13th IFAC Symposium on Control in Transportation Systems

The International Federation of Automatic Control

September 12-14, 2012. Sofia, Bulgaria

A discrete-time model for optimizing

the rail port cycle
Claudia Caballini, Cecilia Pasquale, Simona Sacone, Silvia Siri

Department of Communication, Computer and Systems Science,

University of Genova, Italy

Abstract: The main objective of this work is to model and optimize the rail cycle in seaport
terminals. The model proposed in the paper represents the transfer of import containers from
their storage in the yard until their exit from the terminal by train. At this purpose, the standing
of containers and their movements inside the terminal are modelled by a set of queues, whose
dynamic evolution is described by discrete-time equations, where the state variables represent
the queue lengths and the control variables take into account the utilization of terminal resources
(handling systems as well as tracks) and the timing of train movements from the terminal
towards their destinations. On the basis of this model, an optimization problem is defined that
consists in minimizing the transfer delays of containers in the terminal while satisfying specific
real constraints. This model has been tested on real data regarding an Italian container terminal,
as reported in the paper.

Keywords: Rail transport; rail port cycle; modelling; optimization.

1. INTRODUCTION literature a great emphasis has been placed, on the one

During the last decades, globalization and production
delocalization phenomena have led to an increase in the
volumes of goods to be transported by ship, so strength-
ening the role of seaports as critical nodes of the whole
transportation network. Considering the limited space
available in the port areas, the challenge is to optimize
the use of resources in order to decrease the total cycle
time needed to forward goods from and to the ports;
this would allow to reduce the global costs and achieve
high standards of service, imposed nowadays by the high
level of global competitiveness. Moreover, it must be also
taken into consideration that the current transportation
and logistics context shows a strong imbalance in favor of
the road transport with respect to the rail one. However,
both the critical road infrastructural situation, often close
to congestion, on the one hand, and the growing awareness
of environmental sustainability, on the other hand, impose
a more balanced distribution of the modal split, shifting
flows from the road transport to the rail one.
This research is devoted to model the rail port cycle and
to define an optimization approach in order to size port
railway terminals and evaluate different scenario perfor-
mances, at an aggregate planning level. Many modelling
and optimization techniques have been developed for plan-
ning and managing seaport terminals (or some specific
processes in the terminals, such as the ship planning, the
storage allocation, and so on), as highlighted by Vis and
Koster (2003), Steenken et al. (2004), Stahlbock and Voss
(2008). On the other hand, the importance of rail transport
for the modal shift is underlined by many authors, such
as Crainic (2009) who points out that, to ensure a viable
alternative to road transport, it is necessary to make rail
transport more competitive by identifying new and more
sophisticated models and methodologies. Therefore, in the
hand, on different aspects of ports and intermodal systems
and, on the other hand, on the various issues (technical,
economic and organizational) related to the rail transport
of goods. Anyway, few contributions can be found in the
literature as regards the specific aspect of the railway cycle
in the ports, that is the object of the present work. Some
works referred to the rail operations in maritime or inter-
modal terminals are specifically related to the planning of
train loading/unloading operations, such as for instance
in the works by Bostel and Dejax (1998) and Ambrosino
et al. (2011).
In this paper, an optimization approach is proposed for
the aggregate planning and organization of the port rail
cycle. First of all, a dynamic model for the system is
defined; this is a discrete-time queue-based model, that is
inspired from the work by Alessandri et al. (2007), where
a similar concept was adopted for the strategic planning of
a seaport container terminal. Then, based on this dynamic
model and taking into account some physical and real
conditions on the operations of handling systems and
trains, some other constraints are defined. The resulting
mixed-integer linear mathematical programming problem
consists in finding the optimal values of the handling
resources and the timing of trains in order to minimize
the weighted sum of the queues of the system (representing
containers waiting in the different terminal areas). In the
paper, this model will be tested and validated on a real
case study, corresponding to a container terminal in the
North of Italy.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the port
railway cycle is described and a discrete-time model is
proposed for representing the dynamics of this system.
In section 3 a control problem is stated, with the aim
of efficiently planning the rail cycle. Then, Section 4 is

