Pool and Optional XDock on Single Itinerary

[neronimo]

Hi all,

I’m trying to set up a scenario where I have 2 orders sharing the 1st leg of an Itinerary (TL from Source to decon pool B). Then, Order 1 goes directly from B to delivery location 1 on an LTL Shipment (total 2 Shipments: TL -> LTL) but Order 2 goes on an LTL to XDock C and from there to delivery location 2 on another LTL (total 3 Shipments: TL -> LTL -> LTL). I have attached a picture that may help you better understand the scenario.

• Source to B is done by ServProv 1
• B to location 1 and B to XDock C are done by ServProv 2
• XDock C to location 2 is done by ServProv 3

I have a 2-leg Itinerary where:

• Leg 1 has decon pool B as its destination with a role of DECONSOLIDATION_POOL
• Leg 2 has XDock C defined as the Cross Dock Location and no destination location

Orders to location 1 are planning fine. However, I haven’t managed to get orders to location 2 to use the XDock defined on the 2nd leg to build 2 Shipments on that leg, and they simply fail.
Does the Itinerary have to be multi-stop for that XDock to be used (which would not be possible since it’s a multi-leg Itinerary)?

Looking at this post it seems another solution would be to have 2 Itineraries (1 x 2-leg, 1 x 3-leg) and use Order Movements to merge the Shipments on the 1st leg. However, I haven’t looked into that yet and I’d prefer to avoid using Order Movements, if possible.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Eric

[nipunlakhotia]

Re: Pool and Optional XDock on Single Itinerary

The above scenario is possible via planning also.

Setup:
3 leg Itinerary - Source to Region (Location 1& Location2)

• Leg1: source to poolB : optimize equipment: consol into one equipment
• Leg2: B to region(Location 1 & xDock): optimize equipment: no auto consolidate
• Leg3: empty: optimize equipment: no auto consolidate

Planning parameter
Short circuit leg =TRUE

Note:

• Use "shipto/from" as location role in all locations
• Don't mark any check box relating to consol/de-consol setup in itinerary header
• Mentioning of xdock location in 'cross dock location ID' field in itinerary leg is not required.

I was able to achieve the desired results in my test instance. Do let me know for any other input

[neronimo]

Re: Pool and Optional XDock on Single Itinerary

Hi Nipun,

Thanks for the reply.

I've managed to replicate the scenario by following your suggestions and using a Location Profile as the destination for leg 2. The Profile only contains 2 Locations: Customer 1 and XDock C.

However - I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in the original post - there are thousands of potential Locations for Customer 1 and more are added every day (same for Customer 2 but that wouldn't be an issue since leg 3 has no destination). So maintaining an up-to-date Location Profile is not really feasible.

Ideally, I would have a Region defined as the destination for leg 2 but unless I'm missing something it doesn't seem to be possible.

I've also tried defining XDock C as the destination Location for leg 2 with a large radius but the orders fail.

Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks,
Eric

[nipunlakhotia]

Re: Pool and Optional XDock on Single Itinerary

Hi Eric,

As per my understanding, we cannot define region as destination for leg 2. Also, radius method (even if it works) might not always give the desired results.

One way could be defining 2 different itineraries; one for customers who want to be serviced by xDock and one for the rest. But in that case, consolidating first leg i.e. source to 'B' might not possile accross all customers. That has to be either manually or via order moevements.

[neronimo]

Re: Pool and Optional XDock on Single Itinerary

Hi Nipun,

I've set up 2 Itineraries (2-leg and 3-leg) and built Shipments on each of them. I can then manually merge the first TL leg with no problem, even without using Order Movements and the common TL Shipment end up using the 3-leg Itinerary. I was quite surprised that I could merge them but it works.

I've only tried with a handful of orders so far. I'll see if it still works with more orders and/or other restrictions and I may have to use Order Movements if it doesn't, but for now I'm happy.

Thanks very much for your help.

Regards,
Eric