Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Deliverable WP2, Final report Innovative logistics concepts for Integrated Transport Chains Version 12 October 2006
CREATING Concepts to Reduce Environmental impact and Attain optimal Transport performance by Inland Navigation FP6 - 506542
Page 0 of 115
Document History
Version 10 11 12
Classification
Internal
Responsible Organisation: EVO Contributing Organisation(s): TNO, DPC, CBRB, SPB, Portolan, Uni Bu
Principal Author(s): M. Haenen, J. Becker, A. Burgess Contributing Author(s): R. Hekkenberg, H. Blaauw, D. Radojcic, S. Bela, D. Hadhazi, A. Korteweg, H. Sijthoff Haenen, M. EVO
Page 1 of 115
Table of Contents 1 2 3 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 7 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................. 9 2.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 12 Introduction................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Objective of the WP2 Deliverable ................................................................. 14 3.2 Organisation of the work carried out ............................................................. 14 3.3 Structure of this report and the annex report ................................................ 15 Methodology to identify and analyse innovative cases (M.02.02)............ 17 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Case identification......................................................................................... 18 4.3 Supply criteria for innovative concepts ......................................................... 19 4.4 Reality scan .................................................................................................. 20 4.5 Demand criteria for innovative concepts ....................................................... 20 4.6 Feasibility study ............................................................................................ 21 4.7 Market criteria ............................................................................................... 22 4.8 Pilot and implementation............................................................................... 22 Innovation process in Creating ................................................................... 23 5.1 Case identification......................................................................................... 23 5.2 Selection for reality scans ............................................................................. 24 5.3 Selection for feasibility study......................................................................... 26 5.3.1 Evaluation by the database tool ................................................................ 26 5.3.2 Evaluation through demand criteria .......................................................... 27 5.4 Innovation process results ............................................................................ 29 Innovative concepts ..................................................................................... 31 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 31 6.2 Conclusions Reality Scans ........................................................................... 31 Feasibility calculations (M02.06) ................................................................. 33 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 33 7.2 Bio mass transport ........................................................................................ 33 7.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 33 7.2.2 Transport corridor and goods flows........................................................... 35 7.2.3 Transport concept ..................................................................................... 35 7.2.4 Feasibility calculations .............................................................................. 35 7.2.5 Conclusions............................................................................................... 35 7.3 Banana transport .......................................................................................... 35 7.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 35 7.3.2 Transport corridor and goods flows........................................................... 35 7.3.3 Transport concept ..................................................................................... 35 7.3.4 Feasibility calculations .............................................................................. 35 7.3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 35 7.4 New generation Ro/Ro on the Danube ......................................................... 35 7.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 35 7.4.2 Transport corridor and goods flows........................................................... 35 7.4.3 Transport concept ..................................................................................... 35 7.4.4 Feasibility calculations .............................................................................. 35 7.4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 35 7.5 Small chemical tanker................................................................................... 35
Page 2 of 115
6 7
Page 3 of 115
Page 4 of 115
Page 5 of 115
Page 6 of 115
This report describes the outcome of work package 2 (WP2) of CREATING Innovative logistic concepts for integrated transport chains Objectives. The objectives of this WP are to identify and acquire continental cargo flows which are now transported by truck, for which it is feasible to carry out the transport via water. To identify the cargo flows, criteria are developed in order to obtain quick insight into which cargo flows are in potential suitable for modal shift towards inland waterways. The Description of Work (DoW) which formed the guideline for carrying out activities describes the following steps: 1. Determination of cargo flows transported via roads, which can be transferred to inland waterways. 2. Research and development to determine criteria for the feasibility of logistic concepts including transportation by ship, and analyses and evaluation of examples of such commodity flows on feasibility. 3. Survey the loading and unloading systems, which are available; indicate the potential possibilities and the cost involved. Of course the way of unitization of the various kinds of cargo will be taken into account 4. Indication of possible improvements using modern ways of loading and unloading. 5. A survey of all elements of the transport chain including all costs involved (activity based costing). 6. Select at least 4 most feasible logistic concepts and definition of the characteristics; including preferably possibilities on the Rhine Danube, the North South connection in the north of France, the utilization of the smaller canals in Europe, also looking at distribution in urban areas. 7. Determination of the logistic requirements for the inland navigation part of the transport chain taking into account the overall efficiency/feasibility of the transport chain and subsequently define the requirements for innovative vessel concepts. These requirements form important input for WP 03. This report is the main deliverable as stated in the DoW from this WP. It is referred to as D.02.01 in the DoW and is herein described as a report encompassing the milestones mentioned below and the functional design requirements with respect to the inland ship including all cargo handling aspects. This main report is accompanied with an annex report. in which some of the milestones have been reported. The milestones and expected results from this WP as listed in the DoW are: 1. Database indicating origin and destinations from continental cargo flows throughout the participating countries including type of cargo, way of transport, indication of cost of transport. A description of the database is included in the annex report. 2. Report on the determination of criteria in order to be able to estimate if transport via water seems to be feasible. Aspects are, e.g. volume of cargo, type, unitization, distance to terminals, cost involved 3. Report on loading and unloading possibilities including all cost involved. Also the operational conditions should be addressed. The report, also deals with the observed shortcomings. 4. Report indicating the possible improvements in terms of loading and unloading. Capital and operational cost should be worked out. 5. Report concerning costs and calculation methods to gain insight into all elements contributing to the costs of the overall chain (activity based costing)
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 7 of 115
This main report and annex report are structured around the above mentioned 6 milestones. For each of the chapters dealing with a specific milestone is indicated so in the heading of the chapter in the main report or in the annex report, notably in the main report M02.02 and M02.06 are dealt with and M02.01, M02.03, M02.04 and M02.05 are reported in the annex report. The latter 4 milestones are supporting the analysis in the main report. In carrying out the project we have slightly adapted the working procedure. In the beginning of the project there were indications that solely from a database with existing flows we would not get to innovative logistics concepts to be applied in inland waterways. We have started a joint procedure in as well scanning the freight flow but at the same time also use the networks of partners to identify possible new concepts in inland waterway transport. Both were used for identifying feasible concepts, through setting up a selection process with different criteria, it was possible to reduce a long list with new concepts to finally 4 that are selected for further elaboration in WP3 and other workpackages: 1. Bio mass transport 2. Banana transport 3. New generation Ro/Ro on the Danube 4. Small chemical tanker Besides these four concepts, two other concepts are worked out that look promising for the future from a logistical point of view but are not worked out in the other workpackages. 5. 6. Distriship Ruhr Area Connection Containerline service Budapest - Constantza
In fact the process has lead therefore to two more concepts than we originally planned. The last 2 ideas of Distriship and Containerline on the Danube, will not be elaborated in WP3 but are considered as long term feasible plans, with giving priority to the first 4 ideas in CREATING.
