes 

Transhipable loading units: 

• 

• 

system in the terminal 
ISU king-pin beam and wheel grippers 
reduce payload during rail transport 
ISU king-pin beam reduces the maximal 
height of semi-trailers during rail transport 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  Not possible 

Inland container 

•  Not possible 

•  Swap body 

•  Not possible 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes, in particular “non-craneable” Semi-Trailer 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

39 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

The terminal consists of a normal crane terminal with 2 additional ISU spreaders and 4 ISU ramps. 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Truck 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Loco, T3000e rail wagons or similar with twice king-pin beam and 
wheel gripper 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Semi-trailer non-craneable on T3000e wagons with twice ISU king-pin 
beam and wheel gripper (assuming 85% load factor) 

42 (36) 

511 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

5,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

10,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

7,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

14,0 min 

14,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

82,8 min 

10,0 min 

92,8 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

512 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

7,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

14,0 min 

14,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

12,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 31 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 7 min 

•  All process steps: 28 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 7 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  126 min 

Unloading 

•  126 min 

Loading 

•  219 min 

Unloading 

•  166 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  1,67 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

513 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

75 min 
6 min 

180 min 
108 min 
432 min 
252 min 
180 min 
504 min 
30 min 
30 min 
83 min 
10 min 
1.809 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
252 min 
252 min 
252 min 
30 min 
504 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
1.330 min 

75 min 
6 min 

30,16 h 

20,16 h 

182 h 

167 h 

5,06 h 

4,64 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

514 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

32,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

- 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

4 

2 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

80 €/m² 

23.680 m² 

 1.894.400 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

13.912 m² 

 2.960.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

450 m² 

 187.500 €  

282 m² 

 48.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

6.956 m² 

 1.850.000 €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

59.910 m² 

 2.995.500 €  

 5.991.000 €  

 17.187.375 €  

 3.437.475 €  

 20.624.850 €  

 9.569.930 €  

 29.984.407 €  

25 

515 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

1.393.699 € 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

2 

2 

4 

2 

4 

7.100.000 € 

200.000 € 

600.000 € 

20.000 € 

48.000 € 

25 

10 

5 

8 

20 

Gantry crane 

3.550.000 € 

Spreader 

100.000 € 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

ISU spreader 

10.000 € 

ISU ramp 

12.000 € 

Equipment costs terminal 

Investment costs 

Planning costs (20%) 

Total 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

 7.968.000 € 

 1.593.600 € 

 9.561.600 € 

771.651 € 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 30.186.450 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 2.165.350 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

60.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader 

Terminal truck 

ISU spreader 

ISU ramp 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

2,8 

2,8 

2,8 

859.369 € 

198.800 € 

5.600 € 

16.800 € 

560 € 

1.344 € 

1.082.473 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

65.901 kWh 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

150.000 kWh 

Terminal truck 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

72.000 l 

8.238 € 

18.750 € 

80.640 € 

516 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

107.628 € 

 12.654 €  

 39.126 €  

 66.421 €  

 98.543 €  

 79.075 €  

 137.669 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

0,5 

0,5 

2 

4 

1,5 

1 

2 

2 

7 

13,5 

5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 53.000 €  

 33.000 €  

 66.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 432.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 155.000 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

1.080.500 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

 234.036 €  

 1.743.623 €  

299.550 € 

0,00 € - 599.100 € 

4.735.500 € 

36,09 € 

 18,01 €  

 1,79 €  

 18,04 €  

517 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 37,84 €  

 4,99 €  

 78,92 €  

40,01 € 

111,85 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer non 
craneable 

26.000 € 

11 

780,00 € 

0,78 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

T3000e 

140.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

21 

1 

2.940.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

King-pin 
beam and 
wheel gripper 

10.000 € 

36 

360.000 € 

40 

40 

5 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

34,00 € 

57,82 € 

16,50 € 

 8.300.000 €  

 108,31 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

T3000e 

Loco 

King-pin beam and 
wheel gripper 

5 

6 

0,6 

146.790 € 

300.000 € 

3.600 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

30,58 € 

62,50 € 

0,75 € 

93,83 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.454 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

181,70 € 

181,70 € 

518 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1:3,3 

1:4,5 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

1.000 km 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

519 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

3.156 € 

87,66 € 

2.841 € 

78,92 € 

7.071 € 

196,42 € 

12.625 € 

350,71 € 

2.841 € 

78,92 € 

3.003 € 

83,42 € 

569 € 

15,80 € 

836 € 

23,23 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

4.870,33 € 

135,29 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

6.325,79 € 

175,72 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

19.481 € 

676,44 € 

25.303 € 

878,58 € 

598,60 € 

742,28 € 

800,74 € 

944,43 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 3.819 €  

 106,08 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 15 €  

 0,42 €  

 8.994 €  

 249,84 €  

 16.989 €  

 471,93 €  

 15 €  

 0,42 €  

 3.819 €  

 106,08 €  

 16.632 €  

 462,83 €  

 24.627 €  

 684,92 €  

520 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

33 

FACT SHEET FOR “CARGOSPEED – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:   http://www.railway-research.org/IMG/pdf/cargospeed.pdf/ ; April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The Corgospeed technology was designed to facilitate the horizontal transhipment of non-cranable 
semitrailers with a specialized rail wagon. The wagon floor turns out for loading/unloading semi-
trailers with the help of a pop up mechanism located between the rails in the terminal which is 
used to lift and drop the wagon floor for the unloading/loading process. The wagons have to be 
positioned over these mechanism with a tolerance of +-35cm. Once turned out, the wagons can be 
loaded/unloaded from both sides and transhipments are possible under the catenary. 

Sources: 
https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/documents/20060727_143123_02411_CARG
OSPEED_Final_Report.pdf ; April 2021 

521 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 4: The technology was developped as part of the European 
FP5 Competitive and Sustainable Growth programme from 2001 
to 2004 by a consortium under the German BLG Consult GmbH. 
Prototypes for parts of the system, i.e. the pop up and the wagon 
floor, have been built at a test site and the marketability has been 
proven. The technology didn't leave this prototype stage and is 
has not been developed or marketed further. Our research did not 
reveal any further indications of current use or further development 
of the technology. For this reason the technology will be excluded 
from the further evaluation of technologies in this study. 

Sources: 
http://www.railway-research.org/IMG/pdf/cargospeed.pdf ; April 
2021 

522 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

34 

FACT SHEET FOR “RAIL RUNNER – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:    https://railrunner.com/terminal-anywhere-solution/ ; April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The Rail Runner technology enables the transhipment of intermodal loading units between rail and 
road by directly assembling the Rail Runner semitrailer or chassis used in road transport into an 
intermodal train with the help of Rail Runner bogie units. The chassis can be loaded with 
standardized containers and has receiver boxes on both ends to be couple with the bogie units. 
The bogie units have symmetrical elements on both sides to enable the coupling of the bogie with 
the chassis which is done over the rail. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The technology is fully developed and in operational use 
outside Europe, however it did not receive the Certification and 
Homologation necessary for European operations. The Railrunner 
Europe GmbH was established in 2015 to establish the technology 
in Europe. Between 2017 and 2019 the company operated one 
conventional intermodal train for 18 months between 
Braunschweig, DE and Brattislava, SK before filling for bankruptcy 
in early 2019. The Rail Runner technology was never established 
on the European market and no current initiatives to do so are 
known. For this reason the technology will be excluded from the 
further evaluation of technologies in this study. 

Sources: 
https://www.railfreight.com/intermodal/2019/01/21/railrunner-
europe-files-for-insolvency ; April 2021 

523 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

35  FACT SHEET FOR “ROLA – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Quelle: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG; Chris Zenz 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The  Rolling  Road  (RoLo)  is  a  transport  system  for  accompanied  combined  transport  in  which 
complete lorries or articulated lorries are transported by rail. The short-coupled low-floor wagons 
used for this purpose have continuous driving lanes over the entire train. During the journey, the 
drivers  are  accommodated  in  additionally  attached  escort  wagons.  Special  loading  ramps  are 
located at the end points of the connections for easy loading and unloading of the trucks. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☒ Accompanied 

☐ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The technology is fully developed, tested and currently in 
use. The focus in use is on Alpine transit. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Freight forwarder saves fuel, toll 

•  Much dead load is transported in relation 

charges, time lost due to traffic jams 

to the cargo load 

524 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  High costs for maintenance of the wagons 

due to the small running wheels 

and operating kilometres for his 
vehicles. 

•  Drivers can comply with the legally 
prescribed rest periods for the train 
•  Avoidance of night or weekend driving 

bans  

•  Permissible total weight of 44 t 
short loading time (High annual 
• 
transhipment volumes possible) 

•  Comparatively low terminal investment 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  Not possible  

Inland container 

•  Not possible 

•  Swap body 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Not possible 

•  Not possible 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Yes 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

44 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

None 

Loco, Low floor wagon (Saadkms), club car 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Full vehicles on Low floor wagon (Saadkms) with one club car (assuming 
85% load factor) 

35 (30) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

5 min 

5 min 

3 min 

525 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

Total LU 

2 min 

7 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

20,0 min 

0,0 min 

20,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

5,0 min 

120,0 min 

10,0 min 

130,0 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman train 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

15,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

20,0 min 

0,0 min 

20,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

526 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Check-out duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 27 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 20 min 

•  All process steps: 22 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 20 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  157 min 

Unloading 

•  37 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Loading 

•  20 min 

Unloading 

•  20 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  150 min 

Unloading 

•  35 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  2,27 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Full Vehicle 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker: 
Gate agent:  
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Groundsman: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman train: 

75 min 
6 min 

150 min 
90 min 
810 min 
0 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
5 min 

527 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Attendant: 
Total: 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Train driver: 
Attendant: 
Train dispatcher: 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Train driver: 
Attendant 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker: 
Gate agent: 
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Attendant: 
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

120 min 
10 min 
10 min 
1.215 min 

1275 min 
1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
660 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
5 min 
0 min 
10 min 
10 min 
705 min 

75 min 
6 min 

26,83 h 

16,83 h 

167 h 

142 h 

5,57 h 

4,73 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

50,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

80 €/m² 

3.000 m² 

 240.000 €  

80 €/m² 

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

80 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

80 €/m² 

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

528 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

150,0 m 

32,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

2 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

80 €/m² 

9.600 m² 

 768.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

m² 

 -   €  

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

740,0 m 

15,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

m² 

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

19.599 m² 

 979.925 €  

 1.959.850 €  

 5.066.350 €  

 1.013.270 €  

 6.079.620 €  

 2.820.944 €  

 8.838.552 €  

25 

410.823 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

RoLa ramp 

10.000 € 

Ramp mover 

7.000 € 

2 

2 

20.000 € 

14.000 € 

5 

5 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

 34.000 € 

 6.800 € 

 40.800 € 

8.975 € 

529 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 6.120.420 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 419.798 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

68.108 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

RoLa ramp 

Ramp mover 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

5 

20 

29 

253.318 € 

4.000 € 

4.060 € 

261.378 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

21.558 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.695 € 

2.695 € 

 1.264 €  

 3.907 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 1.264 €  

 3.907 €  

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

3,5 

7 

0 

0 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 231.000 €  

 35.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 31.000 €  

 108.500 €  

530 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Dispatcher 

1 

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

561.750 € 

 121.675 €  

 906.506 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

97.993 € 

0,00 € - 195.985 € 

Total costs per year 

410.823 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 
Maintenance costs 
Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