978-3-902823-13-7/12/$20.00 © 2012 IFAC 83 10.3182/20120912-3-BG-2031.00016

CTS 2012
September 12-14, 2012. Sofia, Bulgaria
devoted to report some experimental results tested on real
data. Finally, some concluding remarks are reported in
Section 5.
2. THE RAIL PORT CYCLE AND THE
DISCRETE-TIME MODEL
In this work, the port rail cycle is studied and, in par-
ticular, the import flow of goods from the port to the
hinterland is considered. Moreover, the present research
limits the analysis to containerized cargo and dry goods,
excluding refrigerated ones (which require a different man-
agement and equipment as well as much shorter forwarding
times, given their perishable nature).
The model boundaries are shown in Fig. 1, i.e. containers
will be modeled from the moment in which, once unloaded
from ships, they are stored in the yard until when they
leave the terminal by rail. More specifically, the phase of
handling (loading and unloading) on the quay is neglected
assuming that, once they arrive in the port, the containers
are automatically placed in the yard. Containers stored in
the yard are transported by terminal resources to the rail
park inside the terminal where they are loaded onto trains,
usually through Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) cranes.
Then, through a shunting operation by a diesel locomotive,
trains are brought to an interchange park outside the
terminal from which they will depart by using the electric
traction. In the following of the paper, with domestic (or
internal) rail park we refer to the beam of tracks inside
the terminal area, where loading/unloading operations of
containers from/to the train are carried out and where
there is a diesel traction. On the other hand, the external
rail park is the park in which the change of traction occurs
(from diesel to electric and vice versa).
Fig. 1. The considered system boundaries.
Depending on the specific layout of the considered termi-
nal, there can be more than one import yard and different
handling means, hence corresponding to different opera-
tive cycles to be represented. In our work, taking inspi-
ration from an important container terminal located in
Northern Italy, we assume that there are two yards where
import containers to be forwarded by rail are stocked. The
first terminal import yard hosts all the containers that will
be transported by road or rail (but for which there is no
information in advance about their final land transport
mode). The second yard, smaller than the previous one
and closer to the domestic rail park, stores only containers
84
that are known in advance to continue by rail. Containers
stored in the import area are lifted up by Rubber Tyred
Gantry cranes (RTG), then loaded with reach stackers on
trailers that bring them to the rail domestic park (where
RMG cranes load them on the train). On the contrary,
containers located in the rail yard area are directly loaded
by reach stackers on trailers and transported close to the
domestic rail park. The model proposed in the following
will represent this terminal layout (with two import areas)
but, of course, this model can be easily generalized in case
the number of import areas or the sequence of handling
operations is different.
The objective of this paper is to define an optimization
approach in order to determine the optimal system con-
figuration in relation to the import port railway cycle
in terms of number of handling resources and timing of
handling operations. The final goal is to decrease the total
time spent to compute the whole cycle, which corresponds
to the maximization of the number of trains leaving the
terminal. Even if the problem could appear not so hard,
many complexities arise in reality. First of all, this system
is very rigid, starting from the fact that the railway tracks
represent a resource difficult to be varied; besides, the
railway transportation implies a strict and well defined
planning that cannot be changed easily.
In the model that we propose, the considered system is
represented with a set of queues, modelling the presence
of containers in specific areas of the terminal. Fig. 2
provides a logic representation of the queues considered in
this system, whose dynamics is represented with discrete-
time equations with sample time equal to ∆T . At a
generic time step t, the arrival rates of containers (that
will be forwarded by rail) in the two different import
areas of the terminal are given by the quantities a1 (t)
and a2 (t) (expressed in containers per hour). Analogously,
d(t) models the demand of containers in import (again
expressed in containers per hour), i.e. the pattern of
railway slots scheduled from the terminal towards the
inland. Such processes can equivalently be modelled either
as deterministic sequences or as random sequences, but in
this paper they are assumed to be deterministic.
q5
q4+N +1
q1 q2
a1 q6 q4+N +2
q4
. d
q3 . .
a2 . .
.
q4+N +M
q4+N
Fig. 2. Queue model of the port rail import cycle.
Containers entering the yard by the arrival processes a1
and a2 are stored in the two import yard areas: at each
time t, the queue lengths corresponding to these areas are
denoted as q1 (t) and q3 (t) (the queue lengths are expressed
in terms of number of containers). The containers in the
first import yard area are firstly stored in an intermediate
buffer (whose length at time t is denoted with q2 (t))
before being transported close to the internal rail park
(expressed by queue q4 (t) at time t). The intermediate
CTS 2012
September 12-14, 2012. Sofia, Bulgaria
buffer represents the cycle described before: containers
from the yard are lifted by a crane, then loaded with a
reach stacker on a trailer which transports them to the
internal rail yard. On the contrary, containers present in
the second import yard have a different handling cycle
and they are directly brought under the crane in the
rail park (hence, containers exiting from q3 go into q4 ).
The productivity of the handling resources dedicated to
work in the import terminal yard, at time t, is denoted