Page 8 of 115
2.1 Conclusions This chapter contains the conclusions and recommendations of WP2 of CREATING. As stated in the introductory chapter, the goals of WP2 are to deliver 4 concepts for inland waterway transport as an input for WP3. However besides selecting 4 concepts a process has been carried out that: first was very useful as a selection mechanism secondly, as a process that can be copied in other projects third, to learn from concepts that have not reached the final stages for evaluation, so what have we learned from WP2 as a whole Selection mechanism CREATING has proven to be a different approach than used so far. Initially it was planned to select from a database containing cargo flows to select innovative inland waterway concepts. It proved in the beginning of the project that this would take too long and would be too imprecise for this selection. Also in order to avoid being too academic we choose to develop concepts direct in relation with stakeholders/companies. Therefore many meetings have taken place with shippers and shipping companies. With this approach also a very dynamical environment is approached, since the business cases do change very frequently due to very varying circumstances. For example for the banana case quite a lot of evaluations and sensitivity analysis have been made in order to cope with the continuous changing demands of the stakeholders. In this sense a case in CREATING there is seldom a finish line, researchers had to deal with continuous demands from the business environment. Besides this CREATING, in particular WP2 aimed on the demand side for new concepts instead of pushing new concepts into the market and thereby concentrating on the supply side only. This approach also had to deal with difficulties. For example a large car manufacturer in Germany stated: our logistics system can and will only cope with road transport. This is more reliable, probably cheaper and decreases the risk of production interruptions. What have we learned from WP2 Innovative logistics concepts for Integrated Transport Chains until now? As mentioned, CREATING aimed on new vessel concepts based on transport and logistics requirements of the cargo owners. During CREATING it appeared that this was an effective approach. In the past the shipping industry did not pay (enough) attention to the requirements of the end customer. Because of the understanding by the researchers of the logistic chains it appeared that new possibilities for inland navigation did exist. It is necessary to mention that it is not always an easy process. This because it is a new approach for the different stakeholders. Shippers are not focused in the first place on inland navigation (besides the shippers that are dealing with transport flows that already have been proven to use inland navigation on a large scale); but are focussing most of the time on there present transport mode, mainly road transport. Therefore it is necessary two define the most important lessons learned by the partners of work package 2 in relation to logistics: To develop new concepts for inland navigation it is necessary to understand logistical and transport concepts. In WP2 an extended database covering road and inland waterway flows has been constructed based on the available transport statistics. The database was used in the
Page 9 of 115
Applicability of CREATING in other circumstances Based on the Lessons learned CREATING will also be applicable in other circumstances. As mentioned a project like CREATING has the possibilities to let the market experience the possibilities of inland navigation. Not only in a technical way, but also in the field of environment, economics and logistics. It also offers the possibility to stimulate the NAIADES programme of the Commission in which it is aimed to stimulate inland navigation in different areas, namely market, image, fleet, jobs and skills and infrastructure. A continuous CREATING project can be a consistent instrument in the future to let the market experience the possibilities of inland navigation. This gives at the same time the possibility to boost the market of inland
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 10 of 115
Page 11 of 115
In this section we deal with the recommendations, i.e. how to proceed with market and logistics analysis after the CREATING project. At this stage WP2 has fulfilled its task by delivering 4 concepts, so in the end the question arises what we have learned from CREATING and what are pitfalls that can be avoided by other projects. It should be noted that on 17 January 2006, the European Commission adopted a Communication on the promotion of inland waterway transport. The measures are rounded off by reflections on an appropriate organisational structure. The Communication sets out an integrated action programme, focusing on concrete actions which are needed to fully exploit the market potential of inland navigation and to make its use more attractive. The action programme which the Commission intends focuses on strategic areas which are essential for the development of Inland Waterway Transport (IWT): 1. Create favourable conditions for services 2. Stimulate fleet modernisation and innovation 3. Promote jobs and skills 4. Improve image and co-operation 5. Provide adequate infrastructure 6. Improve the institutional framework The programme includes recommendations for action between 2006-2013 by the European Community and other responsible parties. Its implementation shall be carried out in close cooperation with national and regional authorities, River Commissions, as well as European industry. Concerning the investigation and implementation of new logistics concepts (as part of the 1st action programme) the report mentions the following: Market segments involved in the carriage of continental general cargo using loading units such as continental containers, swap bodies, pallets, reefer containers are promising, but are still in their infancy. New market niches which also need to be developed further can be identified in the areas of waste and recycling, dangerous goods, heavy lift cargo, and river-sea shipping. The opportunities for innovative intermodal services should be investigated and implemented in order to attract new markets. This should be based on a continuing dialogue between market actors. Local and regional initiatives for co-operation between the inland navigation sector and freight-forwarders,
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 12 of 115
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 17.1.2006 SEC(2006) 34/3 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annex to the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE PROMOTION OF INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORT NAIADES An Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterway Transport Page 13 of 115
3.1
This report gives an overview of the outcomes of the activities in work package 2. Work package 2 has worked out the possibilities for innovative concepts within the Rhine-Danube area and also in Finland. The activities have led to feasibility studies of promising concepts and their possibilities for acceptance by the market. The general goal of WP2 is defined in the DoW as: The objectives are to identify and acquire continental cargo flows which are now transported by truck, for which it is feasible to carry out the transport via water. To identify the cargo flows, criteria will be developed in order to obtain quick insight into which cargo flows are in potential suitable for modal shift. At the end this has to lead to four innovative transport concepts in which inland navigation is integrated. A selection process has been developed so that in the end of the report 5 feasible logistics concepts are elaborated and which form the input to WP3. 3.2 Organisation of the work carried out
Work package 2 has an important role within CREATING: i.e. the economics and logistics are an important part in the evaluation of a concept and thereby form thereby a part of the basis for the other work packages (especially WP3). The description of work (DoW) has defined 5 subwork packages that will lead to the final innovative concepts. The figure below provides in schematic form the 5 sub-work packages:
It was agreed that after the kick off a more focused approach was to be implemented. Within these discussions of providing more focus to WP 2 it was decided to concentrate the activities on two levels, namely at the one side on a more abstract level and on the other side on a more detailed level.
Page 14 of 115
This division between abstract and more detailed activities is instituted as a result of making first a broad scan of promising cargo flows that can contribute to a possible modal shift, loading/unloading systems, possible logistical concepts which can attribute to the objectives stated (namely which concepts can contribute to a modal shift), costs related to the possible concepts/chains and the criteria that can indicate the possible success of bridging supply/demand and costs of chains. This screening leads to an overview of the 6 most promising concepts for further investigation on further detailed level. On this more detailed level cargo flows, criteria, loading -/unloading systems and costs will be optimised within the different chains. These modelling processes will lead to chain/concept optimizing. All expertise within the consortium has been consulted to bring forward all possible existing and new concepts in inland waterways. The activities have been executed by dividing the activities into responsibilities for the different partners. 3.3 Structure of this report and the annex report
Structure of the main report In this introductory chapter we have described the objective of the WP2 Deliverable and the organisation of the work carried out. In chapter 4 the methodology to identify and analyse innovative cases (M.02.02) is elaborated. The crucial concept developed is the reality scan. It starts with the case identification and with supply criteria and demand criteria for innovative concepts. In chapter 5 the innovation process in CREATING is described, here we come to a first selection of cases. The different concepts are evaluated with the demand and supply criteria and the database, this answers whether a concept is feasible for further elaboration. In chapter 6 the innovative concepts are dealt with and the conclusion of the reality scan for each concept is given. In chapter 7 the feasibility calculations are carried out, this gives a further detailing of 6 concepts. The first four concepts are chosen to be the input for workpackage 3 and other workpackages.
Page 15 of 115
Structure of the annex report The annex report starts with the introduction in chapter 1. In chapter 2 of the annex report we describe the Cargo Flows (which is Milestone M.02.01). Besides describing the database that was constructed for CREATING, we also describe the transport policy of the EC and the different EU-members. Also the economic circumstances and logistical developments are described here, these form the input for the demand analysis. We describe the flows on the different sub-areas of the European inland waterway system. In chapter 3 of the annex report the milestones loading and unloading (respectively M02.03 and M02.04) are dealt with, the different concepts for loading and unloading are described including the latest technology in this field. The process of transhipment of one mode to another is decisive since this brings about extra cost and organisation in transport relative to a unimodal solution. In this respect it is important especially for inland waterway where access and egress transport in most cases are necessary that these developments in transhipment techniques are well covered. In chapter 4 of the annex report the costs (M02.05) of transport are dealt with, together with the costs related to loading and unloading. The costs of transport are an important factor for elaborating the economic feasibility of a concept. These have been used for evaluating the cost of each concept. Also in the annex report the reality scans are provided, these contain the detailed analysis of the feasibility of the concept, not only in technical aspects but also in terms of market and stakeholder analysis.
Page 16 of 115
The goal of task M02.02 is to develop criteria for the feasibility of logistics concepts including transportation by ship, and analyses and evaluation of examples of such commodity flows on feasibility. Sub-task 02.02.01 has the goal to identify these criteria (a supply and demand perspective) for the analysis of the innovative logistics concepts that (may) result in a modal shift from haulage to inland waterways transport. A logistics concept is tested in several stages. First, innovative cases need to be identified. Then, supply criteria can be used to select cases for the so-called reality scan. Main questions in this stage is what cases are available and which cases have the highest opportunity to be analysed in a reality scan. Second, the reality scan analyses a case at macro level. The reality scan specifies in what way a case has an innovative character, what the scope of the distribution network is, what the logistics organisation is in general terms, and what market (type of goods, volume, frequency, and so on) is exploited. If the reality scan concludes that a case has market potential, demand criteria can be used to detail the reality scan and to look for (supply chain) partners. Main questions of the feasibility study are whether a case is feasible from an economic, logistics, and technical point of view. A pilot can be set up, if supply chain parties, i.e. shipper(s) and logistics service providers (LSP), have confidence in the case and are willing to commit themselves to a pilot. If the pilot has good results, parties can detail out the full implementation.