6,16 € 

 8,25 €  

 0,04 €  
 3,84 €  
 12,13 €  

 1,44 €  

 19,73 €  

8,50 € 

29,04 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Full vehicle 

126.000 € 

10 

10.780,00 € 

5,66 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Low floor 
wagon 
(Saadkms) 

220.000 € 

Club car 

1.500.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

Head end 

22.000 € 

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

35 

1 

1 

2 

7.700.000 € 

1.500.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

44.000 € 

40 

40 

40 

40 

89,04 € 

17,34 € 

57,82 € 

0,23 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

 14.244.000 €  

531 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

 154,89 €  

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Low floor wagon 
(Saadkms) 

Club car 

Loco 

Head end 

27 

7 

6 

2,8 

2.100.000 € 

105.000 € 

300.000 € 

616 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

437,50 € 

21,88 € 

62,50 € 

0,13 € 

522,00 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.445 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

180,61 € 

180,61 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Attendant 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

 30,96 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

n/a 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

n/a 

n/a 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

n/a 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

532 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,97 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

2.671 € 

89,04 € 

592 € 

19,73 € 

15.066 € 

502,19 € 

25.666 € 

855,54 € 

592 € 

19,73 € 

2.561 € 

85,35 € 

2.769 € 

92,30 € 

4.246 € 

141,52 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

6.062,57 € 

202,09 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

9.081,86 € 

302,73 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

External costs 

24.250 €  1.010,43 € 

36.327 €  1.513,64 € 

987,98 € 

1.029,06 € 

1.491,19 € 

1.532,27 € 

Total 

Per LU 

533 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

75 km 

 2.609 €  

 86,96 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 0 €  

 0,01 €  

 8.940 €  

 298,01 €  

 16.887 €  

 562,90 €  

 0 €  

 0,01 €  

 2.609 €  

 86,96 €  

 14.157 €  

 471,93 €  

 22.104 €  

 736,83 €  

36 

FACT SHEET FOR “EUROTUNNEL FREIGHT SHUTTLE – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:   https://www.eurotunnelfreight.com/uk/about/library/ ; April 2021 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The Eurotunnel freight shuttle is a special type of rolling highway used for the transport of heavy 
goods vehicles via rail through the channel tunnel. 
The shuttle train for heavy goods vehicles consists of different types of rail wagons. For the 3rd 
generation truck shuttles, the wagon sets consist of 1 club car for the passengers, 32 open vehicle 
carrying wagons (in 2 sections of 16 wagons each), 2 end loading wagons and 1 center loading 
wagon between the two sections. Furthermore, due to safety regulations for the channel tunnel rail 
traffic with passengers, there is one manned loco at each end of the train. All wagons between and 

534 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

including the two end loading wagons form a continuous surface which vehicles can drive on. The 
coupling height of the wagons is 820mm over the railhead. The carrying wagons hold one heavy 
goods vehicle each which are secured using wagon chocks. The carrying wagons have a roofed 
area in the front over the truck cabin. The loading wagons are used by the vehicles to enter or 
leave the train to the side. This necessitates a platform at wagon surface height for the 
loading/unloading of the vehicles in the terminal. A decoupling of wagons or locos it not necessary 
to load or unload the train. During the transport, the truck drivers are in the club car and not with 
their vehicles. A terminal bus is used to transport the drivers between their vehicles and the club 
car. 
A fully loaded Eurotunnel train set has a length of up to 800m and a total weight of up to 2.500t. 
For the freight shuttles 17 wagon sets, thereof 3 of the 3rd generation are in use. On average 
there is one departure per direction every 8 to 10 minutes meaning 6 to 7 departures per hour, 
however with the available infrastructure and equipment between 8 to 10 departures are possible 
in each direction. The trains travel at speeds of up to 140 km/h and are able to cross the channel 
in 35 minutes. 
The Eurotunnel does not require special low-floor cars with smaller wheel diameters. This is 
because the loading gauge on the channel tunnel line permits trains with a height of 5,6m and a 
width of 4,1m which is larger than the common European loading gauge with a height of 4,65m 
and a width of 3,15m. However, as a consequence the Eurotunnel freight shuttle wagons are also 
too large for both the British and the European standard loading gauges and can only be used on 
the 50km long Eurotunnel line between the terminals in Coquelles and Folkstone without traveling 
onto the national rail networks.  

Sources: 
https://www.getlinkgroup.com/en/our-group/eurotunnel/ 
https://www.eurotunnelfreight.com/uk/home/ 
https://www.waggonbau-niesky.com/en/products/car-transport-wagons/hgv-loading-train-
%E2%80%93-eurotunnel/ 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☒ Accompanied 

☐ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport 

☒ Rail 
☐ Inland waterway 

☐ Short Sea 
☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: The technology is fully developed and has been proven to 
work in the Eurotunnel freight operations. The Eurotunnel freight 
shuttle and the Eurotunnel terminals form a highly specialized 
transhipment environment specifically designed to achieve a high 
terminal throughput and fast transhipment time. This is due to the 
high share of the transhipment time in the total transport time for 
the only 50km long transport distance. 
The technology is exclusively used in the Eurotunnel and is not 
transferable to general intermodal transport on a national rail 
network due to its loading gauge and to a lesser extent its train 
length and train weight.  
Due to the highly specialized nature of the transhipment 
technology, the non-transferability of the technology to other parts 
of the Trans-European Transport Network and the resulting 
exclusive use in the Eurotunnel, the technology will not be 
included in the further analysis for this study.  

535 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

37  FACT SHEET FOR “FLEXIWAGGON – RAIL/ROAD” 

Picture of the technology: 

Source: 
capital/, June 2021 

  https://www.flexiwaggon.se/flexiwaggon-is-moving-forward-and-preparing-to-raise-

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The Flexiwaggon transhipment technology consists of a specialized rail wagon for the transport of 
full vehicles, which can be loaded or unloaded, without a dedicated terminal infrastructure, almost 
everywhere. The wagon can be used for any other type of unaccompanied loading unit which can 
be placed inside the wagon cradle using standard vertical or horizontal transhipment technologies. 
However, the main purpose of the wagon is the transport of full vehicles. The only infrastructure 
requirement for the transhipment is for the rail track to be surrounded by a 7m wide firm base which 
can hold the weight of the vehicle to be loaded or unloaded. The max. weight for a vehicle to be 
transhipped with the Flexiwaggon is 52 t with an own wagon weight of 45 t.  
The max. speed in transport is up to 140 km/h (disc brake 160 km/h).  
For this study we are looking at the Flexiwaggon standard wagon (SW) for the transport of goods 
as the other models are designed and equipped to support rescue and peacekeeping operations. 
The Flexiwaggon SW is a special 26,16 m long pocket wagon with a loading cradle of 17,3 m usable 
loading length between two bogies, the front and back of which can be swung out to either side 
and in any simultaneous configuration. Then ramps are extended from the cradle ends to the floor. 
The whole process is enabled by a system of movable supports and actuators and takes around 7 
minutes. The road vehicles drive via the ramps onto the wagon and are automatically secured when 
the  loading  cradle  is  retracted.  The  Flexiwaggons  are  equipped  with  all  necessary  sensors  to 
directly  determine  and  provide  feedback  on  whether  the  loading  unit  and  the  cradle  are  in  the 
correct  position  safely  secured  on  the  wagon.  This  can  substitute  a  manual  inspection.  Further 
sensors can detect overheating in the wheel stock as well as fluctuations and reductions in braking 
power, so depending  on the regulatory framework the Flexiwaggon allows for a fully automated 
technical  inspection  and  brake  check.  The  wagons  have  their  own  energy  supply  for  the 
transhipment  process  from  shaft  generators  (78  kW)  and  battery  packs  on  each  wagon.  During 
transport loaded vehicles can be connected to the power supply if necessary, for example for reefer 
loading units or for charging electric vehicles. Due to the independent power supply of each wagon, 
the Flexiwaggon can be used independently from other power supply, like a catenary.  

536 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

The handling of the Flexiwaggon is simple enough to be done by the vehicle driver. The drivers 
can unlock the wagon via a console on the wagon and then use a remote control with two buttons 
to control the transhipment process by extending and retracting the wagon cradle. Alternatively, 
the train driver can use a special console in the loco to control the wagons. The vehicles can be 
transhipped under the line.  
Full Flexiwaggon trains with one club car for the vehicle drivers are possible and will be chosen for 
the  analysis  in  this  study.  However,  another  area  of  use  is  for  single  or  small  numbers  of 
Flexiwaggons to be incorporated into other trains, even passenger trains. This is viable due to the 
Flexiwaggon being able to tranship almost everywhere, so like passengers, full vehicles can simply 
roll on or roll off at stations without any other necessary equipment, shunting or  personnel if the 
regulatory framework permits this type of operation. Either way, the duration of the rail transport 
can be used by the vehicle drivers to rest and for mandatory break periods from driving.  

For the club car the same specifications as for the other accompanied rail transport are chosen. 
These are a length of 26,4 m, a weight of 43 t and sufficient space for up to 32 passengers. 

Classification 

☒ Horizontal 

☐ Vertical 

☒ Accompanied 

☐ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 8: The technology is fully developed and has demonstrated 
its functionality in an operational environment. It is not yet in 
regular operational use but is market-ready. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Comparatively long and heavy rail 

wagons for a single loading unit limit the 
loading unit capacity for a full train (26m 
wagon length); 

•  Utilization of full potential is highly 

dependent on regulatory framework. 