as ui (t), i = 1, . . . , 3, (this productivity is expressed in
containers per hour); in particular, ui (t) represents the
rate at which containers are taken from qi at time t.
Containers wait in queue q4 , i.e. in the area close to
the domestic rail park, till they are loaded on the rail
cars available in the internal tracks. The domestic rail
yard is composed of N tracks represented by queues qi (t),
i = 5, . . . 4 + N ; we suppose that, when a train is fully
loaded with C containers, it must leave the internal park.
Moreover, it is worth underlining that rail cars are assumed
to be always available in the internal rail park. Let us
denote with u4,i (t), i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , the productivity at
time t of the rail cranes used to load the containers on
trains in the related track (again, this productivity is given
in containers per hour).
Once it has been loaded with C container, a train is ready
to be brought from the domestic to the external rail park,
which is made up of M tracks represented by the queues
qi (t), i = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M . In order to execute
this transit, it is necessary that the siding track connecting
the two parks is free (since it is supposed that only one
siding track connects the internal with the external rail
yard). Moreover, in the considered model it is imposed
that, among the external tracks, at least one is always
free; this is important in a real context in order to allow for
instance urgent departures from the terminal towards the
inland or to allow unscheduled trains to enter the terminal
in order to respect a ship departure.
The departures of trains from the internal yard, directed
to the external park, are represented by means of a set of
binary variables in the optimization problem. Specifically,
the variable yi,j (t), i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , j = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 +
N + M , must be set equal to 1 if, at time step t, a train
in queue qi leaves the internal yard and is directed to the
queue qj in the external park, and is equal to 0 otherwise.
The time required to cross the siding track is supposed
to be a multiple τ of the sample time ∆T ; therefore, the
external rail track will receive the train that departed τ
time instants before from the internal yard.
The train can leave from the external rail park when
there is the availability of the corresponding rail slot and
this is represented by a positive value of d(t). Moreover,
in order to correctly model the train departures from a
given external rail track, another set of binary variables is
introduced. Specifically, zi (t), i = 4+N +1, . . . , 4+N +M ,
is a binary variable assuming value 1 if, at time step t, the
queue qi is available to leave a train to satisfy the demand
and 0 otherwise. Of course, it is necessary to impose that,
at each time step t, only one variable zi (t), i = 4 + N +
1, . . . , 4 + N + M , is equal to 1. It is worth noting that
this condition is necessary since it is assumed that there is
only one electrified track connecting the terminal with the
85
external rail network. Hence, the effective departure of a
train from qi , i = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M , is then verified
when d(t)zi (t)∆t > 0, i.e. d(t)zi (t)∆t = C since only full
trains (with C containers) can leave the terminal.
The dynamics of the overall transfer activities in the
terminal can be described with conservation equations
that, at each time step t + 1, update the queue lengths
according to their length at the previous time step t
and the number of entering and exiting containers in
the time interval [t, t + 1), with length ∆t. The discrete-
time equations representing the system dynamics are the
following:
q1 (t+1) = q1 (t)+[a1 (t)−u1 (t)]∆t t = 0, . . . , T −1 (1)
q2 (t+1) = q2 (t)+[u1 (t)−u2 (t)]∆t t = 0, . . . , T −1 (2)
q3 (t+1) = q3 (t)+[a2 (t)−u3 (t)]∆t t = 0, . . . , T −1 (3)
 4+N
X 
q4 (t + 1) = q4 (t) + u2 (t) + u3 (t) − u4,i (t) ∆t
i=5
t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (4)
4+N
X +M
qi (t + 1) = qi (t) + u4,i (t)∆t − C yi,j (t)
j=4+N +1
i = 5, . . . , 4 + N t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (5)
 4+N 
X
qi (t + 1) = qi (t) + C yj,i (t − τ ) − d(t)zi (t)∆t
j=5
i = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (6)
The system considered in this paper and described by the
discrete-time equations (1)-(6) can be seen as a mixed
logical dynamical (MLD) system, as proposed by Bem-
porad and Morari (1999), i.e. a system described by linear
dynamic equations involving real and integer variables.
In particular, in our model, the queue lengths qi (t), i =
1, . . . , 4 + N + M , t = 1, . . . , T , represent the system state
variables. The control variables are given by:
• the productivity of the handling resources ui (t) ∈ R,
i = 1, . . . , 3, t = 0, . . . , T − 1, and u4,i (t) ∈ R,
i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , t = 0, . . . , T − 1;
• the binary variables indicating the departure of trains
from internal tracks towards external ones yi,j (t) ∈
{0, 1}, i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , j = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M ,
t = 0, . . . , T − 1;
• the binary variables representing the availability of
the external tracks zi (t) ∈ {0, 1}, i = 4+N +1, . . . , 4+
N + M , t = 0, . . . , T − 1.
Finally, the arrival and departure rates ai (t), i = 1, 2, and
d(t), t = 0, . . . , T − 1, are uncontrollable inputs, which can
be regarded as disturbances. Moreover, it is worth noting
that the objective of this paper is to formalize an optimal
control problem in order to minimize a given cost function
and not to stabilize the system on desired equilibrium
points, as done instead by Bemporad and Morari (1999).
3. THE CONTROL PROBLEM FOR PLANNING THE
RAIL PORT CYCLE
In order to plan the rail port cycle for satisfying a given
external demand (i.e. a given schedule of trains), a mathe-
CTS 2012
September 12-14, 2012. Sofia, Bulgaria

