Five good practices for robust intermodal terminal design
Introduction
Intermodal terminals are a critical element in the infrastructure that facilitates a seamless transfer of cargo between transportation modes, particularly between rail and road. As both regional and global supply chains become more complex and volatile, the importance of robust intermodal terminal design has never been greater. At Portwise, we define robustness as a terminal’s ability to function reliably and efficiently under a wide range of potential future scenarios. Robustness is critical not only for day-to-day operational efficiency, but also for long-term resilience in the face of supply chain disruptions, fluctuating demand, and evolving industry standards.
Designing a robust intermodal container terminal is a difficult task that requires thorough data analysis, experience and creativity. The design should not only fit the expected future scenarios, but also a range of other scenarios that may become reality if once or multiple variables deviate from their expected values. This paper outlines five good practices for intermodal rail terminal design that contribute to the creation of efficient, resilient, and scalable facilities:
- Creating best and worst case scenarios
- Identifying the most likely bottleneck(s)
- Being conservative in the design phase
- Leaving room for expansion
- Modularity
1. Creating best and worst case scenarios
Proper container terminal design should ensure that the container terminal can handle its rail, gate and storage peaks. This means that from a handling and storage point of view, the container terminal is prepared for the worst case given the target volume for a certain time horizon. But what if this target is not met? What if it will be exceeded. What if train or container dwell times increase over time? What if volumes become more volatile and seasonal, daily or hourly peaks are more significant than initially foreseen? The base case scenario selected for the design of the intermodal site likely contains parameter values that are somewhere in between best and worst case values. For critical variables, it is a good idea to not only forecast expected values, but to also estimate the degree to which these values may reasonably vary. This way, a range of possible values is created and best and worst cases can be identified around a base case value. For some variables, this range may be quite small, with the base case value quite close to the worst case outcome. In other instances, the range is larger and the base case value may be relatively optimistic, closer to the best case value.
Notice that for some variables, the high end of the range can be considered both a worse case and a best case. For example, if volumes are higher than expected, operational efficiency could suffer due to increased traffic congestion, waiting times and higher storage density. On the other hand, looking at revenues, profits and payback periods of equipment, this would be a positive deviation. Having ranges of possible parameter values is a vital first step in creating a robust container terminal design. It allows us to identify the most critical areas of uncertainty and where the base is position in the spectrum of possible outcomes.
2. Identifying the most likely bottleneck(s)
A proper design for an intermodal terminal balances the capacities of the tracks, rail cranes, storage, container stacking equipment, transport vehicles and the truck gate. Often though, not all of these areas support precisely the same volumes, which is fine as long as there is not a single aspect that is significantly lacking, in which case it would be identified as a bottleneck.
For a robust design, it is not only important to eliminate significant bottlenecks in the base case scenario, but also in scenarios in which one or more variables deviate from their expected values. Variables of interest are those for which a deviation may create a significant bottleneck. For example, if the yard is a constraining element in the design and dwell times are rather uncertain, then the yard has a robustness problem if the worst case dwell times are considerably higher than the expected values in the base scenario.
On the other hand, if the gate has been designed with quite some margin and the base case, then future increases in truck arrival peak may not be a problem, especially if the base scenarios contains a rather conservative value already. In general, when considering the robustness of a design, variables that are of interest are those for which a deviation may worsen the capacity of the container terminal.
3. Being conservative
For any area that may become a bottleneck in case of variable deviations, it is wise to be conservative in the design phase. This is especially the case for areas that a relatively easy and cheap to construct early on, but are difficult or expensive to expand later on when the initial construction works have been completed.
The truck gate is an example of an area that usually does not require large sums of money to build. If there are possible value realizations that could significantly increase the truck arrival peak, it would be a good idea to add one or two extra gate pedestal lanes in the design. This is a cheap way to prevent a potential bottleneck in the future.