•  High flexibility; 
•  No special infrastructure for 
transhipments necessary; 
•  Truck driver is only necessary 
transhipment personnel; 

•  Can be used during the truck drivers 
resting period as a mobile rest; 
Low loading height; 

•  Electrical supply on the wagon 
enables the loading of vehicle 
batteries or powering transported 
equipment on the wagon everywhere 
regardless of the available 
infrastructure. 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

ISO container 

• 

Inland container 

•  Swap body 

•  Technically possible but not feasible and not considered 

in this study  

•  Technically possible but not feasible and not considered 

in this study 

•  Technically possible but not feasible and not considered 

in this study  

537 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Technically possible but not feasible and not considered 

in this study  

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Up to a length of 17,3m and a width of 2,9m 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

52 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

For our model we are assuming a terminal, however in practice the Flexiwaggon could be 
loaded/unloaded outside of dedicated terminals as detailed in the description. 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

None 

Loco, Flexiwaggon, club car 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Full vehicles on Flexiwaggon wagons with one club car (assuming 85% 
load factor) 

23 (19) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

5 min 

5 min 

3 min 

2 min 

7 min 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

538 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

0 min 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

10 min 

0 min 

10 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

0 min 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

64 min (could go as low 
as 0 min if technical 
features of the wagon 
are permitted and used 
to replace the manual 
wagon inspection) 

10 min 

74 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Arrival duration: 

Groundsman train 

 Total 

10 min 

0 min 

0 min 

10 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

0 min 

10 min 

0 min 

10 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Truck driver 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

0 min 

539 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Check-out duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 17 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

•  All process steps: 12 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 10 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Loading 

•  91 min 

Unloading 

•  22 min 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  Full vehicle: 10 min 

Unloading 

•  Full vehicle: 10 min 

Loading 

•  Full vehicle: 84 min 

Unloading 

•  Full vehicle: 20 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  Full vehicle: 4,02 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Full Vehicle 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker: 
Gate agent:  
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Groundsman: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Attendant: 
Total: 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Train driver: 
Attendant: 
Train dispatcher: 

75 min 
6 min 

100 min 
60 min 
340 min 
0 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
64 min 
10 min 
10 min 
604 min 

1275 min 
1275 min 
638 min 

540 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Train driver: 
Attendant 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker: 
Gate agent: 
Truck driver: 
Handling equipment driver: 
Terminal truck driver: 
Terminal dispatcher per train: 
Groundsman: 
Groundsman train: 
Visitor/Wagon inspector: 
Train driver: 
Attendant: 
Total: 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

675 min 
675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
240 min 
0 min 
0 min 
30 min 
0 min 
0 min 
0 min 
10 min 
10 min 
280 min 

75 min 
6 min 

25,49 h 

15,49 h 

120 h 

95 h 

6,14 h 

4,89 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Gate area 

Driving lane 

Loading lane 

Length  Width 

30 

740 

740 

80 

8 

4 

Turning area 

25 

25 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Line connection  

50 

4,7 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

1 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

80 €/m² 

2.400 m² 

 192.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

90 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

5.920 m² 

 473.600 €  

5.920 m² 

 473.600 €  

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

 m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

 -   €  

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

541 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Transhipment 
track  

Terminal switch 

Buffer stop 

Crane tracks 

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

740 

4,7 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

4,7 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1.000 €/m 

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

1.250 €/m 

0 

90 €/m² 

3.478 m² 

 740.000 €  

 m² 

 -   €  

71 m² 

 12.000 €  

 m² 

 m² 

 -   €  

 -   €  

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

18.649 m² 

 932.425 €  

 1.864.850 €  

4.847.850 € 

969.570 € 

5.817.420 € 

 2.699.283 €  

 8.457.365 €  

25 

393.105 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

n/a 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

5.817.420 € 

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

393.105 € 

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

80.460 

542 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

Terminal Infrastructure 

5 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

242.393 € 

242.393 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

20.513 kWh 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

2.564 € 

2.564 € 

 1.202 €  

 3.717 €  

- 

- 

 1.202 €  

 3.717 €  

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Terminal personnel 

Function 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

3,5 

3,5 

0 

0 

0 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

 -   €  

3,5 

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

337.750 €  

 52.254,75 €  

 389.309,57 €  

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

93.243 € 

543 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

0,00 € - 186.485 € 

Total costs per year 

1.069.054 € 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 
Maintenance costs 
Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

4,83 € 

 4,15 €  

 0,03 €  
 2,98 €  
 7,16 €  

 1,15 €  

 13,13 €  

6,13 € 

19,03 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Full vehicle 

126.000 € 

10 

10.780,00 € 

5,66 € 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

Flexiwaggon 

320.000 € 

Club car 

1.500.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

23 

1 

1 

7.360.000 € 

1.500.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

40 

40 

40 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

85,10 € 

17,34 € 

57,82 € 

 13.860.000 €  

 160,26 €  

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Equipment 

Flexiwaggon 

Club car 

Loco 

3 

7 

6 

230.000 € 

105.000 € 

300.000 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

47,92 € 

21,88 € 

62,50 € 

132,29 € 

544 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.480 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

185,00 € 

185,00 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Attendant 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

 30,96 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

n/a 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

n/a 

n/a 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

Not relevant 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

Equipment 

n/a 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,97 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

545 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

1.633 € 

81,66 € 

263 € 

13,13 € 

8.860 € 

442,99 € 

15.661 € 

783,04 € 

263 € 

13,13 € 

1.559 € 

77,97 € 

1.697 € 

84,83 € 

2.681 € 

134,05 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

3.568,59 € 

178,43 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

5.514,95 € 

275,75 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

14.274 € 

892,15 € 

22.060 €  1.378,74 € 

878,14 € 

903,94 € 

1.364,73 € 

1.390,53 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 1.739 €  

 86,96 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 0 €  

 0,01 €  

 9.158 €  

 457,88 €  

 17.298 €  

 864,88 €  

 0 €  

 0,01 €  

 1.739 €  

 86,96 €  

 12.636 €  

 631,80 €  

 20.776 €  

 1.038,80 €  

546 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

38  FACT  SHEET  FOR  “ROADRAILLINK  2.0  –  TRAILER  USE  –  RAIL/ROAD”  (CRANE 

TERMINAL) 

Picture of the technology: 

Source:  roadraillink.eu, August 2020 

Description of the transhipment technology and transhipment process (road → main leg): 

The load carrier can be loaded into the standard pocket wagon in any rail terminal by reach stacker 
or terminal crane.  
The enhanced intermodal transport solution r2L 2.1 Trailer Use was designed especially for the 
handling  of  non-craneable  semi-trailers  of  every  type.  It  is  already  implemented  in  plenty  train 
concepts of different operators all across Europe, which enables to load any rubber wheeled vehicle 
on to standard pocket rail wagons. 

Classification 

☐ Horizontal 

☒ Vertical 

☐ Accompanied 

☒ Unaccompanied 

Connected modes of 
transport  

☒ Rail 

☐ Short Sea 

☐ Inland waterway 

☒ Road 

Technical readiness level 
and prevalence of the 
technology: 

TRL 9: Widespread technology, dense European network. 
Currently in use and easily integrated into the existing intermodal 
network. 

Indicative qualitative assessment: 

Strengths 

Weaknesses and limitations 

•  Enables also to carry non-craneable 

•  Additional weight of 4.300 kg per adapter 

trailers 

547 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Can be carried on train while pocket 

wagon is loaded with other loading 
units (containers, WAB) 

Transhipable loading units: 

Type of loading unit 

Sizes, exceptions and limitations 

• 

• 

ISO container 

•  Not possible 

Inland container 

•  Not possible 

•  Swap body 

•  Not possible 

•  Semi-trailer 

•  Yes 

•  Complete road vehicle 

•  Not possible 

Transhipable max. weight (loaded goods plus loading unit weight): 

36 t 

Description of our model terminal: 

Necessary road leg 
equipment: 

Necessary main leg 
equipment: 

Truck 

Loco, T3000e rail wagons or similar with two transport platforms 

Max. no. of LU on full trains (740 m, 2.000 t) / barges (110 m) / ships (1.000 TEU / 2.500 lm) 
assuming 20t loaded weight per LU: 

For Semi-trailer non-craneable on T3000e wagons with two transport 
platforms (assuming 85% load factor) 

38 (32) 

Detailed description of the transhipment process: 

Process steps loading main leg 

Involved personnel 

Time 

Check-in:  The  technical  and  administrative  check-in  are  conducted  in  parallel  before  the  truck 
enters the terminal. 

Technical check-in: 

Administrative check-in:  

Drive to drop-off/parking:  

Check-in duration per LU: 

Checker 

Truck driver 

Gate agent  

Truck driver 

Total LU 

5,0 min 

5,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

7,0 min 

548 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

LU handover: The LU is handed over to the terminal and placed in the intermediate buffer area. 
From there it is picked up and if necessary prepared for transhipment. 

Handover of loading unit:  

Truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Movement of loading unit:  

Handling equipment driver 

Preparing transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Handover duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

10,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped onto the main leg. 

Transhipment of LU:  

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

3,0 min 

Departure: The departure on the main leg is prepared and executed. 

Terminal check-out:  

Groundsman train 

Further procedures for departure:  

Visitor/Wagon inspector 

Departure: 

Departure duration: 

Train driver 

 Total 

Process steps unloading main leg 

Involved personnel 

30,0 min 

74,8 min 

10,0 min 

84,8 min 

Time 

Terminal arrival: The arrival from the main leg and the terminal check-in take place. 

Arrival: 

Train driver 

Further arrival procedures:  

none 

Terminal check-in:  

Groundsman train 

Arrival duration: 

 Total 

10,0 min 

0,0 min 

30,0 min 

40,0 min 

LU transhipment: The loading unit is transhipped from the main leg to the terminal. 

Transhipment: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Truck driver 

Groundsman 

Transhipment duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

3,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

3,0 min 

3,0 min 

LU handover: The loading unit is placed in the intermediate buffer area and is handed over to 
the truck later. 

549 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Preparing Transhipment:  

Terminal truck driver 

Handling equipment driver 

Groundsman 

Movement of loading unit: 

Handling equipment driver 

Terminal truck driver 

Handover of loading unit to truck:  

Handling equipment driver 

Handover duration per LU: 

Truck driver 

 Total LU 

2,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

0,0 min 

5,0 min 

12,0 min 

Check-out: The truck drives to the exit and checks out of the terminal 

Drive from drop-off/parking:  

Truck driver 

Check-out duration per LU: 

 Total LU 

2 min 

2 min 

Total time for the 
transhipment of one LU: 

Loading 

Unloading 

•  All process steps: 20 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 3 min 

•  All process steps: 17 min 
•  Only Transhipment: 3 min 

Time spent in Terminal 
for the road haulage 
operator: 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(excl. headway): 

Total time for loading 
/unloading one train 
(incl. headway): 

Loading 

•  12 min 

Unloading 

•  7 min 

Loading 

•  48 min 

Unloading 

•  48 min 

Loading 

•  133 min 

Unloading 

•  88 min 

Trains that can be handled in an  
8-hour shift: 

•  4,38 

Description of a full 1.000 km (600 km) transport chain: 

Transport element and 
duration: 

First road leg: The LU is 
transported on the first road 
leg over a distance of 75 km. 
Duration: 75 min 

First transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above.  

Involved personnel: 

Working time: 

Semi-trailer 

Truck driver 
Dispatcher 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Groundsman 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 

75 min 
6 min 

160 min 
96 min 
384 min 
96 min 
160 min 
96 min 
30 min 
30 min 
75 min 

550 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg 1.000 km: The LU 
is transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 850 km. 
Duration: 1.275 min 

Main leg 600 km: The LU is 
transported on the main leg 
over a distance of 450 km. 
Duration: 675 min 

Second transhipment full 
train: The LU is transhipped 
using the transhipment 
technology as described in 
detail above. 