matical programming problem must be defined. This prob- The objective function (7) is a weighted sum of the queues
lem must take into account the system dynamics repre- over the whole time horizon, in which each queue qi (t),
sented by the discrete-time queue-based model described i = 1, . . . , 4 + N + M , is appropriately weighted with the
in Section 2 and some other operative constraints, over a coefficient ωi . In this way, the total transfer delay in the
time horizon given by T time steps. terminal is minimized, as done by Alessandri et al. (2007).
It is worth noting that, by suitably tuning the weights
The optimal control problem for planning the port rail
associated with the different queue lengths, it is possible to
cycle can be then stated with the following mixed-integer
provide the defined cost function with different objectives,
programming formulation.
privileging the presence of containers in given areas of the
Problem 1. Given the arrival and departure rates, i.e. terminal or limiting them in areas where there are space
ai (t), i = 1, 2, and d(t), t = 0, . . . , T − 1, given the limitations to be taken into account. In this model, in order
initial conditions, i.e. qi (0), i = 1, . . . , 4 + N + M and to plan correctly the departure of trains from the internal
yi,j (t), i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , j = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M , and external yards according to the scheduled demand,
t = −τ, . . . , −1, given the maximum queue lengths qimax , the highest weights will be associated with the queues of
i = 1, . . . , 4 + N + M , the maximum handling rates umax i , the external tracks, medium weights will be related to the
i = 1, . . . , 3 and umax 4,i , i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , given the cost queues of internal tracks, while the other queues will be
weighting parameters ωi , i = 1, . . . , 4 + N + M , given C given the smallest weights.
and τ , find the state variables qi (t), i = 1, . . . , 4 + N + M ,
t = 1, . . . , T , and the control variables ui (t), i = 1, . . . , 3, Constraints (8) impose that, in the external rail park, one
t = 0, . . . , T − 1, u4,i (t), i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , t = 0, . . . , T − 1, track must be always free, for the reasons explained before
yi,j (t), i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , j = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M , in the paper. Moreover, constraints (9) model the presence
t = 0, . . . , T − 1, zi (t), i = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M , of only one siding track connecting the domestic with the
t = 0, . . . , T − 1 that minimize external rail park and the fact that τ time steps are needed
T 4+N +M to cross it; for this reason, in the τ time steps in which a
X X
ωi qi (t) (7) train moves from the internal to the external park, the sum
of the yi,j (t) must be lower or equal to 1, i.e. only one train
t=1 i=1
can be transiting on the siding track. Constraints (10) are
subject to the model dynamics given by (1)-(6), and needed to model the fact that, at each time step t, only
4+N
X +M one external track can be available to satisfy the external
qi (t) ≤ (M − 1)C t = 1, . . . , T (8) demand.
i=4+N +1
Constraints (11) and (12) impose that a train can leave
4+N
X 4+N +M τ −1
X X the domestic rail park only when it has been loaded with
yi,j (t + k) ≤ 1 t = 0, . . . , T − τ (9) C containers. When a train leaves the domestic rail park,
i=5 j=4+N +1 k=0 it can go to one of the different external tracks; therefore
4+N
X +M it is necessary to impose that, when qi (t) = C, it must be
zi (t) = 1 t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (10) P4+N +M
verified that j=4+N +1 yi,j (t) = 1, i.e. the train from qi
j=4+N +1
must be sent to a queue qj , j = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M ,
 4+N +M  at time step t. If instead qi (t) < C, then it must be
X P4+N +M
qi (t) − C + G 1 − yi,j (t) ≥ 0 j=4+N +1 yi,j (t) = 0.
j=4+N +1
Constraints (13) and (14) indicate that the quantity ex-
i = 5, . . . , 4 + N t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (11) iting each queue qi , i = 1, . . . , 4, at time t, must be
4+N +M lower than or equal to the queue length at the same time
step. Constraints (15) impose that each queue qi at each
X
C − qi (t) + G yi,j (t) > 0
time step cannot be larger than its maximum value qimax ;
j=4+N +1
analogously, constraints (16) and (17) impose that the
i = 5, . . . , 4 + N t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (12) handling rates cannot exceed the maximum values of the
ui (t)∆t ≤ qi (t) i = 1, . . . , 3 t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (13) capacity of the terminal resources, i.e. umax i , i = 1, . . . , 3,
4+N
X and umax
4,i , i = 5, . . . , 4 + N . Finally, constraints (18) and
u4,i (t)∆t ≤ q4 (t) t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (14) (19) impose that yi,j (t) and zi (t) are binary variables.
i=5
Hence, the resulting control problem is a mixed-integer
0 ≤ qi (t) ≤ qimax i = 1, . . . , 4 + N + M t = 1, . . . , T
linear programming problem that can be solved with com-
(15)
mercial solvers (which apply standard solution methods
0 ≤ ui (t) ≤ umax
i i = 1, . . . , 3 t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (16)
providing the global optimal solution). Anyway, as known,
0 ≤ u4,i (t) ≤ umax
4,i i = 5, . . . , 4 + N t = 0, . . . , T − 1 for mixed-integer linear programming problems, in the
(17) worst case the solution time depends exponentially on the
yi,j (t) ∈ {0, 1} i = 5, . . . , 4 + N number of integer variables. These computational issues
must be taken into account when choosing the planning
j = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (18)
horizon for the problem. As a matter of fact, a short plan-
zi (t)(t) ∈ {0, 1} ning horizon does not allow to correctly predict the system
i = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M t = 0, . . . , T − 1 (19) state but it corresponds to a smaller problem instance, to
be solved in short computational times; on the other hand,
where G is a large quantity arbitrarily chosen.

