Tho purpose of this paper is to dotermlno tho poHlblo advantages for roil and road lntermodal freight torminals of eight different handling techniques by comparing them with transfer by gantry crane. Design concepu wore drown u11 for each technique for throe typiC'll terminal tizos that were d11 $ ignod for the forecaS" t vofumo of lntermodol freight in Wott Germany in 1990. Fune· tional capability ond con wore the basoJ for comparison. The terminals woro abo vlowod within the context of the West German trenaport system os o whole. Although all of the techniques studied wore found to copo with the peak-hour work load, there oro mojor difforencei In terms of capital outlay and funo: tlonal propertle $. Tho coslJ ur terminals with handling tochnlquos that Involve little or no vertlc. il movement arc significantly higher then 1hc at. hors. None of the new techniques off ors any advantages over the gantry crane. Tho u· nit handling co1U of lerlJI! terminals are not lower than those of mcdium-siiod termlnuls. Tho handling costs in terminals are Inferior to tho total cost of in. land inter· modal freight transport. Based 011 capacity assumpticms m11de for tha typical terminals considered in this t tudy, the optimum number of terminnls for West Germany is 50 in terms of the total cost of the intermodal freight transport system.

Intermodal freight transport varies markedly from one country to the next. This is due, among other things, to differing statutory regulations, distances that have to be covered, and admissible dimensions and weights. These differences are particularly pronounced between the United States and Europe. Thus, only limited transfer of experience and know-how is possible.