{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02646868947708199, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025823111684958036, 'mean_word_length': 5.431535269709544, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Modeling Rail-Rail Exchange Operations: An Analysis of Conventional and New-Generation Terminals


 Hub-and-spoke bundling networks in intermodal rail freight transport are suggested as a potential solution to help increase the intermodal rail market share. In Europe, three intermodal hub-and-spoke networks became operational in the 1990s. Trains are shunted or load units transshipped at the hubs in these networks. Shunting or transshipment is relatively time-consuming and cuts back on the advantages of hub-and-spoke networks. A new type of terminal, specifically designed for hubs in hub-and-spoke networks, has been suggested for introduction. At these terminals, standardized load units are transshipped efficiently from one train to another, instead of shunting rail wagons. Explorative evaluation studies give rise to the expectation that these new-generation terminals-under certain conditions-might perform more efficiently than conventional shunting yards and road-rail terminals. We still know very little about exchange operations at new-generation terminals and the differences from conventional road-rail terminals and shunting yards. The goal of our research is to obtain a thorough understanding of the operations and to compare performances of different exchange facilities. To reach this objective, dynamic simulation models were built in ARENA. The typical features of, and performance differences between, conventional road-rail terminals, shunting yards, and new-generation terminal operations are presented in this article.