Train driver  
Total: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Train driver: 
Train dispatcher: 

Checker 
Gate agent  
Truck driver 
Handling equipment driver 
Terminal truck driver 
Terminal dispatcher per train 
Groundsman 
Groundsman train 
Visitor/Wagon inspector 
Train driver 
Total 

Second road leg: The LU is 
transported on the second 
road leg over a distance of 75 
km. 
Duration: 75 min 

Truck driver: 
Dispatcher: 

Total duration transport chain 

Total working hours transport 
chain 

Total working hours per LU 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

600 km 

10 min 
1.137 min 

1275 min 
638 min 

675 min 
338 min 

0 min 
0 min 
224 min 
96 min 
224 min 
30 min 
96 min 
30 min 
0 min 
10 min 
710 min 

75 min 
6 min 

27,43 h 

17,43 h 

150 h 

135 h 

4,68 h 

4,21 h 

Costs and investments associated with the transhipment technology 

Terminal infrastructure  

Elements 

Dimensions (m) 

Length  Width 

Number 
of units 
(#) 

Unit costs   Total area 

Total costs 

Gate area 

100,0 m 

60,0 m 

Driving lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Loading lane 

740,0 m 

3,5 m 

Turning area 

25,0 m 

25,0 m 

1 

2 

1 

1 

80 €/m² 

6.000 m² 

 480.000 €  

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

5.180 m² 

 414.400 €  

2.590 m² 

 207.200 €  

625 m² 

 46.875 €  

551 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Intermediate buffer 
area (stackable) 

Intermediate buffer 
area (non-
stackable) 

Switch from main 
line 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

740,0 m 

32,0 m 

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

Line connection  

50,0 m 

4,7 m 

Transhipment 
track  

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Terminal switch 

30,0 m 

5,0 m 

Buffer stop 

15,0 m 

4,7 m 

Crane tracks 

740,0 m 

4,7 m 

Driving range 
reach 
stacker/mobile 
harbour 
crane/HMHC 

- 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

4 

2 

90 €/m² 

80 €/m² 

62.500 
€/unit 

 m² 

 -   €  

23.680 m² 

 1.894.400 €  

 m² 

 62.500 €  

1.000 €/m 

235 m² 

 50.000 €  

1.000 €/m 

13.912 m² 

 2.960.000 €  

62.500 
€/unit 

12.000 
€/unit 

450 m² 

 187.500 €  

282 m² 

 48.000 €  

1.250 €/m 

6.956 m² 

 1.850.000 €  

 m² 

 -   €  

0,0 m 

0,0 m 

- 

90 €/m² 

Total area complete terminal 

Structural engineering (50 €/m²) 

Earthworks and civil engineering (100 €/m²) 

Building costs terminal 

Planning costs 20% 

Total building costs complete terminal 

Terminal building costs range in EU 

Minimum value based on European construction cost index 

Maximum value based on European construction cost index 

Depreciation time terminal (years) 

Terminal building costs per year 

Terminal equipment 

59.910 m² 

 2.995.500 €  

 5.991.000 €  

 17.187.375 €  

 3.437.475 €  

 20.624.850 €  

 9.569.930 €  

 29.984.407 €  

25 

1.393.699 € 

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Number of units (#) 

Total costs 

Depreciation time 
(years) 

Gantry crane 

3.550.000 € 

Spreader with 
gripper arms 

150.000 € 

Terminal truck 

150.000 € 

2 

2 

4 

7.100.000 € 

300.000 € 

600.000 € 

25 

10 

5 

552 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Equipment costs terminal 

Planning costs (20%) 

Investment costs 

Total equipment costs terminal per year 

Total 

Initial investment costs complete terminal and equipment incl. 
planning costs 

 8.000.000 €  

 1.600.000 €  

 9.600.000 €  

778.513 € 

 30.224.850 €  

Total investment costs complete terminal and equipment per year 

 2.172.212 €  

Total terminal handling capacity per year (transhipments) 

140.000 

Terminal maintenance costs 

Terminal Infrastructure 

Gantry crane 

Spreader with gripper arms 

Terminal truck 

Total maintenance costs per year 

Terminal energy consumption 

Percentage of investment 
(%) 

Total costs per year 

5 

2,8 

2,8 

2,8 

859.369 € 

198.800 € 

8.400 € 

21.000 € 

1.087.569 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption per 
transhipment 

Consumption 
per year 

Energy costs per 
year 

Infrastructure 

Electricity 

- 

65.901 kWh 

8.238 € 

Gantry Crane 

Electricity 

2,5 kWh 

350.000 kWh 

43.750 € 

Terminal truck 

Diesel 

1,2 l 

168.000 l 

Total energy costs per year  

Terminal energy costs range in EU 

Minimum value electricity costs 

Maximum value electricity costs 

Minimum value diesel costs 

Maximum value diesel costs 

Minimum value total energy costs 

Maximum value diesel energy costs 

Terminal personnel 

188.160 € 

240.148 € 

 154.981 €  

 229.933 €  

 179.358 €  

 305.303 €  

553 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
                                           
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Function 

Number of FTE 
working per shift 
(#) 

Number of FTE 
employed per 
year (#) 

Personnel costs 
per year for one 
employee 

Total personnel 
costs per year 

Checker  

Gate agent 

Handling equipment 
driver 

Terminal truck 
driver 

Instructor 
“Groundsman” 

Dispatcher 

1 

1 

2 

4 

1,5 

1 

3,5 

3,5 

7 

13,5 

5 

3,5 

 26.500 €  

 92.750 €  

 33.000 €  

 115.500 €  

 35.000 €  

 245.000 €  

 32.000 €  

 432.000 €  

 31.000 €  

 155.000 €  

 37.000 €  

 129.500 €  

Total terminal personnel costs per year 

1.355.000 € 

Terminal personnel costs range in EU 

Minimum value personnel costs 

Maximum value personnel costs 

Total area costs (5,00 €/m² per year) 

Alternative area costs (0 - 10,00 €/m² per year) 

Total costs per year 

Cost per transhipment for total terminal investment 

Operational costs per 
transhipment 

Personnel costs 

Energy costs 

Maintenance costs 

Total 

Ground costs per transhipment 

Total costs for one transhipment 

Total transhipment costs range in EU 

Minimum value total costs transhipment 

Maximum value total costs transhipment 

Loading unit investments and costs: 

Loading unit 

Unit costs  

 253.368 €  

 1.887.647 €  

312.500 € 

0,00 € - 599.100 € 

5.008.824 € 

15,80 € 

 8,36 €  

 1,72 €  

 7,77 €  

 17,84 €  

 2,14 €  

 35,78 €  

18,19 € 

50,68 € 

Depreciation 
time (years) 

Maintenance per 
year 

Costs per 
operating hour 

Semi-trailer non 
craneable 

26.000 € 

11 

780,00 € 

0,78 € 

554 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Main leg investments  

Equipment 

Unit costs  

Number of 
units (#) 

Total Costs   Depreciation 
time (years) 

Total costs per 
operating hour 

T3000e 

140.000 € 

Loco 

5.000.000 € 

19 

1 

2.660.000 € 

5.000.000 € 

Mobile and 
flexible 
loading 
device 

20.000 € 

32 

640.000 € 

Total main leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

Main leg equipment maintenance costs 

40 

40 

10 

30,76 € 

57,82 € 

29,33 € 

 8.300.000 €  

 117,90 €  

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Costs per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

T3000e 

Loco 

Mobile and flexible 
loading device 

5 

6 

3 

139.800 € 

300.000 € 

17.920 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Main leg energy consumption 

27,67 € 

62,50 € 

3,73 € 

93,90 € 

Consumer 

Energy type 

Consumption in 
kWh per ton-km 

Consumption per 
hour 

Costs per 
operating hour(€) 

Loco 

Electricity 

0,02 

1.402 kWh 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs main leg 

175,25 € 

175,25 € 

Cost type 

Costs per km 

Costs per operating hour 

Track access 

3,00 € 

Total other operational costs per operating hour 

Personnel costs main leg 

120 € 

120 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Train driver 

Train dispatcher 

Wagon inspector 

Road leg investments  

 35,38 €  

 32,43 €  

 35,38 €  

Equipment 

Unit costs 

Depreciation time (years)  Costs per operating hour 

555 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Truck 

100.000 € 

9 

Total road leg investment costs 

Total investment costs per operating hour 

3,83 € 

 100.000 €  

3,83 € 

Reasonable fleet size (truck/semi-trailer ratio) 

600 km 

1.000 km 

1:2,9 

1:4,2 

Road leg equipment maintenance costs 

1.000 km 

Equipment 

Percentage of 
investment (%) 

Total per year 

Costs per operating 
hour 

Truck 

10% 

10.000,00 € 

Total maintenance costs per operating hour 

Road leg energy consumption 

Consumer 

Energy type  Consumption per 

Truck 

Diesel 

Total energy costs per operating hour 

Other operational costs road leg 

100 km 

33 l 

Consumption per 
hour 

19,8 l 

2,86 € 

2,86 € 

Costs per 
operating hour 

22,18 € 

22,18 € 

Cost type 

Tolls 

Personnel costs road leg 

Costs per km 

Costs per leg 

0,187 € 

11,22 € 

Function 

Costs per operating hour 

Truck driver 

Truck dispatcher 

Total costs 600 km/1.000 km transport 

First road leg 

First transhipment 

450 km main leg 

850 km main leg 

Second transhipment 

Second road leg 

LU costs transport chain 600 km main leg 

LU costs transport chain 1.000 km main leg 

 22,11 €  

 24,32 €  

Total 

Total 

Per LU 

2.805 € 

87,66 € 

1.145 € 

35,78 € 

7.027 € 

219,60 € 

12.614 € 

394,18 € 

1.145 € 

35,78 € 

2.669 € 

83,42 € 

437 € 

13,66 € 

675 € 

21,09 € 

Intermodal organizational costs 600 km main leg (25%) 

3.807,13 € 

118,97 € 

556 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Intermodal organizational costs 1.000 km main leg (25%) 

5.263,18 € 

164,47 € 

Grand total 600 km 

Grand total 1.000 km 

Costs range in EU 

Minimum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 600 km transport in EU 

Minimum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

Maximum value costs range 1.000 km transport in EU 

15.229 € 

594,86 € 

21.053 € 

822,37 € 

559,69 € 

624,67 € 

787,20 € 

852,18 € 

External costs 

First road leg 

 First transhipment 

Main leg 

Second transhipment  

Second road leg 

Full transport chain per LU 

Total 

Per LU 

75 km 

 2.783 €  

 86,96 €  

450 km 

850 km 

75 km 

600 km 

1.000 km 

 13 €  

 0,40 €  

 8.675 €  

 271,09 €  

 16.386 €  

 512,06 €  

 13 €  

 0,40 €  

 2.783 €  

 86,96 €  

 14.240 €  

 445,80 €  

 21.951 €  

 686,77 €  

7.2 Annex  2:  analysis  of  the  corridor  studies  update  2  (spring  2021)  with  regard  to 

identified ten-t core network capacity problems 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 558 

BALTIC-ADRIATIC CORRIDOR ................................................................................. 558 

NORTH SEA-BALTIC CORRIDOR .............................................................................. 560 

MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR .................................................................................. 560 

ORIENT – EAST MED CORRIDOR ............................................................................. 561 

SCANDINAVIAN-MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR ........................................................ 561 

RHINE-ALPINE CORRIDOR ...................................................................................... 563 

ATLANTIC CORRIDOR.............................................................................................. 564 

NORTH SEA-MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR .............................................................. 564 

RHINE-DANUBE CORRIDOR ..................................................................................... 564 

557 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

INTRODUCTION 

This annex includes the study finding from the following sources of information: 

•  Corridor Study update 2 from all nine core network corridors, European Commission, 

2021. 

•  Transport and infrastructure connectivity bottleneck analysis for the stretch Oslo ‐ 

Hamburg, STRING network, 2021. 