Case identification Supply criteria Reality scans Demand criteria Feasibility study Market criteria Pilot Business criteria Implementation
Which case might realise modal shift to IWW? What cases have the highest opportunity?
How does the innovative concept work? Has a case potential? Is the case feasible? Can the case be proven? What are the operational barriers? Can the case be exploited by an LSP?
Figure 4-1:
Page 17 of 115
The cases are identified through the following topics: 1. Name case 2. Short description of the case 3. Status of the case: - Pilot in CREATING - Feasibility study in CREATING - Opportunity for CREATING - Idea for CREATING, but no market commitment - Not feasible idea in today's market - Already supply chain pilot - Functioning supply chain initiative 4. Initiating party - Shipper - LSP - transport operator - LSP - warehousing / VAL / VAS - LSP - third party services - Terminal operator - Industry association - Local government - Customs - Other legislative institute - Interest group - Knowledge organisation - Other party 5. Main stakeholders - Same options as initiating party 6. Number of parties involved in the case - Low: 2-5 parties - Medium: 6-10 parties - High: >10 parties 7. Goal of concept - Economies of scale - Transparency of information (ICT) - Efficient planning - Effective operations - Effective transport technique 8. Geographic area in which the concept is used 9. Type of goods - Commodity - Commodity - fast moving - Commodity - slow moving - Specialty - Specialty - fast moving
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 18 of 115
Criteria to assess the opportunity of the concept are the following: 1. Concept aspects - Level of concreteness c.q. applicability of an idea or concept - Comprehensibility of innovation steps - Type of concept: technology push or market pull 2. Consortium aspects - Level of sense-of-urgency of required parties in terms of drivers to participate - Level of lobby efforts required to establish a consortium with market players 3. Financial aspects - Level of investment needed - Operational costs (including a reasonable level of return-on investment) - Easiness to share costs and benefits 4. Logistics aspects - Deployment of inland waterways transport - Opportunities for modal shift - Goods type - Transport route In addition to these criteria, case ideas may also be integrated to one case. For instance, technical ideas may be combined with specific transport corridor ideas
Page 19 of 115
The reality scan has the objective to study a case in theory. The reality scan specifies in what way a case has an innovative character, what the scope of the distribution network is, what the logistics organisation is in general terms, and what market (type of goods, volume, frequency, and so on) is exploited. A reality scan includes the following aspects: 1. 2. 3. 4. Context - Problem issue analysis: what dilemmas drive shippers to reject road transport? - Type of innovation deployed to realise modal-shift (incl. explanation) Transport corridor analysis - Goods type - Geographic analysis including transport routes and transhipment locations Market opportunities - Identification of regions with transport demand and modal shift opportunities - General (rough) transport price comparison road versus multimodal transport Macro goods flows - Origin Destination analysis - Volumes - Distance - Number of shipments - Goods type per industrial sector - Truck type Contact parties - Identify willingness to participate in feasibility study Demand criteria for innovative concepts
5.
4.5
Demand criteria are conditions that need to be met (for the greater part) by an innovative concept to be detailed out in a feasibility study in the CREATING project. Criteria to assess the potential of the concept 1. Concept aspects - Level of acceptance of the concept in the (specific) market 2. Consortium aspects - Involvement of stakeholders from the market in a door-to-door perspective - Level of definite c.q. committed involvement of parties - Level of willingness to (co)invest - Level of actual relationships of the parties in the logistics network 3. Financial aspects - Level of investment possible (versus needed) - Reasonable level of Return-on-Investment - Level of cost reduction (e.g. ABC method) (%) 4. Logistics aspects - Potential volume - Lead time reduction (%) - Service level improvement (e.g. in terms of reliability) (%) 5. Other aspects
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 20 of 115
4.6
Feasibility study
Main questions of the feasibility study are whether a case is feasible from an economic, logistics, and technical point of view. To conduct a feasibility study the following elements need to known: 1. Supply chain party identification a. Type of party (shipper, LSP, agent, ) b. Logistics organisation (centralised / decentralised distribution) c. Type of information system (level of transparency of supply chain information) d. Inventory management strategy (stock levels) 2. Actual goods flow information a. Origin Destination information: locations of companies b. Order characteristics (service levels) c. Minimal lead times, current lead times, differentiation d. Volume (tonnes) totally shipped e. Frequency f. Value density g. Loading unit h. Shipment size i. Shipment restrictions (e.g. sensitivity to smell, hazardous materials, risks for material damage) 3. Future goods flow information a. Reliability in terms of service level b. Type of access and egress transport to place IWW transport in a door-to-door supply chain perspective c. Frequency required (in terms of service level) of access and egress transport d. Frequency required (in terms of service level) of IWW transport e. Shipment size required f. Transport unit types and capacity g. Route planning (access, IWW, egress), including identification of terminal c.q. transhipment locations Conceptual vessel design One of the issues in the feasibility study is to design technical aspects of a barge in cases where a new barge type is needed. The following logistic data is needed to for the purpose of drafting conceptual vessel design to match service requirements within the transport chain (DNV, 2004): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Port of origin (origin of main cargo flow, destination for the back flow) Port of destination (destination of main cargo flow, origin for the back flow) Kind of commodity to be transported from O to D Kind of commodity to be transported from D to O Annual transport volume from O to D Annual transport volume from D to O Seasonal (three-month) distribution of volume (% of total annual) from O to D Seasonal (three-month) distribution of volume (% of total annual) from D to O Time requirements from O to D (t1, t2, t3 = loading, voyage time, unloading) Time requirements from D to O (t1, t2, t3 = loading, voyage time, unloading)
Page 21 of 115
4.7
Market criteria
To decide whether a case is ready to be tested in a pilot, the feasibility study needs to provide convincing results from economic, logistics and technical perspectives. Market criteria analyse whether this is the case. The following criteria need therefore to be met: 1. Consortium: Supply chain parties need to be willing to co-invest and participate in the case. 2. Concept: all supply chain parties understand and trust in the logistics concept of the case and are willing to adapt their logistics organisation (tactic, operational) to the case. All parties are willing to provide all necessary (logistics planning) information to make the pilot operative. 3. Financial: Supply chain parties are convinced of the return-on-investment or they are willing to test this in the pilot. 4. Technique: All technical challenges have been solved and the pilot will test whether everything will work.
4.8
A pilot can be set up, if supply chain parties, i.e. shipper(s) and logistics service providers (LSP), have confidence in the case and are willing to commit themselves to a pilot. If the pilot has good results, and all supply chain parties are convinced of the benefits, parties can detail out the full implementation.
Transport parameters by truck set up relevant service references. If the transport cost by truck on the same stretch as to be realized by inland ship are e.g. 3000 and transportation time 4 days then the value of time might be roughly assumed as 750 per day. Necessary to establish reference level to check rougly (outer loop) the economic viability of waterborne solution
Page 22 of 115
The first phase of the innovation process is to find innovative ideas to promote inland waterways transport in Europe. This phase is called the case identification phase. Cases have been identified through desk research (studying current market initiatives in magazines, papers and on the internet), through networking (talking with people in the transport sector) and through idea generation based on revolutionary logistics and technical environmental friendly transport concepts. As a result, the first phase identified 26 very interesting waterborne innovations. These include 19 ideas that are not (yet) taken upon by market parties and 7 ideas that already were launched at the time of this phase. The 19 innovative ideas are mainly interesting for the CREATING project, because these require some sort of (development) action that is not taken upon by market parties. To the contrary, the 7 ideas do not need extra promotion, because market parties are already working towards it. New innovative ideas: 1. Distriship Rotterdam to Ruhr District 2. Distriship internal Ruhr District 3. Paper supply chain 4. Multipurpose vessel in Central Europe 5. Banana transport 6. Special transport of fragile materials (glass) 7. Wood chips transport 8. Waste chains (for pressed litter) 9. Sea going barges for the hinterland network of Danube via Constanza 10. IWW Transport Poland on Odra 11. Transport of not for concentrated fruit juice on Rhine 12. North/south transport of hazardous materials 13. Ro/Ro transport on the Danube 14. Inland Terminals Concept (near Born) 15. Connecting economic centres Europe 16. Hinterland containers (via ECT) 17. Composite material vessels - faster service - higher capacity - undeep waters 18. Steel, metal and break bulk via Rhine 19. Two linked barges (Spits type). Market initiatives: 20. Distrivaart the Netherlands 21. Binnenlloyd Information Tracking and Tracing System (BLITTS) 22. Push-barge for liquid gas "Chemgas 20" 23. Innovative transhipment by Mercurial Latistar 24. Ro/Ro of Renault and Volvo cars on Seine and Danube 25. IWW transport for intercontinental non food from port of Antwerp to distribution centre of Carrefour 26. Oil transport by Total Butler.
