## 4 Analysis of the Impact of Loading Strategies on Operation Time
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Occupancy** & **50 Cont./day** & **55 Cont./day** & **60 Cont./day** & **65 Cont./day** & **70 Cont./day** \\ \hline
35\% & 2.35 & 2.65 & 3.03 & 3.55 & 4.28 \\ \hline
40\% & 2.56 & 2.92 & 3.39 & 4.05 & 5.03 \\ \hline
45\% & 2.79 & 3.33 & 3.81 & 4.67 & 6.01 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Average freight unit handling time as per adopted Strategy 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Occupancy** & **50 Cont./day** & **55 Cont./day** & **60 Cont./day** & **65 Cont./day** & **70 Cont./day** \\ \hline
35\% & 2.5 & 2.78 & 3.27 & 3.98 & 4.26 \\ \hline
40\% & 2.75 & 3.24 & 3.92 & 5 & 5.45 \\ \hline
45\% & 3.03 & 3.88 & 4.91 & 6.72 & 7.56 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Average freight unit handling time as per adopted Strategy 2. Based on the collected data, the authors simulated the process by which the number of occupied positions and the operation repetition rate can impact the average freight unit handling time. The simulation assumed operation according to the following parameters: average freight unit stream of 60 units/day, terminal open 14 h per day with four handling pieces of equipment. The operation repetition rate on the same freight unit changes depending on the adopted strategy. Under actual conditions, this value should be observed, e.g., as proposed previously, in the TDS system. Calculations were conducted for a repetition rate from 0% (complete cargo distribution infallibility) to 50% (this value was adopted as the limit based on an expert estimation). The calculations conducted for the presented assumptions are collectively shown in Table 4.  
There were no differences in the average freight unit handling time for an occupancy below 35%, regardless of the adopted strategy (therefore, these data are not shown in the table). This means that in the case of terminals with a low storage position occupancy rate, the selected strategy does not impact the average freight unit handling time. In the case of a 35% terminal occupancy, the unit handling time range was 1.45 min and 1.86 min for a 50% occupancy. These are differences that are significant in practice. However, together with increasing terminal space occupancy, the significance of the operation repetition rate is growing. In the case of terminal space occupancy, it rises around 50%, and the average freight unit handling time for operations without repetitions is 1.87 min, while adopting a strategy that requires repeating operations for 50% of the containers results in increasing this time by half, up to 2.81 min. Further increase in the terminal space occupancy leads to a considerably greater significance of the adopted strategy or the repetition rate for operations on the same container. The difference between container handling time in the case of previously described Strategies 1 and 2 and for a 65% terminal occupancy is almost a minute. Selection of a less effective strategy causes a further increase in the freight unit handling time. When inspect  
Figure 8: Comparison of average freight unit handling time with a 45% station occupancy. Figure 7: Comparison of average freight unit handling time with a 35% station occupancy. ing the table data vertically, one can notice that the average freight unit handling time also increases when the chosen strategy remains the same, but the storage yard occupancy rate grows. This is a consequence of the need to transport the containers further, as well as pick up and collect cargo from higher floors (not a linear relationship). A less effective strategy (leading to more repetitions) determines a higher operation time increase rate, while a greater share of occupied positions leads to longer handling waiting time.