•  Corridor alignment descriptions from the respective corridor descriptions on 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure. 

BALTIC-ADRIATIC CORRIDOR 

The  Baltic-Adriatic  Corridor  crosses  six  Member  States  (Poland,  Czech  Republic,  Slovak 
Republic,  Austria,  Italy  and  Slovenia)  and  connects  the  Baltic  ports  of  Gdynia/Gdańsk  and 
Szczecin/Świnoujście in Poland with the ports in the Adriatic basin, Trieste, Venezia, Ravenna, 
Ancona, Koper. 

For ports the corridor study reveals the following capacity issues in connection with the rail 
and road modes of transport: 

•  Gdynia, Gdańsk and at the Adriatic ports: Initiatives to expand capacity in view of 

future traffic increase are foreseen or already ongoing for railway transport; 

•  Baltic ports, Venezia, Ravenna, Ancona and Koper: Initiatives to expand capacity in 
view of future traffic increase are foreseen or already ongoing for road transport. 
•  Venezia and Ravenna (IT): Due to their location within or in the proximity of urban 

• 

nodes, measures to reduce/mitigate the impact of rail traffic either at present or in the 
future are also required. 
In the latter ports as well as in Gdynia, Szczecin, Świnoujście, Ancona and Koper: 
solutions to mitigate the impact of road transport on the respective urban areas are 
also needed. 

•  For all Baltic-Adriatic Corridor seaports last mile railway and/or road port 
interconnections issues are present and limit the growth of the ports. 

•  Ports on the Baltic Sea, except in Gdańsk as well as in Ancona in the Adriatic: Works 

to increase the standards of the road links are envisaged.  

An  overview  of  the  issues  affecting  rail  last  mile  connections,  including  capacity  issues,  is 
shown in the following pictures: 

558 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Figure 43: Issues affecting rail last mile connections, including capacity issues 

Figure 44: Issues affecting road last mile connections 

With regard to rail infrastructure, the following necessary, planned or on-going measures to 
increase the rail infrastructure capacity were identified; thus it can be expected that today such 
capacity constraints exist: 

•  Koper – Ljubljana (SI): Increase capacity, fulfil the following minimum technical 

parameters: axle load of 22.5 tonnes, train length of 740 metres, ERTMS and 
electrification. The basis for project speed is up to 160 km/h for passenger transport 
and up to 100 km/h for freight transport; 

559 

 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Section Maribor – Šentilj (SI): Construction of the second track; compliance with 
TEN-T standards to be achieved; sufficient axle load and capacity to be ensured, 
train length of 740 m, deployment of ERTMS; 

•  Přerov – Ostrava (CZ): Start the construction of high-speed railway lines, solving also 

current capacity problems; 

•  Brno – Ostrava-Katowice (CZ): The Přerov – Ostrava section will be a new 

construction, as the existing line is already overloaded in terms of capacity. The 
section Brno-Přerov will be built as a line for long-distance passenger, freight and 
suburban transport; 

•  Main railway junctions (especially Praha, Brno, then also Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem 
and others): The capacity of railway junctions may occur significant limiting factor in 
the development of the High-speed railway system, and solutions are often very 
expensive. 

As concerns rail/road terminals, the following issue could be identified: 

•  Capacity constraints at the Poznań (PL) railway bypass and Bratislava (SK) railway 

node and local urban road accessibility and traffic in Poznań, Warszawa and 
Wrocław (PL). 

NORTH SEA-BALTIC CORRIDOR 

The North Sea-Baltic Corridor consists of 5.947 km of railways, 4.029 km of roads, and 2.186 
km of inland waterways and connects the ports of the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea with 
ports of the North Sea, situated in Northern Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. 

For the rail infrastructure, the following capacity problem was identified on this corridor: 

• 

In Germany and Belgium there is a number of capacity bottlenecks that are not 
expected to be solved by 2030. These are located at Antwerp, Bremen, the area 
around Braunschweig and to the west of Berlin. 

The corridor study identified the following capacity issue for the road network: 

•  Latvia: the Via Baltica is a two-lane road with capacity problems between the Riga 

bypass and Bauska, where some sections require widening the road from two lanes 
to four (including the construction of bypasses). The capacity of this Polish-
Lithuanian section is also to be considered to be a bottleneck for the main city 
bypasses. A noticeable problem on this road section is the safety question due to 
heavy road use and road safety. 

MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR 

The  Mediterranean  Corridor  is  the  main  east-west  axis  in the  TEN-T  Network  south  of  the 
Alps.  It  runs  between  the  south-western  Mediterranean  region  of  Spain  and  the  Ukrainian 
border  with  Hungary,  following  the  coastlines  of  Spain  and  France  and  crossing  the  Alps 
towards the east through Italy, Slovenia and Croatia and continuing through Hungary up to its 
eastern border with Ukraine. 

The following capacity problems were identified from the corridor study for the rail mode of 
transport on this corridor: 

560 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Koper – Ljubljana (SI): increase capacity, fulfil the following minimum technical 

parameters: axle load of 22.5 tonnes, train length of 740 metres, ERTMS and 
electrification (same as for Baltic-Adriatic Corridor); 

•  Zidani Most – Dobova (SI): to comply with TEN-T standards upgrades have top be 
undertaken on the corridor with regard to sufficient axle load, speed, electrification, 
and capacity. An upgrade is required relating to the length of trains (740 m) and 
deployment of ERTMS. The line should allow speeds up to 160 km/h for passenger 
transport and up to 100 km/h for freight transport, upgrading of the line to achieve 
higher speeds (same as for Baltic-Adriatic Corridor). 

ORIENT – EAST MED CORRIDOR 

The  Orient/East-Med  Corridor  connects  large  parts  of  Central  Europe  with  the  ports  of  the 
North, Baltic, Black and Mediterranean Seas. The corridor incorporates the Elbe River as a 
key inland waterway  and  will  improve multimodal  connections  between Northern Germany, 
the Czech Republic, the Pannonian region and South-eastern Europe. The corridor will also 
provide an improved link to Cyprus. 

No specific capacity issues were identified in the corridor study. 

SCANDINAVIAN-MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR 

The Scandinavian-Mediterranean Corridor encompasses seven EU Member States (Finland, 
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Italy and Malta) and one Member State of the European 
Economic Area, Norway. It is the largest of the corridors in terms of core network length – with 
a network of more than 11,900 km of core rail and more than 8,400 km of core road – together 
with 30 core ports, 20 core airports, 31 core intermodal terminals and 21 core urban nodes, 
when considering the alignment according to the CEF-II proposal. 

Because  a  detailed  analysis  of capacity  issues was recently  conducted as part  of  STRING 
project for the stretch Oslo ‐ Hamburg (STRING network, 2021), information from the corridor 
study was supplemented with the results of this bottleneck analysis. 

The following capacity problems were identified for rail on this corridor: 

•  Ny Ellebjerg Station (København, DK)”: Project ongoing that eases the bottleneck at 
Ny Ellebjerg St. enabling more trains to pass from the Roskilde Line to the Øresund 
Line and vice versa. The Øresund Line can hereby be operated with several direct 
trains bypassing Copenhagen Central Station where capacity is currently being used 
to the limit. 

•  Moss (NO): Limited capacity in Moss 
•  Älvängen –Gothenburg, Gothenburg – Kungsbacka (SE): Capacity issues in and 

around Gothenburg hub including Central station 
•  Halmstadt Railway station (SE): Limited capacity 
•  Lund – Flackarp – Arlöv (SE): Two-track railway, but limited capacity 
•  Öresund bridge land connection (SE/DK): Insufficient capacity on the Öresund Fixed 

Link land connections 

•  Kalvebod – Peberholm (SE/DK): Part of Öresund Fixed Link, insufficient rail capacity 

foreseen for the future 

•  Vordingborg - Nykobing Falster (DK): Only single-track 
•  Fehmarn Belt (DK/DE): no fixed link, limited capacity on ferry (not running currently) 

561 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

•  Fehmarn Sound Bridge (DE): Limited capacity of the existing Fehmarn Sound Bridge 

cause by capacity issues in the hinterland connection from and to the Fehmarn Belt 
Fixed Link. 

•  Bad Oldesloe – Hamburg (DE): Limited rail track capacity between Bad Oldesloe and 

Hamburg 

•  Elmshorn – Hamburg (DE): Limited capacity between Elmshorn and Hamburg 
•  Hamburg main and Altona station (DE): Hamburg main station and Altona station are 

over 100 years old and no longer able to cope with the increasing traffic 

With regard to road infrastructure capacity, the following issues were identified: 

•  Malmö – Helsingborg (SE): Partial capacity issues exist, sensitive for incidents 
•  Vellinge – Trelleborg (SE): Only a 2-lane road leads through Trelleborg to the port, 

which limits port and logistic centre development 

•  Kalvebod Bridge (SE/DK): Bridge with 2 x 2 lanes and annual traffic at 110,000 

vehicles is at maximum capacity 

•  Copenhagen Eastern Ring Road (DK): A feasibility study is finalised analysing how a 
ring road can relieve traffic congestion. Can possibly add more traffic to the STRING 
corridor and strain capacity elsewhere 

•  Fredericia – Kolding (DK): 2x2 lane motorway. Peak hour congestions. EIA for 

widening to 6/8 lanes has been carried out, but funding not yet provided 
•  Odense SØ –Odense V (DK): 2x2 motorway. Peak hour congestion. EIA and 

Construction Act has been approved. Funding not yet provided 

•  Odense V – Middelfart (DK): 2x2 lane motorway currently being widened to 3x3. 

Complete in 2022. Peak hour congestions 

•  Little Belt (SK) The current motorway bridge across Little Belt carries just under 

90.000 vehicles per day (weekdays, 2019) and peak hour congestion is expected to 
increase in near future 

•  Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link (DK/DE): Currently only ferry link 
•  Fehmarn Sound Bridge (DE): Limited capacity of the existing Fehmarn Sound Bridge 

as hinterland connection from and to the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link. 

•  Hamburg (DE): Limited capacity at the motorway A7 as it is used by both 

commuter/local and long-distance traffic north of Hamburg 

•  Hamburg (DE): Permitted traffic intensity of motorway A7 south of Elbe Tunnel is 

exceeded by 31% 

•  Hamburg (DE): The motorway A1 between the triangle-junction Hamburg-Southeast 

and Hamburg-Harburg is already highly frequented and much more traffic is 
forecasted 

•  Hamburg (DE): Prolongation of motorway A26 to connect A7 and A1 needed to 

improve connectivity of port, relieve inner city traffic 

•  Hamburg (DE): Koehlbrandbrücke, an important connection to the port, is old and 

can no longer cope with the increasing heavy weight traffic 

For the intermodal terminals and marshalling yards, we could identify the following bottlenecks 
on the corridor: 

•  Malmö Kombiterminal (SE): Already at full capacity 
•  Marshalling yards in region Skåne (Malmö and Helsingborg, SE): Already at full 

capacity 

•  Lübeck Skandinavienkai (DE): Already at full capacity 

562 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

The following capacity issues for the ports could be identified, however Gothenburg, Malmö 
and Trelleborg have generally excellent ports and port terminals. Accessibility to the ports is 
very good for Gothenburg and Malmö. 