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 23 of 115
Logistics aspects
Concept aspects
Distriship Paper supply chain Multipurpose vessel Banana transport Fragile materials Wood chips Waste chains Sea going barges Ro/Ro transport on Danube IWW on Odra Fruit juices North/South transport Inland terminals concept Connecting centres Hinterland containers Composite material vessels Steel, metal, break bulk via Rhine Two linked barges
+ 0 + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 +
0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +
+ 0 + + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + + + 0 0 0 + 0 0
Table 5.1 illustrates that 11 ideas have a positive score in total. That does not mean that the neutral and negative scores (both per criterion and in total) have an absolute negative meaning, but the scores are relative to find the most interesting ideas. The cases of the Wood chips and Fruit juices appeared to have the most opportunity (from a supply perspective). They both have four times the highest score on the five criteria. That means that they have a high opportunity in terms of concept, logistics innovation, geography, and one in consortium aspects and the other in financial aspects. Short second rank scores the Ro/Ro transport case on the Danube with three positive scores. Distriship, Banana transport, and North/South transport on the Danube have the third rank because of the two positive scores.
Page 24 of 115
TOTAL
Consortium aspects
Financial aspects
Interesting idea
No market interest
High modal shift opportunity Well intermodal transport route High modal shift opportunity Medium intermodal transport route Low modal shift opportunity Bad intermodal transport route
Four cases have one positive score on the supply criteria. This is the case for the Multipurpose vessel, Waste chains, Sea going barges and the IWW transport on the Odra. Two cases appeared to be on the same area. That resulted in that the case of Two linked barges was integrated in North/south transport. Consequently, the remaining 10 ideas were found interesting to be studies in reality scans. Only the ideas with a score above average (thus positive scores) are selected for the reality scan, because of their higher opportunity. Hence, the following cases have been selected for the reality scans: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Distriship Rotterdam to Ruhr District Ro/Ro transport on the Danube Banana transport North/south transport of hazardous materials (Small chemical tanker) Multipurpose vessel in Central Europe Hinterland transport (**Sea going barges) Wood chips transport IWW Transport Poland on Odra Waste chains Transport of fruit juices on Rhine.
Since this chapter only focuses on the innovation process in CREATING, the reality scans of these cases are discussed in the next chapter.
Logistics aspects
Concept aspects
Page 26 of 115
The evaluation results of the 10 cases have been placed in Table 5.5 in the Database analysis column. In order to carry out this analysis the volumes as found in the database (see the Annex report) have been compared with the volumes reported in table 5.3 above. 5.3.2 Evaluation through demand criteria The 10 reality scans have been evaluated on the demand criteria (see section 4.5). Information required was found in the descriptions of the reality scans and through interviews and conversations with stakeholders in a case. Tables 5.4 summarises the results of this evaluation. The table thereafter, as a legend, explains the score types per criterion. Table 5-5: Scoring the innovative cases on the demand criteria. Other aspects Consortium aspects Financial aspects Database analysis
Logistics aspects
Concept aspects
Distriship Ro/Ro transport on Danube Banana transport North/South transport of hazardous materials Multipurpose vessel Container transport on the Danube Hinterland transport Wood chips IWW on Odra Waste chains Fruit juices
+ 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 0 +
0 + + + commit ment 0 -
0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 0 handlin g time 0
0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 +
+ + + 0 0 + techn regul +
Page 27 of 115
TOTAL
Table 5-6:
Legend of the demand criteria scores. Other aspects Fully feasible No restrictions in regulation or technique Problems in regulation and/or technique
Page 28 of 115
Consortium aspects
Financial aspects
Parties interested Full willingness Parties interested Some willingness No parties interested
No logistics restrictions
No acceptance
More than sufficient transport demand available Just sufficient transport demand available Insufficient transport demand available
In this demand evaluation, the cases Banana transport and Wood chips have the highest total score. They both score a + on all criteria except for financial aspects. The Distriship and the North/South transport and Ro/Ro transport on Danube cases rank third, fourth, and fifth. The latter has a very low commitment and interest of relevant parties. Although transport demand indicates a high potential, (east-European) parties do not yet feel the sense of urgency for a modal shift. To extent the opportunities of this case, the alternative of container transport by barge has been added to the Ro/Ro option. In case of North/South transport parties have a sense of awareness that freight volumes have been lost in the IWW market, but they do not have a proper feeling whether it is lost to road transport or that the market has decreased. The case of Transport of fruit juices ranks the last with a positive score because of a lower willingness of parties to participate. The multipurpose vessel case has a neutral (0) overall score. There is a lack of parties interested and the required different types of goods imply dominant logistics restrictions. These restrictions concern a very low maximum of transport demand and the same high technical requirements of all loading types for the terminals involved. The hinterland transport case has also a neutral (0) overall score. Besides the lack of parties interested, there are also some technical dilemmas to be solved. The last two cases, i.e. IWW on Odra and Waste chains have a slight negative score. Lack of commitment and technical dilemmas (for transport on Odra) on the one hand and expansive handling and strict regulation (for waste materials) are not balanced by any other highly positive scoring criterion. On the basis of the scores on the demand criteria, the following cases have been selected for the feasibility study: 1. Banana transport 2. Wood chips transport 3. Ro/Ro 4. North/south transport of hazardous materials 5. Distriship Rotterdam to Ruhr District 6. Containerline service Budapest - Constantza
Database analysis
Logistics aspects
Concept aspects
Figure 5.1 illustrates the innovation process in CREATING. The selection process can be examined from identification phase to feasibility study. In the first phase, all kinds of concepts have been identified. This resulted in a long list of cases that are interesting to modal shift in general. In the second phase, all independent market initiatives were deselected, because they are not of interest for promotion by CREATING. These market developments give hope to modal shift policy, because they prove that the deployment of inland waterways in transport of non-bulk goods is still of the strategic attention to logistics managers. In the third phase, two cases prove to be too conceptual to be worked out in a reality scan. There are also some cases combined to establish a case with even more opportunity. The fourth phase examines the remaining cases for their feasibility. Five cases turn out to involve too low commitment of parties involved. On this basis, it can be argued that commitment is only easily given if a strong sense-of-urgency makes business parties to consider inland waterways. Most chance to success are the cases in which a business party (either a shipper or LSP) is the case leader by himself. If a third party, like in CREATING, can argue and even prove the high opportunities to the supply chain parties involved, that does unfortunately not mean that these parties can be easily persuaded. This process takes time and a lot of efforts.