86
CTS 2012
September 12-14, 2012. Sofia, Bulgaria
the choice of a long horizon is better for the prediction
and, then, for the accuracy of the results, but the relevant
problem instance to be solved can result too large.
4. APPLICATION TO A REAL CASE STUDY
The control problem described in Section 3 has been im-
plemented in Matlab R2011 by using Cplex 12.3 as MILP
solver. In this section, the application of the proposed
model to a real case study is presented. The container
terminal considered as a case study is a Mediterranean
port in the Northern part of Italy.
The model proposed in Section 2 with two import areas is
suitable to represent the operative cycle of the considered
terminal. Moreover, analysing the specific rail yard layout,
the number of internal tracks N is set equal to 8, whereas
the number of external tracks M is fixed to 3; then, the
overall system can be represented with 15 queues (the
remaining 4 queues refer to the stocking areas in which
containers remain before arriving in the internal rail park).
The planning horizon of the control problem corresponds
to one day; since the sample time ∆t is set to 15 minutes,
the number of time steps is T = 96.
As already anticipated, the weights in the cost function
are set in order to limit the stop of containers in critical
areas of the terminal, such as the railway yards, and to
allow instead the presence of containers in the import
stocking areas. Specifically, in the considered case study,
the following weights are fixed:
• w1 = 13 is related to the main yard with the greatest
space availability;
• w2 = 15 corresponds to the presence of containers
close to the main yard;
• w3 = 15 indicates the presence of containers in the
secondary stocking yard;
• w4 = 20 represents the queue near the rail cranes;
• wi = 20, i = 5, . . . , 12, weight the queues modeling
the internal railway yard;
• wi = 25, i = 13, . . . , 15, weight the queues of the
external railway yard.
It is evident that these values have not a real meaning
but only their relative values are meaningful. Other model
parameters are the number of containers for having a full
train, i.e. C = 40 (that corresponds to 60 TEUs, in case
of a TEU factor equal to 1.5, that is a realistic value for
the Italian context), and the number of time steps to cross
the siding track, i.e. τ = 1, since 15 minutes are required.
The results proposed in this section concern the optimal
planning of the import rail cycle considering the present
resource availability in the terminal (in terms of operative
cycles/processes, number and typology of handling equip-
ment and tracks). Other scenarios have been analysed and
optimally planned by supposing a higher availability of
handling equipment and a higher demand of train slots, in
order to evaluate the potentiality of the system; anyway,
these results are not reported in this paper for space limi-
tations. Considering the present situation in the terminal,
the maximum handling rates are set as follows:
87
• umax
1 = 15 containers/hour, corresponding to one
RTG crane operating in the main yard, moving con-
tainers from q1 to q2 ;
• umax
2 = umax
3 = 9 containers/hour, corresponding to
a reach stacker combined with a trailer that operate
at the same time on q2 and q3 ; their handling capacity
is 18 container/hour and is assumed to be shared
equally between the two processes;
• umax
4,i = 30 containers/hour, i = 5, . . . , 12, corre-
sponding to one RMG crane for each track of the
internal rail park.
The maximum queue lengths are set taking into account
the physical space present in the terminal:
• q1max = 3500 containers, relating to the main yard;
• q3max = 500 containers, corresponding to the sec-
ondary yard;
• q2max = q4max = 5 containers, in the areas under the
cranes;
• qimax = 40 containers, i = 5, . . . , 15, on the trains in
the internal and external tracks.
The initial conditions concerning the queues are set in
order to represent a generic initial state of the system. The
positive initial conditions are the following (the others are
set to 0):
• q1 (0) = 1100 containers in the main yard;
• q2 (0) = 1 container in the intermediate area;
• q3 (0) = 400 containers in the secondary yard;
• q6 (0) = 40 containers on a train in the second internal
track, corresponding to a full train, ready to leave;
• q8 (0) = 5 containers on a train in the forth internal
track;
• q9 (0) = 10 containers on a train in the fifth internal
track.
The other initial conditions regard the values yi,j (−1),
i = 5, . . . , 4 + N , j = 4 + N + 1, . . . , 4 + N + M that
have been set to 0, indicating that no trains had left in
t = −1.
The arrival and departure rates are fixed considering the
real container flows in the terminal. A daily import flow
is equal to an average of 180 containers in the considered
terminal; 70% of this flow corresponds to containers for
which it is not known in advance if they will exit the port
by truck or train, while the remaining 30% are containers
for which it is known that they will be transported by rail.
It is also supposed that this flow of containers is continuous
during the whole day. Therefore, the arrival rates are set
as:
• a1 (t) = 5.3 containers/hour, t = 0, . . . , T − 1;
• a2 (t) = 2.3 containers/hour, t = 0, . . . , T − 1.
As regards the demand, i.e. the departures of trains
from the terminal, the real situation is considered, taking
into account that freight trains normally travel by night
because during the day the priority is given to trains
for passengers. Considering that in the proposed model
the demand d(t) is expressed in containers/hour and only
full trains (with 40 containers in this case) can leave
the terminal, in order to model a train departure in
a given time step it is necessary to set d(t) in that
time step equal to 40/∆t, corresponding in this case to
CTS 2012
September 12-14, 2012. Sofia, Bulgaria