•  Trelleborg (SE): port accessibility needs to be improved. 

RHINE-ALPINE CORRIDOR 

The  Rhine-Alpine  Corridor  stretches  from  the  northern  seaports  in  the  Netherlands  and 
Belgium  to  the  Mediterranean  basin  in  Genoa  right  through  most  of  the  important  and 
economically strong urban regions of Europe. Countries directly involved are the Netherlands, 
Belgium,  Germany,  Switzerland,  Northern  Italy  and  the  eastern  part  of  France,  namely  the 
Strasbourg area and Luxembourg (Moselle). 

The following capacity problems were identified on this corridor for IWW: 

•  Neckar river (DE): Upgrades are necessary to accommodate large barges with 135m 

in length (11.4m wide, 2.8m draught). 

•  Plochingen (DE): Additional port area is needed to increase capacity 
•  Moselle river (DE): Due to the increasing traffic of larger barges on the river, lock 
capacity is lacking and limiting the operational volume. New lock chambers are 
needed between Koblenz and Trier in Germany to adjust to demand. 

For rail, current and expected capacity limitations are reported with respect to: 

•  Northern feeder lines for new trans-alpine tunnels Gotthard and Ceneri, in particular 

in the upper Rhine valley (“Karlsruhe – Basel”); 

•  DE/NL-border to Ruhr-area (“Emmerich – Oberhausen”) 
•  Nodes of Antwerpen, Gent, Brussels, Liége Cologne, Basel 

Several issues on the road network - especially around urban nodes – are mentioned in the 
Rhine-Alpine Corridor Study due to increasing traffic volumes meeting an already fully utilized 
infrastructure  capacity  for  road  traffic.  The  compliance  map  highlights  these  bottlenecks  in 
capacity and sections where peak-hour congestion is expected on the motorway network in 
2030. 

For  a  variety  of  rail/road  terminals  capacity  bottlenecks  were  identified  in  different  federal 
states/terminal areas in the corridor study. Several projects were postponed due to the impact 
of the COVID-19 crisis. Nevertheless, increased terminal handling capacity is required for a 
variety of areas in different federal states, according to estimated mid- and long-term market 
needs. More detailed information on the concerned areas can be found in the previous update 
on  the  corridor  studies.  An  assessment  of  necessary  capacity  upgrades  in  Germany  is 
currently  on-going  in the  framework  of  the  evaluation  of  the  German  funding  regulation  for 
intermodal  terminals,  and  it  is  expected  that  additional  terminal  capacity  to  cope  with  the 
increasing demand is required until 2030. 

563 

 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

ATLANTIC CORRIDOR 

The Atlantic Corridor stretches from the ports of the Iberian Peninsula to the port of Le Havre 
in  Northern  France,  and  the  cities  of  Strasbourg  and  Mannheim  near  the  French/German 
border. 

The following capacity problems were identified for seaports and the maritime infrastructure 
on this corridor: 

•  Port of Leixões (PT): Bottlenecks, which are related with the urgent need to enhance 
capacity (access channels and berths) for both terminals and storage areas, to cope 
with increasing international traffic and enhanced size of vessels. 

Rail: 

•  From and to Iberian Peninsula: A missing link hampering the corridor and the 

network. The alternative routes for traffic to and from the Iberian Peninsula are 
currently insufficient to move freight via rail: the existing conventional line from Spain 
up to Bordeaux has insufficient capacity and needs upgrading. 

NORTH SEA-MEDITERRANEAN CORRIDOR 

The fundamental change for the current phase of the study is the adoption of a new definition 
of  the  corridor,  following  the  UK’s  exit  from  the  EU  in  January  2020,  the  end  of  the  Brexit 
transition period (up to 31st December 2020), and from the revision of the Connecting Europe 
Facility  (CEF)  legislation.  Under  the  new  definitions,  the  main  North-South  route  from 
Amsterdam to Marseille is kept intact, as is the Paris-Amsterdam branch, but now there is a 
maritime  connection  between  Ireland  and  the  ports  in  the  Le-Havre-Amsterdam  range. 
Additionally, there are inland sections added in France and Ireland, incorporating the ports of 
Rouen, Le Havre, and Shannon-Foynes. Into the core network 

No specific capacity issues were identified from the corridor study. 

RHINE-DANUBE CORRIDOR 

The  Rhine-Danube  Corridor  provides  the  main  east-west  link  across  continental  Europe. 
Tracing its route along the Danube River, it connects Strasbourg and Southern Germany with 
the European cities of Vienna, Bratislava and Budapest, before passing through the Romanian 
capital Bucharest to culminate at the Black Sea port of Constanta. A second branch of the 
corridor  tracks  a  path  from  Frankfurt  to  the  Slovakian/Ukrainian  border,  linking  Munich, 
Prague, Zilina and Kosice. 

No specific capacity issues were identified from the corridor study. 

564 

 
 
 
 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

7.3 Annex 3: Result from the industry assessment and ten-t cnc 2021 project list.  

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

RESULTS FROM THE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT .................................................... 566 

TEN-T CNC 2021 PROJECT LIST – CHAPTER 4.7 ................................................. 567 

TEN-T CNC PROJECT LIST 2021 – CHAPTER 4.10 ............................................... 578 

565 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL 
TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

RESULTS FROM THE INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT 

Table 82: Results from the industry assessment carried out by European Commission 

Member 
States 
AT 
BE 
BU 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
EL 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LU 
LV 
LT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SK 
SI 
SP 

TET-
Tec 

RINF 

Case 
studies 

Other 
sources 

Industry 
assessment 

Final % 

80    
82    
8 

27 
31    

78    

97 
78 
7 
20    
96    
92    

67    

79    

36 

46 
36    

59    
99    
48    

0    
89    

20    

42    

100    
4    

82    

No problems 
No problems 

No problems 

99    

No problems 
No problems 

100    

No problems 
No problems 
No problems 
No problems 

No problems 
100  No problems 
No problems 
No problems 

97 
82 
95 
95 
96 
92 
95 

99 

95 
95 
42 
100 
95 
95 
 100 
95 

95 
100 
99 
100 
4 

566 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

TEN-T CNC 2021 PROJECT LIST – CHAPTER 4.7 

Table 83: TEN-T CNC 2021 Project List – Task 3.7 Cost analysis 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Brenner base 
tunnel (BBT) 

Galleria di Base 
del Brennero - 
Brenner 
Basistunnel BBT 
SE 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

AT/ IT 

Innsbruck 
(AT) - 
Fortezza (IT) 

Cross-border railway 
tunnel between 
Innsbruck (Austria) and 
Fortezza (Italy).  

Brno - 
Blažovice: 
railway 
modernization 
to 200 km/h 

HSR Dresden - 
Praha (part 
border - Usti 
nad Labem) 

HSR Dresden - 
Praha (part 
Lovosice / 
Litomerice - 
Praha) 

Railway 
Infrastructure 
Administration, 
state 
organization 
(Správa 
železnic) 

Railway 
Infrastructure 
Administration, 
state 
organization 
(Správa 
železnic) 

Railway 
Infrastructure 
Administration, 
state 
organization 
(Správa 
železnic) 

Baltic-Adriatic 

CZ 

Brno - 
Holubice 
(HS) 

Upgrade of railway track 
to high speed track. 

Orient-East Med  CZ 

Usti nad 
Labem - 
State Border 
DE/CZ 

Orient-East Med  CZ 

Lovosice / 
Litomerice - 
Praha 

Construction of a high 
speed rail between 
Dresden and Prague 
(section from CZ/DE 
border to Usti nad 
Labem), optimization of 
the line and connection 
of CR to the HSR 
network. 

Construction of a high 
speed rail between 
Dresden and Prague 
(section from Lovosice / 
Litomerice to Prague), 
optimization of the line 

Electrification,  
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

Electrification,  
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones   
Train length ≥ 740m  

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 
Train length ≥ 740m  

Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones,  
Train length ≥ 740 m 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

12/2004 

12/2028 

7067,00 

04/2026 

09/2030 

365,73 

01/2026 

12/2037 

2500,00 

01/2025 

12/2030 

2000,00 

567 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

New Rail Line 
Dresden - Praha 
(Section 
Heidenau - 
State Border 
DE/CZ) 

Construction of 
new single 
railway line 
Kalambaka- 
Ioannina – 
Igoumenitsa  

BMVI (DB Netz)  Orient-East Med  DE 

and connection of CR to 
the HSR network. 

Dresden - 
Prag (only 
German 
part) 

Construction of a new 
rail line including 
Erzgebirge tunnel.  

01/2020 

12/2035 

1541,00 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

OSE S.A. 

Orient-East Med  EL 

Ioannina – 
Kalambaka, 
Igoumenit a 
- Ioannina 

12/2030 

01/2025 

Construction of the new 
single railway line 
(V=160 km/h), with two-
way signalling, 
telecommanding and 
electrification, 
connecting the 
Igoumenitsa port with 
the remaining railway 
network in Kalambaka 
(global project).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

1729,00 

Connection to 
the Rubí 
Operations 
Center and 
Workshop 

Ferrocarrils 
Generalitat 
de 
Catalunya (FGC) 

Mediterranean 

ES 

Castellbisbal 
agujas 
Llobregat - 
Bif. Nudo 
Mollet 

Connection of the line of 
FGC El Vallès to the 
Castellbisbal - Mollet 
section of the 
Mediterranean Corridor 
and specifically the FGC 
Operations Center of 
Rubí (maintenance 
services). 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm,  
Intermodal gauge 

04/2018 

12/2023 

12,50 

568 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Modernization of 
railway access 
to the port 
(electrification, 
P 400 gauge, 
ERTMS) 

Extension of 
multimodal 
Strasbourg 
South terminal 
(works) 

Treviglio – 
Brescia: 
Construction of 
a new HS line  

Brescia - 
Verona: 
Construction of 
a new HS line 

New HS line 
Vicenza - 
Padova 

Port  Autonome 
de Strasbourg 

Atlantic,  
North Sea-
MediterraneanR
hine-Danube 

FR 

Strasbourg 

Port  Autonome 
de Strasbourg 

Rhine-Alpine, 
 Atlantic,  
North Sea-
MediterraneanR
hine-Danube 

FR 

Strasbourg 

Study and Work on the 
upgrade of the south 
railway access to the 
port (electrification, P400 
gauge, ERTMS, 
maintenance of railway 
line). 

Works on the extension 
of the multimodal 
Strasbourg south 
terminal. 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean 

IT 

Treviglio – 
Brescia  

New HS line between 
Treviglio and Brescia 
(comprehends PRG and 
ACC Brescia) 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean 

IT 

Brescia - 
Verona 

New HS line between 
Brescia and Verona  

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean 

IT 

Vicenza - 
Padova (HS) 

New HS section (26 km), 
the intersection with the 
existing line will be 
realized through two 
interconnections in 
Vicenza and Padova. 
Resolution of physical 
bottleneck 

Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation 

01/2023 

12/2025 

10,00 

Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation 

08/2023 

12/2028 

40,00 

05/2011 

12/2018 

2050,00 

07/2018 

07/2028 

3430,00 

unknown  > 2030 

1316,00 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 

569 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Maas system/ 
Platform for 
intermodality 
and integrated 
mobility from/to 
Airport 

Upgrading of 
the railway link 
to the port of 
Ravenna  

Bologna Airport   Baltic-Adriatic,  
Mediterranean,  
Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT 

Bologna 
Airport 

RFI S.p.A. 

