Titelaufnahme

Titel
SYSTEMVERGLEICH VON UMSCHLAGSSYSTEMEN (STRAßE/SCHIENE) FÜR NICHT KRANBARE SATTELAUFLIEGER / Christof Bitschnau
VerfasserBitschnau, Christof
Betreuer / BetreuerinEinbock, Marcus
ErschienenWien, 29.02.2016
UmfangIX, 144 Seiten : Illustrationen, Diagramme
HochschulschriftFachhochschule des BFI Wien, Univ., Masterarbeit, 2016
SpracheDeutsch
DokumenttypMasterarbeit
URNurn:nbn:at:at-fhbfiw:1-934 Persistent Identifier (URN)
Zugriffsbeschränkung
 Das Werk ist frei verfügbar
Dateien
SYSTEMVERGLEICH VON UMSCHLAGSSYSTEMEN (STRAßE/SCHIENE) FÜR NICHT KRANBARE SATTELAUFLIEGER [2.7 mb]
Links
Nachweis
Klassifikation
Zusammenfassung (Englisch)

This master thesis examines and compares different technologies for the transhipment of non-craneable semi-trailers from road to rail and derives recommendations for terminal operators as well as customers of intermodal operators. Since cost sensitivity is high in the Combined Transport Road-Rail, three innovative transhipment technologies for non-craneable semi-trailers have been selected that may be implemented without substantial investments in new terminal infrastructure. The three analysed technologies are ISU, NiKRASA and CargoBeamer. First of all, existing literature on the Combined Transport Road-Rail with focus on transhipment technologies for non-craneable semi-trailers was analysed in order to draw up a valid comparative scheme. Second, based on the results three guided expert interviews, i.e. one expert interview for each technology compared, were conducted. Third, the comparative scheme had than been revised before the comparison of ISU, NiKRASA and CargoBeamer was carried out. For a valid comparison a differentiated analysis of the CargoBeamer technology was necessary. Thus, in the main part, i.e. the primary comparison, ISU and NiKRASA were only compared to the transhipment with the CargoBeamer technology using gantry cranes or reach stackers. The primary comparison conducted consists of seven main categories which are transhipment equipment, transhipment process, terminal, railway wagon, usable non-crane-able semi-trailers, dissemination and use of the technologies as well as costs for transhipment and rail transport. To conclude, in general the application of all three technologies analysed in the primary comparison may be beneficial for terminal operators due to various reasons. However, CargoBeamer and NiKRASA proved to be the most advantageous options for terminal operators. Instead of a general recommendation for customers of intermodal operators various recommendations on key issues were derived. The key issues taken into account are costs for transhipment and rail transport, time consumption, safety of the semi-trailer, destinations currently offered and planed as well as sales organisation. Additionally, mandatory requirements for the utilisation of the three transhipment technologies concerned are listed in order to provide a comprehensive basis for decisions.