Paper for the Logistics Research Network Annual Conference 2007, 10 tth -12 tth September 2008 in Liverpool, UK. Please do not distribute or cite before the conference. 1 Hinterland transport by rail – a success for maritime containers but still a challenge for semi-trailers Johan Woxenius and Rickard Bergqvist Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg, Box 610, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden E-mail: johan.woxenius@handels.gu.se, rickard.bergqvist@handels.gu.se Abstract This article examines why semi-trailers are not moved to and from seaports by rail at the same rate as maritime containers. The segments are compared in terms of the transport markets they serve, the competition they meet and the operational and technological principles they apply. The article includes a brief examination of how current trends affect the role of rail for hinterland transport of semi-trailers as well as empirical findings from the case of Port of Gothenburg and its Scandinavian hinterland. Admittedly, rail is more competitive for hinterland transport of containers than of semi-trailers, but there are still significant opportunities for reaping the benefits of rail transport also for semi-trailer transport in the hinterlands of European ports. Keywords: Hinterland transport, intermodal transport, container shipping, RoRo shipping, semi-trailer. Introduction The challenge of liner shipping has moved from the sea, first to the ports and then to the hinterland. The increased scale of ships and ports has not been matched by larger trucks and, like in most other transport networks, costs and lead time are increasingly generated in the capillaries rather than in the arteries. The business model of maximising the revenue by filling the ships and then “fixing” the hinter- land operations then simply does not work anymore. One way of increasing the scale of hinterland transport means is to use trains and barges rather than trucks. Compared to road, both rail and inland waterways come with advantages such as lower envi- ronmental strain, lower nuisance in port city traffic, lower transport distance costs, faster throughput in ports and, in most cases, less sensitiveness to delays by traffic congestion. The advantages are dis- tributed among most actor categories and each of them can find reasons for advocating the use of alternatives to road for hinterland transport (Woxenius, et al., 2004). For instance, the latter two advan- tages appeal to truckers since they are rarely compensated for standing in lines at ports’ gates and in congested traffic. Notable disadvantages are costs and lead times over short distances and rail con- gestion close to the ports. Most main container ports in Continental Europe experience a modal shift from road, but rather to inland waterways than to rail. The UK and Scandinavia are, however, confined to coastal shipping and rail as alternatives to road. In Sweden, the increase of rail shuttles to and from Port of Gothenburg is a frequently cited showcase of rail competition and of recapturing market shares from road transport. The rail volumes have tripled in seven years and the current 23 rail shuttles with ten different rail op- erators now have a market share of some 40% (Port of Gothenburg, 2008). Nevertheless, the success of hinterland transport by rail is generally confined to maritime containers; semi-trailers are seen on the tracks to a far smaller extent. The purpose of the article is to explore why semi-trailers are not moved to and from seaports by rail at the same rate as maritime containers. It investigates the effect of current trends and includes an analysis empirically based on the Port of Gothenburg and its hinterland connections in Scandinavia. Hinterland transport by rail Hinterland transport of vehicles and unit loads “cross-docked” in ports is a comparatively old phe- nomenon, but business activity and policy making has clearly been intensified over the last, say, 25 years. In 1982, the UN first used the term Dry Port underlining the integration of services with different traffic modes under one contract (Beresford and Dubey, 1990). Research on hinterland transport is also comprehensive. Examples with their main geographical context are: Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005 - USA), Rodrigue (2008 - USA), IBI Group (2006 - Canada), Beavis (2007 - Australia), Wang and Cullinane (2006 - Asia), Woodburn (2006 and 2007 - UK), Pettit and Beresford (2007 - UK), De- brie (2004 – south-west Europe), Gouvernal and Daydou (2005 – north-west Europe), van Klink and van den Berg (1998 - Rotterdam with hinterland), Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2005 – Germany), and Roso (2006 - Sweden). All these publications are more or less confined to the container segment whereas semi-trailers are merely overlooked, although Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2005) goes a