160 containers/hour. Hence, in order to model 4 train
departures in a day, the demand d(t) is set equal to 0
∀t = 0, . . . , T − 1, except for the following cases:
• d(20) = 160 containers/hour, corresponding to a train
scheduled at 5 a.m.;
• d(32) = 160 containers/hour, corresponding to a train
scheduled at 8 a.m.;
• d(80) = 160 containers/hour, corresponding to a train
scheduled at 8 p.m.;
• d(92) = 160 containers/hour, corresponding to a train
scheduled at 11 p.m..
With these data, Problem 1 has been solved and the
optimal values of the state and control variables have
been found. The resulting problem is characterized by
5088 decision variables (2592 are binary and the remaining
2496 are continuous), 1536 equality constraints and 2112
inequality constraints. The solution is found by Cplex in
few seconds.
45
40
35
30
Containers in q6
In Figs. 3-5 the optimal patterns of q6 (t), q8 (t) and q9 (t)
are shown, indicating that the external demand (4 trains)
is met by 4 trains present in the internal tracks, respec-
tively in q6 , q9 , q8 and q9 . Analysing the optimal values
of the handling rates, it can be stated that the maximum
capacity is reached by u2 (t) and u3 (t) (9 containers/hour)
and by u4,8 (t) and u4,9 (t) (30 containers/hour); this means
that the corresponding handling resources (reach stacker
and trailer, on one side, and RMG crane, on the other)
are the bottlenecks of the system, i.e. by increasing their
productivity it is possible to schedule more trains and to
increase the total terminal rail throughput.
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a discrete-time dynamic model has been
proposed for representing the import rail cycle in a seaport
container terminal. Based on this model, a control problem
has been formalized in order to optimally plan the use of
handling resources in the system and the timing of train
departures from the terminal. This control problem has
been applied to a real case study and some results have
been shown in the paper.
Present and future research is devoted to extend the