Page 29 of 115
Step 3: Reality scan Distriship Rotterdam - Ruhr Relative short distance RoRo transport on Danube Banana transport Paper supply chain Wood chips in Finland
RoRo transport on Danube Banana transport Paper supply chain Wood chips in Finland Multipurpose vessel on (South) Danube Steel, metal, break bulk via Rhine Fruit juice chains
RoRo transport on Danube Banana transport Low commitment Wood chips in Finland
Low commitment
Fruit juice chains
Market initiative Binnenlloyd B.V. Market initiative Chemgas Shipping B.V. Market initiative Total Butler Market initiative Mercurius Scheepvaart B.V. Market initiative Renault, Volvo Market initiative Carrefour Low commitment of ECT Low commitment of VOPAK Low commitment
High safe push barge for liquid gaz Modal shift oil transport Innovative transhipment for liquid bulk RoRo (new cars) on Seine and Danube Import non-perishables for retail from sea port Hinterland container Transport via ECT VOPAK Specialised transport of fragile materials
Figure 5-1:
Page 30 of 115
As already mentioned; work package 2 has decided to develop so called Reality Scans. These Reality Scans give a view on the potential of the selected concepts. The complete outline of these Reality Scans are shown in the Annex report that accompanies this main report. 6.2 Conclusions Reality Scans
The following Reality Scans are drafted: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Banana transport Distriship Ruhr Area Connection Paper Chains Bio mass transport Ro/Ro on the Danube Container transport on the Danube/Hinterland network North-South connection (Small chemical tanker) Transport of fruit juices IWT Poland Waste transport
As a result of the Reality Scans four concepts are selected for a feasibility study for CREATING . These four concepts are also the input for the other workpackages within CREATING. Banana transport Bio mass transport New generation Ro/Ro on the Danube Small chemical tanker
Besides the four concepts for the CREATING project, Workpackage 2 worked out two extra concepts that seem to be promising in the future. These concepts are not being used as an input for the other workpackages. These 2 concepts are: Distriship Ruhr Area Connection Containerline service Budapest - Constantza
Besides this there can be drawn several conclusions on the process of initialising Reality Scans till the outcomes of the Reality Scans. The database gives a good indication of the kind of commodities that could be interesting for new transport concepts. Nevertheless an important issue within the Reality Scan is the estimation of how promising a new concept could be. Therefore the partners in WP2 have also organised meetings with a lot of market parties. These meetings gave a view on the willingness of parties to support initiatives such as new transport concepts. For a few concepts parties were willing to support the new initiatives. For others there was a more waiting attitude or no interest. The reason for this is that organisations are not always ready for changes in their logistics and transport operations. Besides that it also can happen that new intermodal concepts lead to
Page 31 of 115
Page 32 of 115
Based on the reality scans as described in chapter 4 and in the Annex report, four concepts were chosen as a feasibility study on which the CREATING research is based : 1. Bio mass transport 2. Banana transport 3. New generation Ro/Ro on the Danube 4. Small chemical tanker Additional concepts (not worked out in the other workpackages) are: Distriship Ruhr Area Connection Containerline service Budapest - Constantza These feasibility studies in this CREATING project are described below in the this order. As mentioned earlier in this report, the first 4 concepts will be elaborated in WP3. The latter 2 concepts are also deepened within the analysis of WP2 because they show potential for the long term. In this chapter the main conclusions are given, in the annex report more detailed information about the concepts can be found. 7.2 7.2.1 Bio mass transport Introduction
Based on meetings of the CREATING team with representatives of the Jyvskyl Power Plant at Finland it was decided (after the completion of reality scan), to work out a feasibility study for the transport of bio mass with barges. In Finland Jyvskyl Power Plant, in the Paijanne area, is preparing the building of a power plant. This power plant will mainly use peat and wood chips (Bio-mass) for generating the power. There are long and relatively narrow connected lakes (over 400 km long) situated within a wooded area. These woods are of the utmost importance for the generation of timber and wood chips. The wood chips are used for the paper mills and also as a source of energy: the wood chips (bio mass) form excellent fuel for the generation of electricity. Also peat is nowadays used for generating electricity but this is less favourable when looking at the CO2 balance. The chips can be transported by trucks to the Power Plant. The aim of the present feasibility study is to determine whether it will be feasible to fit the inland barge into the transport chain. In that case the wood chips will have to be transported by lorries to the closest positions alongside the lake (the places where the floating rafts were put together are good places in that respect, situated about 30 km from each other). The idea is that inland barges collect these chips with their own power and equipment and sail (fully loaded) to the electricity plant.
Page 33 of 115
From LS 17 biomass is transported = 75000 (chips) but also 1500000 (peat, not included in table) maybe this can be integrated.
Page 34 of 115
The market adoption is depending on several aspects: Cost benefits Service (reliability) Sustainability
7.2.2
The concept is aiming on the transport within the Paijanne area. Within this area the estimation of the transport volumes of wood cut and peat are about 5,5 million m3 per year. Not all the wood chips will be transported by inland waterways. To have a kind of flexibility and taking into account local circumstances (including the meteorological effects) the volume of wood chips and peat to be transported annually via barge is estimated at 3 million m3. This 3 million m3 can be divided in 50% wood chips and about 50% peat. Per year the average demand for wood chips and peat via inland shipping looks as follow: Table 7-2: average demand
Average demand Average demand wood chips and peat wood chips and (%) peat (m3) 13,2 396.000 13,2 396.000 13,2 396.000 9,3 279.000 5,7 171.000 2,8 84.000 0 1,3 39.000 5,7 171.000 9,3 279.000 13,2 396.000 13,2 396.000
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Total
3.000.000
Page 35 of 115
17.
18.
13.
15. 14.12.
16.
11. 8. 6. 7.
10.
5. 2. 3. 4.
LS 1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS5 LS6 LS7 LS8 LS9 LS10 LS11 LS12 LS13 LS14 LS15 LS16 LS17 LS18
Maameski Kuhmoinen Arvaja Sysm too close Luhanka Jouksilahti Korpilahti Rutalahti too close too close too close Lintuklahti Jurvansalo Harinkaa Kymnkoski Keitelepohja Pekkala
1.
Figure 7-1: loading stations power plant. The loading stations have different supply volumes of wood chips/peat. The loading stations that supply the largest volumes are located further away.
Page 36 of 115
18% 16% % of total volume wood chips 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Loading station
Figure 7-2: deviation volumes loading stations. Peat The peat is actually only coming from one loading station. This is loading station number 17 (Keitelepohja).The total volume of the peat is 1,5 million m3 per year. Seasonal influences are the same as for the wood chips. These seasonal influences are based on the demand of the power plant.
7.2.3
Transport concept
As already mentioned the power plant is looking for a sustainable, reliable and economic viable way of transporting of the raw materials (wood chips and peat). In this perspective inland shipping can be a right mode to provide a large part of the transport demand. The power plant needs about 5,5 million m3 of peat and wood chips. Already from a logistical point of view it will be hard to handle these transport operations by only one transport mode. The power plant will not be able to handle that many truck movements, besides that the board is also aware of the environmental impact of transport by road. The concept in this feasibility study is aiming on the following part of the transport chain:
Page 37 of 115
Loading chips
Unloading
Feasibility Creating
Figure 7-3: feasibility. This part of the transport chain is chosen because making a comparison with the road transport it is in the first stage until the loading station the same activity. The different activities within the feasibility are: Loading wood chips/peat Inland shipping Unloading at the power plant. Current road transport The CREATING concept has to be compared with the scenario in which the transport would take place by road haulage. Also in this scenario the transport activities are taken into account from loading at the loading station to the stage in which the trucks will be unloaded at the power plant. The most important variables/cost drivers for cost calculations are kilometres and hours. For the road transport calculations, CREATING made use of market research that has been done by the WP2 team. First of all it is necessary to make an objective calculation of the possible road transport costs. Distances (kilometres) The average distance from the loading stations to the power plant is 97 kilometres (single trip). For a round trip this means an average distance of 194 kilometres. The deviation of distances is defined in the table below.
Page 38 of 115
240 160
Loading station
100 60 80 120 240 200 100 150 200 220 280 250 300
Figure 7-4: transport distances (in km) Time (hours) To calculate the transport operation hours it is necessary to define different basic elements. These are: Total operational hours of equipment per year Total working hours of drivers per year Based on field research these elements are as follow: Table 7-3: hours
Total operational hours of equipement per year Total working hours of drivers per year 4.900 2.150
The transport operation gains operational hours of drivers and equipment. The average of a round trip per truck is 5,52 hours (per truck). The differentiation of the trips are shown In the table below.
Page 39 of 115
Road haulage costs To calculate the costs of road haulage it is necessary to make first a definition of the different cost elements. These elements are: Table 7-5: fixed and variable costs. The differences in these costs are caused by the fact that the information is collected from different sources. Combination 1 is based on figures provided by the main stakeholder. Combination 2 is based on information of a transport company in Finland.
Fixed costs Interest Taxes Other taxes Insurances Fixed costs (trailer) General costs Depreciation Variable costs (Depreciation) Tyres Fuel Oil Repair/maintenance
The results of two examples of equipment, the costs for equipment with an capacity of 120 m3 looks as follow.