Baltic-Adriatic,  
Mediterranean  

IT 

Ravenna 
Port 

New HS line 
Verona -  
Vicenza 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean 

IT 

Verona-
Vicenza (HS) 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean 

IT 

Torino node 

Upgrading of 
the national line 
sections in 
connection with 
the New line 
Turin-Lyon: 
(Bussoleno-

Bologna Airport will work 
on extension of the MaaS 
to a Regional MaaS, 
including other transport 
modes available (taxi / 
bike sharing / etc), all to 
be integrated in the 
existing ROGER app.   
(Costs: 2,20, Timing: 
2022-2024. Financing: 
own funds) 

Railway works on tracks 
connected to the port 
area. 
Elimination of the road 
interference in Via 
Canele Molinetto and 
upgrade to gabarit P/C80 
of the link. Resolution of 
a physical bottleneck 

New HS section Verona - 
Bivio Vicenza 
 (50km), it will run in 
parallel to the 
conventional line and the 
A4 highway;  

Connection of Torino belt 
to the new line Torino‐
Lione, priority 
interventions: line 
section Avigliana‐
Orbassano and Torino 
Orbassano marshalling 
yards (1^ phase) 
Upgrade existing 

Intermodal gauge 

12/2022 

12/2024 

0,20 

Intermodal gauge,  
Train length ≥ 740m 

12/2017 

12/2026 

77,10 

09/2020 

12/2028 

3945,00 

03/2022  > 2030 

1900,15 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 
Train length ≥ 740m  

570 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Avigliana-
Orbassano) 

Railway works 
inside and 
outside the port 
area of Trieste 

Firenze node - 
HS Railway by-
pass and 
Belfiore HS 
station     

RFI S.p.A. 

Baltic-Adriatic,  
Mediterranean  

IT 

Trieste Port 

RFI S.p.A. 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT 

Firenze 

conventional line 
(Bussoleno-Avigliana) 

Upgrading of Trieste 
Campo Marzio station 
(PRG and ACC) and of 
the railway line “Linea di 
cintura” to Campo 
Marzio/Trieste Aquilinia. 
Intermodal integration. 
Upgrading Trieste 
Servola e Trieste 
Aquilinia ( PRG ed ACC) 

Upgrading Firenze HS 
node (including 
construction of the new 
HS station Firenze 
Belfiore) 

Intermodal gauge,  
Train length ≥ 740m 

09/2017 

12/2026 

112,00 

07/2001 

12/2024 

1612,06 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
 Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h 

571 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Upgrade to 
P/C80 gauge of 
CNC lines 

RFI S.p.A. 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT 

Various lines  Upgrading of the railway 

Intermodal gauge 

04/2015 

12/2030 

530,00* 

line to P/C80 gauge for 
the lines: 
Bologna – Firenze; 
(Firenze) - Pisa - La 
Spezia; 
Bologna - Ancona + 
(Ancona - Foggia) + 
Foggia – Taranto; 
Faenza/CastelBolognese 
– Ravenna; 
Pisa - Civitavecchia - 
Roma (not on CNC line); 
Taranto - Paola - 
Rosarno - Gioia Tauro 
(not on CNC line); 
Roma – Napoli – Via 
Cassino ( not on CNC 
line); 
Napoli – Rosarno (Gioia 
Tauro); 
Roma – Pomezia; 
Milano – Piacenza – 
Bologna( Not on CNC 
line); 
Rosarno (Gioia Tauro) – 
Villa San Giovanni; 
Messina – Catania – 
Bicocca; 

Rail connection 
Napoli - Foggia 
- Bari 

RFI S.p.A. 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT 

Napoli - Bari  Construction of a HS/HC 

railway connection 
between Napoli and Bari.  

Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

11/2018 

06/2027 

5523,60 

572 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Rail connection 
Napoli - Foggia 
- Bari 

RFI S.p.A. 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT 

Napoli - Bari  Construction of a HS/HC 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

05/2008 

06/2017 

263,40 

03/2014 

12/2028 

1521,60 

11/2022 

08/2035 

3404,40 

Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
 Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 
Train length ≥ 740m  

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
 Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

railway connection 
between Napoli and Bari 
(Infrastructure and 
technological upgrading 
on section belonging to 
the line Caserta-Foggia: 
doubling of the section 
Bovino-Cervaro) 

Upgrading of Brennero 
southern access lines: 
- quadrupling Fortezza-
Ponte Gardena (lotto 1 - 
including ACC and PRG di 
Ponte Gardena) 

Upgrading of Brennero 
Southern access lines 
(Fortezza - Verona): 
- Bolzano bypass (lotto 
2) 
- Trento and Rovereto 
bypass (lotto 3) 
- Northern access to 
Verona node (section 
Pescantina - Verona) 
(lotto 4) 

RFI S.p.A. 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT 

Fortezza - 
Verona 

RFI S.p.A. 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT 

Fortezza - 
Verona 

Southern access 
line to Brenner; 
Lotto/lot 1: 
Fortezza/Franze
nfeste - Ponte 
Gardena/Waidbr
uck 

Southern access 
line to Brenner; 
Lotto/lot 2-4: 
Bolzano/Bozen; 
Trento/Trient; 
Pescantina - 
Verona 

Upgrade to 
PC80 loading 
gauge on 
railway access 
from Novara to 
Domodossola e 
from Milano to 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean,  
Rhine-Alpine 

IT 

Domodossol
a - 
Novara/Mila
no 
Chiasso - 
Milano 

Upgrading to PC80 
loading gauge of the 
railway connecting line 
to the passes (Gottardo 
via Chiasso and 
Sempione via Arona) 

Intermodal gauge 

03/2014 

12/2028 

231,30 

573 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Chiasso/Domod
ossola 

Nodo di 
Milano 

Upgrading of 
Novara Node 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean,  
Rhine-Alpine 

IT 

Novara node 

03/2023 

06/2027 

183,10 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
Train length ≥ 740m  

Phase 1) Terminal 
Upgrading. 
Phase 2) Completion of 
planned works in 
Vignale, Boschetto and 
“Novara Centrale”. 
Development of traffic 
management system.  
Resolution of physical 
bottlenecks. 

Upgrade to 4 
tracks on the 
section Pavia - 
Milano Rogoredo 

Upgrade to 
PC80 loading 
gauge on 
railway access 
from 
Milano/Novara 
to Genova 

Nodo di Genova 
e Terzo valico 
dei Giovi 

RFI S.p.A. 

Rhine-Alpine 

IT 

Pavia - 
Milano 
Rogoredo 

Upgrade to 4 tracks 
between Milano 
Rogoredo and Pavia (26 
km), with the 
construction of the Pieve 
Emanuele station.  

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 

07/2022 

03/2028 

900,00 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean,  
Rhine-Alpine 

IT 

Novara - 
Alessandria -  
Novi Ligure 
Milano - 
Pavia - 
Tortona  

Upgrade to PC80 loading 
gauge of the connecting 
line to the Terzo Valico 
from Novara and Milano 
to Genova. 

Intermodal gauge 

01/2019 

12/2024 

35,80 

RFI S.p.A. 

Mediterranean,  
Rhine-Alpine 

IT 

Genova node 
-
Tortona/Novi 
Ligure 

1. Project “Voltri-
Brignole Infrastructural 
Upgrading”. 
2. High speed railway 
link “Terzo valico dei 
Giovi”. 
3. Campasso station 
upgrade and Campasso-

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
 Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  

01/2010 

12/2026 

6853,03 

574 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Port connection 
restoration. 

Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones,  
Train length ≥ 740m 

New rail link 
between Livorno 
Darsena and 
Interporto 
Guasticce 

Cross-border 
section of new 
Lyon Turin 
railway line 

Works on main 
passenger lines 
(E 30 and E 65) 
in Śląsk area, 
phase I: line E 
65, section 
Będzin – 
Katowice – 
Tychy – 
Czechowice 
Dziedzice – 

RFI S.p.A. 

Scandinavian-
Mediterranean 

IT  

Livorno 

Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge 

06/2019 

12/2021 

27,00 

New rail link which 
allows a direct 
connection between 
Livorno Darsena and 
Interporto Guasticce with 
an overpass of Tirrenica 
railway line 

TELT 

Mediterranean 

IT, FR 

PKP Polskie Linie 
Kolejowe S.A.  

Baltic-Adriatic 

PL 

FR/IT Border  The project regards: the 
base tunnel, the railway 
stations of Susa and 
Saint Jean de Maurienne 
will be built and the 
interconnections with 
existing railway lines.  
The realization of this 
railway link will meet all 
the TEN-T technical 
requirements. 

Warszawa - 
Katowice -
state border 
(towards 
Ostrava) 

Complex modernisation 
of dual track electrified 
lines on sections Most 
Wisła - Czechowice 
Dziedzice - Zabrzeg 
including Czechowice 
Dziedzice station. The 
Action is a part of the 
project on the Będzin - 
Zebrzydowice section. 

01/2017 

12/2029 

8609,70 

Electrification,  
Track gauge 1435 mm, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones. 

Intermodal gauge,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones,  
Train length ≥ 740 m 

10/2019 

09/2023 

336,08 

575 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Zebrzydowice; 
lot C 

Rehabilitation + 
new line of 
Railway line 
Craiova - 
Caransebes 
(226 km) 

Romanian 
National 
Railways 
Company  “CFR” 
S.A. 

Orient-East 
Med,  
Rhine-Danube 

RO 

Craiova - 
Caransebes 

Modernisation/ 
Rehabilitation 
rail line 
Caransebeș - 
Timișoara 
(93,72 km) 

Romanian 
National 
Railways 
Company  “CFR” 
S.A. 

Orient-East 
Med,  
Rhine-Danube 

RO 

Caransebes - 
Timisoara 

Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

09/2022 

12/2026 

2.424,57
* 

06/2022 

07/2025 

804,12* 

Electrification, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones  
Train length ≥ 740m  

Increase of the 
maximum designed 
speeds from 120 
km/hour to 160 km/hour 
for passenger trains and 
120 km/hour for freight 
trains);  
full interoperability 
through the 
implementation of 
technical specifications 
for interoperability; 
upgraded electrification 
along the length (in 25 
kV power system) and 
improved facilities for 
people with reduced 
mobility. 

Increase of the 
maximum designed 
speeds from 120 
km/hour to 160 km/hour 
for passenger trains and 
120 km/hour for freight 
trains);  
full interoperability 
through the 
implementation of 
technical specifications 
for interoperability; 
upgraded electrification 
along the length (in a 25 
kV power system) and 
improved facilities for 

576 

 
 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

Modernisation/ 
Rehabilitation 
rail line 
Timișoara - 
Arad (68,72 
km) 

Romanian 
National 
Railways 
Company  “CFR” 
S.A. 

