Rail transport in Swedish wood supply – seasonal variation, system risks and mitigation costs

Figures & data

Figure 1. The six core supply terminals and rail lines supplying mills in mid-Sweden. The two terminals to the left (Hoting, Krokom) are located in the interior zone, the remaining four are located in the mid-zone and the mills are situated along the eastern coastline.

Figure 2. Monthly transport pace (% of annual average) for mid-zone terminals by assortment 2019 -2020. The truck inflows are shown above and the rail outflows below, with the monthly change in sum terminal stocks in the middle (PW pulpwood, SL sawlogs).

Figure 3. Monthly transport pace (% of annual average) for interior zone terminals by assortment 2019 -2020. The truck inflows are shown above and the rail outflows below, with the monthly change in sum terminal stocks in the middle (PW pulpwood, SL sawlogs).

Figure 4. The monthly distributions of canceled and rescheduled routes for the 4 main causes of deviations from planned schedules.

Figure 5. General framework for rescheduling options on quarterly, monthly, weekly and daily horizons (R0 commercial railway operator, TA; Swedish transport authorities).

Table 1. Respondent specification of underlying causes for deviations from schedules (SCA; service buyer, RO; service provider).

SCA	RO
Insufficient supply at terminal	Locomotives – mechanical problems
Causes the most deviations during late summer/autumn. Driven by the low stock levels held during warm summer months to avoid quality degrades.	RO experiences are consistent with study results regarding increased problems with low winter temperatures. Particularly for diesel locomotives on non-electrified sections.
Reduced mill demand	Locomotive – lack of operators
Typically driven by unplanned mill process stoppages. These are difficult to predict and drive multiple canceled routes because of full reduction of mill consumption.	Lower operator reserves were particular for holiday periods. RO experienced a more even winter distribution of operator problems than the study results showed.

Table 2. Mitigation scenarios developed after SCA/RO interviews with corresponding flow restrictions for wood flow.

Mitigation	Base case	Scenario 1	Scenario 2
Implementation	Whole system	Core terminals	Coniferous pulpwood
Risks	None	Insufficient seasonal supply	Cold conditions – reduced locomotive availability Lack of operators – during summer
Restrictions	No changes	Rail outflows limited to truck inflows and stock balance (T1-4)	Cold conditions – Rail outflows reduced 30% from non-electrified interior terminals during T1 For lack of operators – Rail outflows reduced 20% on longest routes during T3

Figure 6. A comparison of relative costs and transport output between the base case and two scenarios for risk mitigation (Scenario 1 and 2) as well as an optimization of the base case (BC). The results from left to right provide 3 perspectives: in relation to the entire system (11 supply terminals), the core terminal (6 supply terminals closest to mills), or coniferous pulpwood flows, alone.