Page 40 of 115
The differences in these costs are caused by the fact that the information is collected from different sources. Combination 1 is based on figures provided by the main stakeholder. Combination 2 is based on information of a transport company in Finland. The costs per hour and kilometre look as follow. Table 7-7: costs per hour/kilometre
Fixed costs/hour Labour costs/hour Variable costs/km Combination 1 11,48 27,27 0,598 Combination 2 8,52 22,86 0,7474
The cost drivers for this road transport are as follow. Table 7-8: cost drivers
# hrs peat 92.625 # hrs wood chips 79.563 # km peat 3.375.000 # km wood chips 2.852.500
The total costs for this transport operation is calculated in the next table. Table 7-9: total calculated costs
Costs combination 1 Costs combination 2 per year () per year () 1.975.995 1.467.830 4.696.023 3.935.714 3.724.045 4.654.434 10.396.063 10.057.977
The road transport costs per loading stations are at this moment based on 100% filling degree, no waiting hours and no management fee. The costs per kilometre with the different places of origin can be defined as in the table beneath.
Page 41 of 115
This cost calculation already gives a significant difference with the current tariffs as provided by the main stakeholder. These differences are adopted in the following table. Table 7-11: calculated costs versus commercial tariffs
cost calc./km 1,61 1,64 1,63 1,62 1,70 1,79 1,88 1,74 current tarif/km 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1,33 1,70 2,16 1,40
LS 1 LS 2 LS 3 LS 4 LS 5 LS 6 LS 7 LS 8 LS 9 LS 10 LS 11 LS 12 LS 13 LS 14 LS 15 LS 16 LS 17 LS 18
For the first calculations of differences between road transport costs and inland navigation, the tariffs provided by the main stakeholder will be used. It is nevertheless very interesting for the power plant to realise that there are possibilities of the increase of the road transport tariffs in the near future. These could be based on the cost calculations above.
Page 42 of 115
Page 43 of 115
Technical features of the barge Based on calculations made above, the following parameters are used: Barge dimensions: L*B*D = 105*14*6 m , draught 2.4 m Cargo carrying capacity: 5500 m3 (either peat or woodchips). Note that this is a conservative assumption. Loading & unloading speed: 700 m3 including time required for initialization and termination of the process Sailing speed: average of 10 km/h, for fuel consumption calculations taken as 14 km/h to account for delays at locks and bridges Logistic concept: Initially about half of the total biomass volume will be transported by barge. This will ensure optimal use of the barge during the months of high demand and prevent having a an overly large number of barges laying idle during months with more limited demand. As a result a service with 2 barges will initially be set up. The barge will have to sail the following distances between the various loading stations and the power plant:
Page 44 of 115
In the winter months, when demand is high, the barges will in principle sail to the furthest locations. For practical reasons, during the winter (November march) the barges will only sail to loading station 17, by far the largest of all loading stations due to the vast amounts of peat to be transported from that location. Keeping a frequent service to a single location will also make icebreaking easier on that route. During the remaining months, the barges will start sailing to other loading stations as well and, as available volumes diminish, finally call at all loading stations. During high summer, this may be an uneconomical way of operating the barges, yet less uneconomical than having them lay idle at the quay. A very promising option to increase the productivity of the barges during the summer months is to have them deliver woodchips to nearby paper mills during the months when the demand from the power plant is low, yet due to the uncertainties concerning the feasibility and practical implications of this option, this is not taken into account into this feasibility study. In stead, it is assumed that the crews will be asked to take their vacation mainly during the summer months (just like e.g. school teachers) Based on the parameters presented above and the availability of cargo presented earlier a service schedule for the barges can be set up, stating the number of trips to the various loading stations, the distances sailed and the amount of cargo transported. This schedule can be found in the figure below.
Page 45 of 115
May
june
okt
nov dec
Cost comparison The cost to transport the volumes of cargo is described in the table above from the various loading stations to the power plant by truck is 4,07 million, which amounts to an average of 2.43 per m3 These values are based on a capacity of 120 m3 per truck and trucking rates. Inland waterway transport of biomass is only feasible if it is able to compete with these costs. In order to be able to determine the cost of operating a barge, the following cost needs to be known: Fixed material cost of the barge - depreciation - interest on the investment - insurance
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 46 of 115
Crew cost Variable material cost - variable maintenance and repairs - fuel cost Other fixed cost - administration & overhead - licences - .. Profit calculating these costs for 2 barges, the following table can be created:
Page 47 of 115
16,000,000.00
total insured value ships remaining value ship calculated value ship PERSONNEL COST
20 jr 0.04
total cost
profit
0.08
3,663,360.00
1.00 1,674,550.00
2.19
Page 48 of 115
Page 49 of 115
From this feasibility study it is clear that using inland barges to carry biomass to the power plant presents significant cost advantages in the order of magnitude of at least 400,000 per year. This study used conservative estimates for nearly all factors that would benefit inland navigation, so the actual benefit is expected to potentially be significantly larger, possibly up to over 1.000.000. In order to establish this, the following issues will need to be addressed in a next stage. Maybe it is useful to give indications on cost effects of these issues. Cost price of the barges. These play an important role in total cost: 8.000.000 per barge is a safe estimate according to shipyard Hoebee. They quote an optimal price for the barge including all equipment to be around 6.000.000, but due to complicating factors such as the need to build the barges locally, 8.000.000 was used in this study. Weight and carrying capacity of the barge. Since the barge will be required to have ice breaking capability, it will have to be constructed relatively heavy. This may influence the displacement related limits on cargo carrying capacity. If draught is increased to 3.4 m, this problem will largely disappear. Required power for icebreaking. A simple estimated value was used, but this needs to be investigated in detail, especially since the barges are sailing the same route (to loading station 17) daily, which may help keep the lane open with relatively little power. Required power for the loading and unloading equipment. This is as yet estimated and needs to be specified Alternative means of employment of the barge during the summer months. This will have an advantageous effect on the utilisation of the barge, thus reducing cost further investigation of this however falls outside the scope of this case Possibility to really execute 24 hours a day, 7 days a week operations. In this study it was assumed that it would be possible to pass locks and perform loading and unloading operations at all required times. If this turns out not to be feasible, some new calculations may be required. Possibility to store biomass at the loading stations and the power plant. All calculations were now done based on the monthly volumes at the various loading stations provided earlier in this report. If storage over a prolonged period of time (e.g. 1 month) is possible at the loading stations and/or the power plant, the barges sailing schedules could be optimised (by only going to loading stations if an entire shipload is available) and possibly extended into the summer months (by building up a buffer at the power plant) Actual wages of Finnish sailors. These may differ from the Dutch values that were used in this study. Are the Finnish salaries higher or lower than the Dutch ones? Distances between loading stations. Up till now only the distances between the loading stations and the power plant were specified, distances between the loading stations were
Page 50 of 115
Dole, the producer and importing company of bananas and other exotic fruit is the main stakeholder in this concept. Doles original plan to acquire a number of ripening houses in Germany (as a result of which they would sell only yellow instead of only green bananas) is cancelled, instead Dole will utilize a large ripening house in Hamburg, and a smaller one in Strassbourg for the sale of yellow bananas, but some customers, including Edeka from Berlin will still purchase green bananas. Ripening house in Hamburg: The large ripening house in Hamburg (not located at the waterside) will have room for 1800 pallets of bananas. Initially, these will be supplied on a weekly basis, but in the future, up to 2700 pallets per week may be brought to the ripening house (but not all in 1 batch!, see below, frequency of transport). Ripening house in Strassbourg: The small ripening house in Strassbourg (not located at the waterside) now gets approximately 300 pallets per week, but in the next 5 years this number is expected to grow to the maximum capacity of the warehouse, which is around 1350 pallets (to be delivered per week, but not in 1 batch, see below, frequency of transport) Edeka: Edeka purchases 240 pallets of bananas per week for the Berlin area, which can possibly brought as close as possible to Berlin by ship. Frequency of transports Due to the expected increase in the number of bananas to be transported to Germany, more seagoing ships will arrive in Antwerp. As a result of this, the fixed day of the week and time at which the seagoing ship arrives in Antwerp can not be maintained: it is expected that a ship will arrive every five days, and transport to the ripening houses will as a result also need to start once every five days. Boundary conditions The quality of the bananas is thought to improve when they are transported under controlled atmosphere (i.e. a reduction of the percentage of oxygen in the air to 2.5%). This is both possible in containers and in reefer ships. From the deep sea transport it emanates that bananas for Scandinavia are feedered by short sea by container and bananas for the continent are transported on basis of pallets.