Orient-East 
Med,  
Rhine-Danube 

RO 

Timisoara - 
Arad 

06/2022 

07/2025 

978,39* 

Electrification, 
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge, 
ERTMS implementation, 
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h, 
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones 
Train length ≥ 740m  

people with reduced 
mobility.  

Increase of the 
maximum designed 
speeds from 120 
km/hour to 160 km/hour 
for passenger trains and 
120 km/hour for freight 
trains); full 
interoperability through 
the implementation of 
technical specifications 
for interoperability; 
upgraded electrification 
along the length (in 25 
kV power system); 
improved facilities for 
people with reduced 
mobility. 

Modernizing and 
rehabilitation of 
TEN-T corridor 
network on RO 
territory, 
section Predeal-
Brasov 

Romanian 
National 
Railways 
Company  “CFR” 
S.A. 

Railway line 
modernisation 
Bucureşti-
Videle-Roşiori-
Caracal-Craiova 

Romanian 
National 
Railways 
Company  “CFR” 
S.A. 

Rhine-Danube 

RO 

Brasov - 
Predeal 

Rhine-Danube 

RO 

Bucuresti - 
Craiova 

Measures included the 
rehabilitation and new 
construction for 
maximum speed of 160 
km/h, signalling 
improvements and 
ERTMS.   

Electrification,  
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones,  
Train length ≥ 740m 

Increase of the 
maximum designed 
speeds from 120 
km/hour to 160 km/hour 
for passenger trains and 
120 km/hour for freight 
trains) and rehabilitation 
for existing double-
tracks electrified railway 
on 74.73 km;  

Electrification,  
Structure gauge,  
Intermodal gauge,  
ERTMS implementation,  
Line speed ≥ 100 km/h,  
Axle load ≥ 22.5 tones,  
Train length ≥ 740m 

03/2023 

03/2027 

497,42* 

09/2024 

09/2028 

2.265,76
* 

577 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section or 
Node 

Description 

KPI target achieved 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end 
date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

full interoperability 
through the 
implementation of 
technical specifications 
for interoperability; 
upgraded electrification 
along the length (in a 25 
kV power system) and 
improved facilities for 
people with reduced 
mobility. 

TEN-T CNC PROJECT LIST 2021 – CHAPTER 4.10 

Table 3: TEN-T CNC 2021 Project List – Task 3.10 Capacity growth trend analysis 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section  or 
Node 

Description 

Terminal  Graz 
Süd Expansion 

Steiermärkische 
Landesbahnen  / 
Cargo-Center-
Graz 

Baltic-Adriatic 

AT 

Graz 
Werndorf 
Railroad 
Terminal 

Trimodal Port of 
Linz - Rail 
connection and 

Linz 
GmbH 
Infrastruktur 

Service 
für 

Rhine-Danube 

AT 

Linz 

Terminal  Graz  Süd:  rail-road  container-terminal  with  a 
capacity of 4.200 TEU storage and 230.000 TEU handling 
per year (current utilisation at its limit), located south of 
Graz on the Baltic Adriatic Corridor; upgrade to increase 
capacity  in  two  phases:  Phase  1:    supplementation  of 
existing terminal by a third gantry crane, expansion of the 
workshop and track elongation, electrification and safety 
technology in the transfer station Wundschuh. 
Phase  2:  new  terminal  site  (terminal  B)  with  four 
additional  tracks  in  parallel  to  the  Koralm  railway  line, 
equipping  with  two  gantries  cranes,  expansion  of  the 
second container storage area to 4200 TEU including new 
road access (FW6).  
Total future capacity of 500.000 TEU handling per year. 
Remove main bottleneck of rail connection of the inland 
port of Linz to the main rail corridor of the Core Network 
Corridor Rhine-Danube 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

01/2018 

12/2026 

72,44 

07/2017 

12/2023 

122,90 

578 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section  or 
Node 

Description 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

port 
enhancement 

und  Kommunale 
Dienste 

Service 

Rail 
Center 
Rotterdam B.V. 

North Sea-
Baltic, Rhine-
Alpine, North 
Sea-
Mediterranean 

NL 

Rotterdam 

Investing in the 
upgrade of the 
RSC terminal 
Rotterdam 
servicing 
combined 
transport 
operations 
across Europe 

Remove main bottleneck of road connections of the port 
to the higher system road and within the port. 
Increase of railway capacity by creating 1 new track and 
prolonging all rail tracks in the port area and to full train 
length to discharge more trains in parallel, saving 
tranship movements, transferring them into embedded 
rail tracks, to improve truck moving between rails. 
Improve inland shipping and rail transfer capacity (to 
450,000 TEU/y) creating additional storage space and 
capacities, by adding a rail mounted gantry crane and 
reorganising and modernising the rail tracks in the 
container terminal 
Increase of transfer and storage capacity to 10.126 TEU 
for all trimodal transport modes by installing 3 storage 
facilities for in and outbound traffic (pre- and post-
transhipment) 
Improve efficiency and safety of truck transport from 
and to the port. Improve the safety and security of 
railway transport by electrification of tracks and 
switches and installation of new signalling system and 
modern rail crossings from the port railway station into 
the port. 
Decrease the carbon footprint of the port.  
With the investment of the here presented Action, the 
handling operation of the RSC terminal will be more 
cost-effective and efficient. Even more important, the 
RSC terminal can growth with the transhipment capacity 
by 14%, from currently 350,000 to 400,000 loading 
units per year. 
However, RSC terminal will need to invest a significant 
amount of €9.155 million in achieving the upgrade of 
the existing combined terminal infrastructure, such as: 
1) Enhancing the terminal operating system, 
2) Upgrading terminal transhipment facility  
3) Modernising terminal ICT Equipment, such as "video 
gates". 
4) Modernisation of existing crane gantries, and 
purchase of a 5th gantry crane 

10/2018 

12/2022 

8,80 

579 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section  or 
Node 

Description 

Aix-Marseille-
Métropole 

North Sea-
Mediterranean 

FR 

Marseille 
Node 

PCC  Intermodal 
S.A. 

Baltic-Adriatic 

PL 

Intermodal 
Container 
Terminal in 
Brzeg Dolny 

Extension of the 
combined 
transport 
terminal Clésud 
Miramas. 

Shunting 
locomotives  
purchase for the 
intermodal 
terminals in 
Kutno, Brzeg 
Dolny and 
Gliwice 

Upgrade Cargo 
Center Wien 
South - Phase 2 

ÖBB-
Infrastruktur AG 

Baltic-Adriatic, 
Orient-East 
Med, Rhine-
Danube 

AT 

Wien (node) 

LISCONT 
(APL 
Concessionaire) 

Atlantic 

PT 

Port of 
Lisboa 

Increase the 
efficiency of 
current 
Alcantara 
container 
terminal 
Enlargement of 
the container 
terminal at quay 
VII increasing 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

01/2019 

12/2023 

10,50 

06/2019 

10/2021 

2,59 

01/2022 

12/2023 

19,60 

06/2021 

12/2038 

122,00 

This project aims to extend Clésud terminal. This 
combined rail-road transport terminal now offers a 
processing capacity of 50,000 ITUs. The objective of the 
extension project is to create a new way to  increase 
this capacity of 25,000 additional ITUs to ensure the 
development of the site. This extension is consistent 
with the development of the Avignon terminal and with 
the installations of the Fos basins of the GPMM, as well 
as those of Marseille. This project also meets the 
objective of reducing the environmental impact of 
freight transport by reinforcing the modal shift 
The project includes purchase of 3 modern locomotives 
for operational activities on the intermodal terminals in 
Brzeg Dolny, Kutno and Gliwice. These devices will 
replace the outdated locomotives which are currently 
used by the company. 
The main aim of this project is increasing the capacity of 
the terminals (aprox. 5% on each terminal). 
Furthermore project will improve overall manoeuvrability 
and increase the company's competitiveness on the 
intermodal transport market in Poland and EU. 
Second phase of upgrade of Cargo Center Wien South - 
Since 2016, the Vienna South Terminal has been the 
main railway station for freight traffic in the eastern 
region. At present, 210,000 Intermodal Transport Units 
(ITE) can be handled annually at the terminal as 
containers, semi-trailers or swap bodies. The expansion 
will increase the handling capacity to 315,000 ITE. In 
addition, there is an additional storage capacity of 940 
TEU (20-foot standard containers). 
This project will increase the Terminal's annual handling 
capacity from 576.641 to 662.347 TEU and allow the 
reduction of CO2 emissions through the installation of 
modern electrified equipment, generating the creation of 
around 285 jobs.  

Autorità 
Sistema 
Portuale 

di 

del 

Baltic-Adriatic, 
Mediterranean 

IT 

Port of 
Trieste 

Enlargement of the container terminal at quay VII to 
increase the capacity up to a maximum of 1,200,000 
TEU (length: 200 m, depth: 18 m). 

06/2019 

12/2021 

187,00 

580 

 
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TRANSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT AND THEIR COST 

Project Name 

Project 
Promoter 

TEN-T Corridor  Member 

states 

Section  or 
Node 

Description 

Project 
start 
date 

Project 
end date 

Total 
Cost 
[M€] 

the potential up 
to a maximum 
of 1,200,000 
TEU (dimension 
200m, 18m 
depth) 
Container berth 
upgrade in the 
Port of 
Dunkerque 

Mare  Adriatico 
Orientale 

Dunkerque  Port 
authority 
(GPMD) 

North Sea-
Mediterranean 

FR 

Dunkerque 

Gdansk 

Baltic-Adriatic 

PL 

Gdańsk RRT 

DCT 
S.A. 

Expansion of 
Deepwater 
Container 
Ter minal DCT 
Gdansk - 
Construction of 
T2 Terminal 

07/2016 

06/2018 

65,00 

Unknown   Unknown  157,81 

The extension of the existing container berth (extension 
of quays, platforms, upgrade of road and rail 
infrastructures) will enhance operational capacity of the 
terminal, allowing the latest generation of ships (400m 
long, 18 000TEU) to call in. Thus, it will support both the 
development of transshipment to feedering or short-sea 
services and improve inland access and multimodal 
transfer to rail and river services. Nominal throughput 
capacity is expected to grow from 600 000 to 900 000 
TEU by 2017. 
The port of Gdansk is an important port in the Baltic Sea 
and a starting point of Baltic - Adriatic TEN-T Core 
Corridor. The Action aims to expand existing container 
terminal DCT Gdansk S.A. in the Port of Gdansk 
(Poland). The Action includes construction of a new 
deep-water berth and purchase of specialist equipment 
such as STS cranes, RTG cranes, container trailers and 
tractors. The action will increase capacity and efficiency 
of TEN-T Network by increasing capacity of DCT Gdansk 
terminal to 2.5 million TEU per year. 

581 

 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person  

    All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct 

information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

 On the phone or by email  

    Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European 

Union. You can contact this service:  

    – by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for 

these calls),   

    – at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or   

    – by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

 Online 

    Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU 

is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-
union/index_en  

EU publications  

    You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en ).  

EU law and related documents  

    For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 

in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU  

    The EU Open Data Portal ( http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en ) provides 

access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for 
free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.  

582 

 
 
 
 
  
M
I
-
0
7
-
2
2
-
1
3
0
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN :978-92-76-49148-4  

doi:10.2832/743839 

583