Generally speaking, the term \u2018multimodality\u2019 is used (perhaps incorrectly) as a synonym for \u2018intermodality\u2019. It is not widely used in purely operational and commercial contexts; instead, it appears to be predominantly used in descriptions of transport policy. The same applies to the resulting designation of MTO operators. <\/p>\n\n
One definition of an MTO is that provided by the Freight Leaders Council: \u201cA Multimodal Transport Operator is a professional entity that organises and manages, both nationally and internationally, either at its own commercial risk or in partnership with other MTOs, a bulk transport service. Within the field of combined transport, this operator may organise a \u2018company train\u2019 where the link is dedicated to a specific client, or \u2013 as is the case in the vast majority of instances \u2013 provide an \u2018open access\u2019 service. In the latter case, all MTOs may, subject to a combination of terms and conditions, purchase train space either by contracting for a dedicated train space (loading slot) or through occasional bookings. In summary, from a market perspective, demand for combined or multimodal transport \u2013 where there are more than two modes of transport \u2013 can be met by a wide range of professional providers, depending on specific service requirements. These providers often offer a comprehensive and extensive range of services.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
It would therefore appear, according to this definition, that MTOs are primarily providers of intermodal rail services, with which other MTOs (which are themselves providers of other rail services) interact by purchasing specific slots from them and marketing them, in a rather collaborative manner.<\/p>\n\n
However, the FLC also adds that \u201cthe number of organisations seeking to act as multimodal transport operators is generally and steadily on the rise. Shipowners, driven by the growth of containerised transport, have been joined by freight forwarders, rail carriers and, increasingly today, transport operators and 3PL or 4PL logistics providers. The latter are significantly renewing their fleets, shifting investment from the purchase of traction vehicles to that of transport units (swap bodies and\/or crane-loadable semi-trailers)\u201d.<\/p>\n\n
And it is essentially this meaning that we intend to attribute to MTOs: operators who, on behalf of their client manufacturers, organise \u2018door-to-door\u2019 transport, from the point of origin to the final destination, using intermodal transport.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Generally speaking, the term \u2018multimodality\u2019 is used (perhaps incorrectly) as a synonym for \u2018intermodality\u2019. It is not widely used in purely operational and commercial contexts; instead, it appears to be predominantly used in descriptions of transport policy. The same applies to the resulting designation of MTO operators. One definition of an MTO is that provided […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7879,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insight"],"acf":{"image-2":7880,"image-2_copy":"","titolo_paragrafo_1":"","titolo_paragrafo_2":"","image-3":"","testo-2":"
All of the above shows us that the transport sector \u2013 particularly as a result of its intermodal nature \u2013 is increasingly made up of roles that are difficult to define clearly using unambiguous terms, and that often overlap \u2013 at least partially \u2013 in terms of their duties. It is our task to untangle this knot as much as possible. In practical terms, therefore, it may be useful to distinguish between two types of MTO: <\/span><\/p>\n\n Finally, a question naturally arises: how does an MTO, in this latter sense, differ from a traditional freight forwarder? Primarily in the specific use of intermodal transport, but not only that; there is also a difference in liability. As CONFETRA specifies, \u201cthe difference between the services provided by an MTO and those of a traditional freight forwarder lies, first and foremost, in the different legal liability towards the client. The freight forwarder\u2019s obligation is to follow the principal\u2019s instructions, acting in the principal\u2019s best interests when selecting carriers. The carriers alone, and not the freight forwarder, remain liable for damage to the goods, and it is against them that the principal must seek redress directly. With the expansion of freight volumes, the proliferation of delivery points, the increasing pressure to meet scheduled times, and the growing number of sub-carriers in each transport chain, cargo owners are increasingly seeking a single point of responsibility capable of meeting the mobility requirements of their goods. It is from this demand that the role of the MTO has emerged\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\nAt Gruber Logistics, we firmly believe in multimodal transport. Intermodal rail transport currently accounts for 32 per cent of the full loads handled by the company. In addition to the benefits this mode offers for shipments \u2013 such as the ability to carry loads of up to 44 tonnes rather than 40 \u2013 there are also significant environmental benefits: CO\u2082 emissions are estimated to be reduced by up to 70 per cent. <\/span>","video":""},"yoast_head":"\n\n \t