25
present model to consider also the export flow of containers
20
which, of course, partially shares the resources (tracks,
15 cranes, and so on) used for the import cycle. Moreover, a
10 discrete-event simulation framework is being implemented
5
in order to model the port rail cycle in a more detailed
0
way and to be used to validate the results obtained by the
10 20 30 40 50 60
Time steps
70 80 90
optimization framework.
Fig. 3. The pattern of q6 (t). REFERENCES
Alessandri, A., Sacone, S., and Siri, S. (2007). Modelling
45 and optimal receding-horizon control of maritime con-
40
tainer terminals. Journal of Mathematical Modelling
35
and Algorithms, 6, 109–133.
Ambrosino, D., Bramardi, A., Pucciano, M., Sacone, S.,
30
and Siri, S. (2011). Modeling and solving the train load
Containers in q8

25
planning problem in seaport container terminals. In 7th
20
annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and
15 Engineering.
10 Bemporad, A. and Morari, M. (1999). Control of systems
5
integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints. Automat-
0
ica, 35, 407–427.
10 20 30 40 50 60
Time steps
70 80 90
Bostel, N. and Dejax, P. (1998). Models and algorithms
for container allocation problems on trains in a rapid
Fig. 4. The pattern of q8 (t). transshipment shunting yard. Transportation Science,
32, 370–379.
45
Crainic, T. (2009). Service design models for rail inter-
40
modal transportation. In B. et al. (ed.), Innovations in
Distribution Logistics, Lecture Notes in Economics and
35
Mathematical Systems 619. Springer Verlag.
30
Stahlbock, R. and Voss, S. (2008). Operations research at
Containers in q9

25
container terminals: a literature update. OR Spectrum,
20 30, 1–52.
15 Steenken, D., Voss, S., and Stahlbock, R. (2004). Con-
10
tainer terminal operation and operations research - a
5
classification and literature review. OR Spectrum, 26,
3–49.
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Time steps
70 80 90
Vis, I. and Koster, R.D. (2003). Transshipment of con-
tainers at a container terminal: an overview. European
Fig. 5. The pattern of q9 (t). Journal of Operational Research, 147, 1–16.

88