Page 51 of 115
Two very different options exist for transport by inland ship: 1) Up to Northern Germany via the Dortmund-Ems Canal and the Mittelland Canal 2) Down to Strassbourg over the Rhine Both routes have conflicting demands: The North route has a large potential volume of bananas to be transported, but severe restrictions on the ship size, the most significant of which is caused by low bridge height as a result of which only two layers of pallets can be put into the ship. Also, the relatively narrow canals (class IV) will limit the maximum speed of the ship and the large number of locks will slow the voyage down even further. As a result of this, the ship will have to sail at least in semi-continuous service in order to keep its schedule of a round trip in 10 days or sail no further than e.g. Hannover, which leaves a substantial leg for road end haulage. The South route has only a limited volume of bananas (around 900 pallets per trip) but can be serviced by far larger ships. Also, the fairway on this route is wide and deep, while bridges are high, allowing the ship to sail fast and fully loaded. A second important difference between the two routes is the current cost of transport for Dole: Although Hamburg is further away from Antwerp than Strassbourg is, market conditions are such that transport to Hamburg is actually cheaper. Transport parameters Parameters ROAD Distance by road Cost by road (per pallet) A) AntwerpHamburg 560 km 30.40 B) AntwerpHannover 450 km 24.40 C) AntwerpStrassbourg 470 km 33.30
IWW Distance by IWW 775 km 541 km Final haulage to 10 km 155 km Hamburg/Strassbourg Est. time for round trip ex 8 days (semi- 7 days (day sailing) transhipment continuous) Max. no. of layers of pallets 2 2 Max no of pallets per 2000 2000 shipment (demand) Max ship dimensions (100*9.6*2.4 m)1 (165*9.6*2.4 m) Max no of pallets per ship 1200 2000 (physical limitations) 1 On the last stretch of canal between Hannover and Hamburg, the maximum ships decreases
Page 52 of 115
7.3.3
Transport concept
For the three options presented above, the following ships are thought to be needed: Antwerp-Hamburg: a single 100*9.6*2.4 m ship with two layers of pallets (volume restriction due to bridge height and ship size) Antwerp-Hannover: a koppelverband (i.e. several barges linked with one pusher unit) with total dimensions of 165*9.6*2.4 m with 2 layers of pallets (volume restriction due to bridge height and ship size) Antwerp Strassbourg: a single ship with total dimensions 75*8*2.4 m with 3 layers of pallets (weight limit, in case a larger ship is chosen, more pallets can be taken along).
7.3.4
Feasibility calculations
The big unknown in the cost of the ship remains the building price. For the three ships, the following has been assumed: A) 6.000.000,- for the ship of 100*9.6*2.4 m carrying 1200 pallets B) 10.000.000,- for the koppelverband carrying 2000 pallets C) 4.500.000,- for the ship of 75*8*2.4 m carrying 900 pallets Other values are along the same lines as described in DLDs earlier feasibility studies for the Banana case.
Page 53 of 115
Insured value remaining value calculation value personnel cost fixed material cost
6,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 4,800,000.00 365,018.40 depreciation interest insurance repair and maintenance miscellaneous fuel repair and maintenance 20yr 0.04 240,000.00 144,000.00 60,000.00 7,200.00 45,000.00 496,200.00 216,000.00 7,200.00 223,200.00
total fixed material cost variable material cost total variable material cost total cost profit over total cost Necessary earnings 36 voyages per year pallets per year
496,200.00
0.08
B) Antwerp - Hannover
concerns: cargo cargo capacity service inland reefer Antwerp-Hannover 2000 pallets 2000 ton day sailing
Insured value remaining value calculation value personnel cost fixed material cost
10,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 393,775.20 depreciation interest insurance repair and maintenance miscellaneous fuel repair and maintenance 20yr 0.04 400,000.00 240,000.00 100,000.00 12,000.00 45,000.00 797,000.00 216,000.00 12,000.00 228,000.00
total fixed material cost variable material cost total variable material cost total cost profit over total cost Necessary earnings 36 voyages per year pallets per year
797,000.00
0.08
Page 54 of 115
Insured value remaining value calculation value personnel cost fixed material cost
4,500,000.00 900,000.00 3,600,000.00 151,603.20 depreciation interest insurance repair and maintenance miscellaneous fuel repair and maintenance 20yr 0.04 180,000.00 108,000.00 45,000.00 5,400.00 45,000.00 383,400.00 170,000.00 5,400.00 175,400.00
total fixed material cost variable material cost total variable material cost total cost profit over total cost Necessary earnings 36 voyages per year pallets per year
383,400.00
0.08
Estimate of total transport cost Apart from the cost of transport by ship, transhipment in ports and end haulage to the final destinations need to be accounted for. The following values have been assumed: Transhipment Transhipment to both truck and ship in Antwerp is thought to cost the same and is therefore left out of the equation here. Transhipment from ship to truck in an inland port is estimated at 5,- per pallet. End haulage End haulage is assumed to cost 10,- per truck (24 pallets) per km for short distances (10 km) and 2.50 per truck per km for long distances (>100 km) This leads to the following cost comparison:
Current cost (E/pallet) route Antwerp - Hamburg Antwerp - Hannover-Hamburg Antwerp - Strassbourg 30.4 30.4 33.3 New cost (E/pallet) ship transhipment end haulage total new advantage new -5.88 27.11 5 4.17 36.28 -12.03 21.28 5 16.15 42.43 0.45 23.68 5 4.17 32.85
Page 55 of 115
From the above, it can be concluded that the most promising option at this time is the route Antwerp Strassbourg, since it is the only one that is cheaper than the current method of transport. It should be noted however that the values as calculated here are estimates, which require further study. If the ships turn out to be cheaper than estimated here, or a lower profit rate is accepted, more positive values may be achieved.
7.4 7.4.1
The original meaning of the term Ro-Ro as the abbreviation of Roll-on--Roll-off comprises the horizontal transhipment of cargo from shore to ship and vice versa. Therefore, any ship transporting any kind of cargo which is loaded on board by means of carriage with wheels or rollers over the horizontal or sloped ramp can be called Ro-Ro ship. The term Ro-Ro, however, was gradually modified and nowadays is applied to vessels carrying on board road vehicles loaded with their own cargo - trucks and trailers/semi-trailers. The ships used for carrying railway wagons on board within multimodal transport chains are called railway-ferries. In the field of inland navigation, the ships designed and involved in transport of new manufactured road vehicles (usually passenger cars, but also trucks, tractors, fork lift trucks or any other devices which are mobile on their own rolling undercarriage assembly) are properly classified as special ships, or more precisely ships for special transports. The same classification is assigned to ships having all design particulars as the real inland Ro-Ro ships, but whose prevailing role is sporadic waterborne transport of extremely heavy and voluminous single piece cargoes like large boilers, reactors, transformers etc. - where other land based modes are not able to provide competitive long distance service. Even the vessels used for permanent service in real multimodal transport chains, but on very short distances (just for transport of road cargo and passenger vehicles across the river), are called simply "ferries", and in no case "Ro-Ro" vessels. Therefore, the vessels which are specially designed, built and equipped for horizontal reloading procedures of road cargo vehicles and their regular transport, loaded or unloaded with their own cargo (but in any case on the considerable part of the route within their transport origins and destinations) between two points along the inland waterway, can be classified as inland Ro-Ro ships. Thus, the meaning of the term Ro-Ro in inland navigation is rather a matter of modality of transport than particulars in ship design. Furthermore, being a flush-deck vessels with a large single deck (on which trailer and trucks are carried), river Ro-Ros can be actually seen as universal vessels, since any type of cargo, even those of enormous dimensions, can be transported onboard. As a matter of fact, river Ro-Ro vessel can transport simultaneously trailers, trucks, heavy machinery, containers, swap bodies etc, the only limitation being the water and air draughts. In other words, single deck river Ro-Ro vessels are inherently dedicated and universal vessels. This feature might be very attractive for every ship-owner.
