Fehlentscheidungen bei Kapazitätsplanung und Routing im Kombiverkehr

Definition

Intermodal networks in Australia combine rail shuttles, port interfaces and truck drayage to serve inland terminals.[4] Providers emphasise the importance of smart booking systems and technology to avoid past problems of wasted trips and overtime, which directly affected costs.[4] Where operators lack consolidated visibility into lane‑level profitability and true end‑to‑end costs (including storage, overtime, empty repositioning and rail utilisation), they may choose routes, schedules or pricing structures that appear viable but in reality erode margins. TMS vendors stress that transport management systems enable load consolidation, rate comparison and automated scheduling to lower costs and improve on‑time performance in intermodal operations.[1] In their absence, dispatchers rely on heuristics and outdated assumptions about congestion, truck availability and rail capacity, leading to under‑ or over‑utilised services. Industry benchmarks for logistics suggest that better planning and mode optimisation typically yield 3–10% cost savings; applying a conservative 3–7% to an AUD 5m annual cost base for rail and drayage implies a recoverable value of AUD 150,000–350,000 per year.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Australian intermodal networks lose 3–7% margin on some lanes by misallocating rail and drayage capacity. Using integrated cost and performance data to optimise routing and scheduling can recover this hidden profit.

Affected Stakeholders

Network planning manager, Rail operations manager, Commercial / pricing manager, CFO / strategy team

Related Business Risks