North American rail terminals need productivity improvements to handle increasing rail volumes and improve terminal performance. This paper examines the benefits of double cycling in wide-span gantry terminals that use automated transfer management systems. The authors demonstrate that the use of double cycling rather than the currently practiced single cycling in these terminals can reduce the number of cycles required to turn a train by almost 50% in most cases and reduce train turn time by almost 40%. This change can provide significant productivity improvements in rail terminals, increasing both efficiency and competitiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DeBoerD. J.Piggyback and Containers: A History of Rail Intermodal on America's Steel Highways.Golden West Books, San Marino, Calif., 1992. p. 97.
PelletierB.U.S. Railroad Industry.Talking Freight Seminar, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Jan. 21, 2009.
5.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report. Washington, D.C., Jan. 2003.
6.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.The Changing Face of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, BTS 00-007, 2000.
7.
ICF Consulting, 2010 and Beyond: A Vision of America's Transportation Future: 21st Century Freight Mobility. NCHRP Project 20-24(33)A, final report, Aug. 2004.
8.
IHS Global Insight, ATA U.S. Freight Transportation Forecast to 2020. Arlington, Va., 2009.
9.
ZumerchikJ., RodrigueJ.-P., and LaniganJ.Sr. Automated Transfer Management Systems and the Intermodal Performance of North American Rail Freight Distribution. The Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2009, pp. 59–76.
10.
BryanJ. G. B., WeisbrodG., MartlandC. D.and Wilbur Smith Associates. NCHRP Report 586: Rail Freight Solutions to Roadway Congestion—Final Report and Guidebook.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
11.
CasgarC., DeBoerD., and ParkinsonD.Rail Short Haul Intermodal Corridor Case Studies: Industry Context and Issues.Foundation for Intermodal Research and Education, Gaithersburg, Md., 2003.
12.
KellyT.BNSF Intermodal Evolution: Intermodal Challenges, Blue Skyways Conference, San Antonio, Tex. Oct. 30, 2008.
13.
WiegmansB. W., StekelenburgD. T., VersteegtC., and BontekoningY. M.Modeling Rail–Rail Exchange Operations: An Analysis of Conventional and New-Generation Terminals. Transportation Journal, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2007, pp. 5–20.
14.
GoodchildA. V., and DaganzoC. F.Double-Cycling Strategies for Container Ships and Their Effect on Ship Loading and Unloading Operations. Transportation Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, Nov. 2006, pp. 473–483.
15.
GoodchildA. V., and DaganzoC. F.Crane Double Cycling in Container Ports: Planning Methods and Evaluation. Transportation Research Part B. Vol. 41, No. 8, Elsevier Ltd., 2007, pp. 875–891.
16.
BoidapuV., GoliasM. M., IveyS., and LipinskiM. E.System Description and Literature Review Survey for Rail Intermodal Container Terminal Operations. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
17.
Rocky Mountain Institute.Port Innovation Workshop Final Report. Snowmass, Colo., April 2007.
18.
LaniganJ.Sr., ZumerchikJ., RodrigueJ.-P., GuenslerR. L., and RodgersM. O.Shared Intermodal Terminals and Potential for Improving Efficiency of Rail–Rail Interchange. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
19.
RawlingsG. F.Intermodal Volumes III: Serial Measuring, Tracking, and Anticipating Levels of Activity for Northeast Illinois. Working Paper 06-01, Chicago Area Transportation Study, April 2006.