On the other hand, for equipment, the conservative approach is typically less attractive, especially for expensive equipment such as rail or stacking cranes. A safety margin of just one extra crane would already result in a considerably higher CAPEX. Moreover, in case of strong deviations that results in increased workloads, extra equipment can usually be bought and deployed rather quickly. Depending on the location, lead times for cranes are often around 1 year, with shorter times for reach stackers, forklifts and terminal tractors.
4. Leaving room for expansion
As discussed in the previous section, in some areas a considerable safety margin in the design is too costly. A proper robust design will take into account the extra costs that added robustness comes with, which may not justify eliminating every single risk. For example, costs of adding an extra rail track of may well run into the millions euros, depending on length and location. If there is only a small chance that this track is actually needed, this is quite a high price for a limited increase in robustness.
However, it would still be good practice to leave enough space for an extra track in the future in case this is necessary due to higher volumes or longer train stays. In case the terminal will use rail cranes, this may mean that the crane span should allow for an extra track to be built. These costs though, are usually much lower than those of adding an extra track right away. In addition, the area reserved may be useable for other purposes in the meantime, for example as an extra lane for truck or a buffer stack for containers.
Even if an conservative safety margin in the initial construction phase does not provide sufficient value, it is still good practice to allow for an expansion in the future. This could add robustness to the container terminal design without actually investing in extra land, tracks or equipment.
5. Modularity
Another way of utilizing flexibility to increase robustness of an intermodal terminal design is by making use of modular building blocks that can be replicated to expand capacities. Warehouses are a great example of an area where this can be put into practice. Certain designs can be built in phases, such that a new warehouse can be built adjacent to the existing one(s). The added building is identical to its older neighbor and typically shares one outer wall, but other than that that is a completely separate structure. This modular approach reduces civil costs, since existing buildings do not need to be reconstructed or undergo significant alterations.
A modular container terminal design is very attractive from an implementation point of view, since each block is by itself operational. For brownfield sites in particular, this is great because it means that old areas still needed to continue operations can be gradually replaced. From a robustness point of view, if the ultimate design turns out to fall short in one particular area, capacity can easily be increased by adding another block.
One drawback of modular blocks is that expansion can only happen in discrete steps, sacrificing some flexibility especially if the blocks are relatively large. For example, adding a single RTG module to a design that initially contains one probably provides much more extra capacity than needed. The block size must therefore be selected with caution and some areas are simply not suitable for modular expansion. Furthermore, it must be noted that expansion is only possible if enough space is available or can be created, which was the topic of the previous section.
Conclusion
The five good practices discussed should not be considered in isolation, but rather as a holistic strategy to create an overall robust terminal. Data analysis highlights the range of variability terminals may face, while bottleneck examination helps to identify the most vulnerable points in the system, ensuring that critical capacity constraints are addressed early on in the design phase. Strategic use of conservative margins and spatial allowances for future expansion offer a buffer against uncertainty, enabling the terminal to adapt as conditions evolve. Finally, modularity provides the structural flexibility to expand incrementally and efficiently when demand exceeds expectations.
Robust design does not mean overbuilding or eliminating all risks—rather, it involves a balanced approach that considers cost, feasibility, and adaptability. It accepts uncertainty as a given and aims to create a terminal that is resilient, scalable, and operationally efficient under a broad set of possible futures. By applying the five practices discussed, we are able to design intermodal terminals that not only meet today’s performance needs, but also remain reliable and effective in the face of tomorrow’s challenges.
Talk to one of our terminal experts and let’s see if our intermodal terminal design team can help you transforming design concepts into fully operational and efficient automated terminals. At Portwise, we’ve helped leading container terminals in over 80 countries become more efficient, better optimized, more sustainable and highly automated container terminals. Let Portwise help you, too.
About the author:
Pim van Leeuwen is project manager at Portwise. Holding an MSc in Quantitative Logistics and Operations Research (Econometrics), he mainly works for container terminals of all shapes and sizes, but also has experience with bulk terminals and warehouses. Next to his work at Portwise, Pim is a PhD student at Erasmus University Rotterdam, where he studies and optimizes interactions between container terminals and shipping lines.