Page 56 of 115
Figure 7-6: Danube Ro-Ro vessel Han Kardam or sister ship Han Krum (Popov, 2005). These facts show that the most important key criteria for the transport mode selection for a highly demanding market (given according to the importance for the freight forwarders) transport costs, punctuality and reliability, transport time, safety, as well as environment protection - might be achieved with the Danube Ro-Ro service. The regular Ro-Ro transports on the Danube began in June 1982. The Bulgarian SOMAT transported road trailers on board the Ro-Ro semi-catamaran "Han Asparuh" from the terminal in Passau/Schalding to Bulgarian Port of Vidin. A total of four ships have been built and delivered in 1982 and 1983. Two vessels of this semi-catamaran underwater form named "Han Asparuh" and "Han Tervel" have been built in "Deggendorfer Werft und Eisenbau GmbH" in Deggendorf, while the other two units of full catamaran hull form named Han Kardam and Han Krum, with slightly changed design - but in general with the same particulars - were delivered from Danubian yards in Serbia. The main particulars of these four vessels are as follows: Length overall 114.0 m Breadth maximal 22.8 m Depth 3.0 m (Serbian-built ships 3.3 m) Draught fully loaded 1.65 m Deadweight 1530 tons Cargo capacity 1372 tons (49 road trailers, 28 tons each) Engine output 2 x 910 kW Service speed 18 km/h (in stream-less water) Crew accommodation for 12 persons (16 on Serbian-built ships)
Page 57 of 115
Figure 7-7 Danube semi-catamaran built in Deggendorf The ships were equipped with bow thruster, elevating wheelhouse, at that time the most modern nautical devices (two radars, rate of turn indicators, radio-communication facilities, echosounders, TV camera on bows and monitor in the wheelhouse), two hydraulically powered folding bow ramps, fire-fighting monitors, ballasting system, a certain number of electric sockets on cargo deck for refrigerating trailers etc. The vessels were built in accordance with the GL rules and ADNR norms. This fleet provides on average 90 roundtrips per year on the route Passau-Vidin-Passau with optional stops in Linz and Vienna. Each roundtrip lasts two weeks, even though according to the ship performances, this time could be shortened to 11-12 days. In 2004 Willi Betz (ex SOMAT) on the route Vidin-Passau-Vidin (both directions) with the fleet of 4 abovementioned vessels and few converted EUROPE II barges transported around 27000 vehicles (10000 trailers, 13000 new passenger cars and 4000 new vans).
Page 58 of 115
The Austrian DDSG has also reconstructed two SL 18000 type barges of its fleet and equipped them for Roll-on-Roll-off transhipment and transports of single piece cargoes of extraordinary weight and dimensions. Besides, the Slovak SPD has 4 Ro-Ro barges of Europe II type, Ukrainian UDP several flat deck barges of "PDM-10" type and foldable ramp on bows and Serbian BBP one self-propelled river vessel and few barges reconstructed for passenger car transports on its three decks. According to some information, the Romanian shipyard in Orsova converted two Europe II barges and equipped them as four-deck passenger cars carriers. One vessel is delivered to the customer in Cologne while the second will be put into service on the Upper Danube.
Page 59 of 115
Types of services When considering the road and IWW mode (the same is for road and railway) there exist two types of intermodal services: accompanied and unaccompanied. In case of the so-called unaccompanied service only the freight unit is transferred from vehicle to vehicle (trailer, semitrailer, swap body, container) while the truck (road drawing vehicle) and driver are not on board during the waterborne segment of the transport chain. Accompanied transport includes the presence of truck on board and in most cases also the driver. Both options have certain advantages and disadvantages too. To which of them preference will be given, depends on factors like transport distance, traffic rules and regulations on the local road network, the level of organisation and mutual co-operation among transport actors etc. From a pure technical point of view, unaccompanied transports are more reasonable, at least because the stowage rate and payload capacity is higher. Types of operation Two types of operation might be distinguished: 1. point-to-point meaning the waterborne segment only between end-terminals on the route, without any intermediate stop to reload the cargo. 2. bus-stop with one or more regular or optional intermediate stops in order to reload the freight units (horizontally i.e. Roll-on/roll-off or vertically i.e. Load-on/load-of in case of containers, or optionally swap bodies - makes no difference) in terminals located between the end stations. The right choice of the kind of operation must be preceded by a comprehensive logistic analysis because it influences design of the ship and ship-to-shore transhipment facilities in terminals. On Ro-Ro terminals The right choice of terminal locations is a complex task and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. The experts in the fields of transport logistics, regional and spatial planning, urbanism, port and terminal layout and organisation, as well as civil engineering and naval architecture, are needed to ensure the optimal technical solutions for the ship-to-shore interface, taking into account morphology and water level variations. A general rule for combined transports, as an alternative to the pure trucking mode is the following: the shorter the distance of the waterborne or railway stretch, the lower is the probability for positive economic effects. On the market without state intervention through restrictions, bans, fees or subsidies, the distance of 500 km is often referenced as the shortest where combined transport may be accepted. This rule is valid in Western Europe, but cannot be applied ad hoc in the case of Ro-Ro alternative to the Danube. Besides the generally low level of road infrastructure along the Danube Corridor, there are also some additional factors as for instance traffic bans for heavy road vehicles over night and/or on weekends and holidays, road fees, additional taxes based on extended axle-loads etc. A limited annual number of passing permissions (quotas) assigned from state to state on a bilateral basis, which are often far below the market demands, should also be mentioned.
Page 60 of 115
Page 61 of 115
Page 62 of 115
Figure 7-10
Figure 7-11 Ro-Ro terminal in Vidin - Danube km 793 (Popov, 2005) 7.4.3 Transport concept
Having 15 years of experience with the first generation of Ro-Ro vessels, Willi Betz (ex SOMAT, practically the only owner of dedicated Ro-Ro fleet on the Danube) started thinking of expanding his fleet and services. Consequently, the new self-propelled vessels were developed together with Austrian shipyard OSWAG WERFT AG. This were vessels of catamaran/semicatamaran hull type too but, due to the demand to transport passenger cars as well as vans (together with the trailers) were of somewhat different design, enabling their transport in the hull bellow the main deck. Furthermore, new barges were conceived for car and van transport
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 63 of 115
Figure 7-13 : Stowage of vehicles on upper and lower deck (cars, vans) (Popov, 2005)
Page 64 of 115
Page 65 of 115
Figure 7-15: Cross section of Ro-Ro barges design (Popov, 2005) Requirements for the new transport concept The requirements of companies like Will Betz, or Ro-Ro companies in general, concerning CREATING Project stem from the ideas presented in the previous section. In particular, the requirements are the following: Unaccompanied service with point-to-point operation should only be considered. Self-propelled vessels should be able to transport semi-trailers of 40 and 45 feet on the main deck and smaller vehicles (5.0 m passenger cars and 6.6 m vans) in the twin deck. Pushed barges should be optimized for transport of smaller vehicles only. Axle pressure should be 15 t and 1.5 t for semi-trailers and smaller vehicles, respectively. Route Vidin-Passau-Vidin is still considered as most promising. Turnover should be in 1214 days maximum. Annual number of days in operation are 340 (25 days per year are reserved for the maintenance, eventual conversions etc.), or in other words total yearly transport capacity, which is roughly 5000-6000 semi-trailers of 40 and 45 feet or 25000-30000 small cars per direction, should be based on 25 turnovers per year. Ro-Ro loading/unloading method was not specified but was resumed that the ramps similar to the present ones, as well as the transshipment technology already applied in the existing Danube terminals, should be considered. Service frequency or seasonal distribution was not specified. Distribution should be assumed as even all the year round.
Page 66 of 115
Considered routes Routes of interest (for further analyses) between the WEC and SEEC are considered to be (taking into account that the Ro-Ro terminals are located in Passau and Vidin): a) O/D points in SEEC b) O/D points in WEC Sofia, Bulgaria Munich, Germany Bucharest, Romania Frankfurt/M or just Frankfurt, Germany Istanbul, Turkey Skopje, FYROM or just Macedonia Service costs of long haul trucking on one side, should be compared to intermodal service costs using the Ro-Ro vessels (and abovementioned Ro-Ro terminals) on the other, for the routes from a) to b) and vice versa, i.e. round trip. In the sub paragraphs below first an indication will be given of road transport, thereafter the CREATING Case will be elaborated.
Page 67 of 115
Road: Long Haul Trucking Destinations and distances Distances (according to www.viamichelin.org, preferably using the motorways) From Munich To Sofia Bucharest Istanbul Skopje Sofia Bucharest Istanbul Skopje Via countries DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG DE, AT, HU, RO DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG, TR DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, MK DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG DE, AT, HU, RO DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG, TR DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, MK Motorway + Main Total - one way km 1106 + 287 = 1393 792 + 724 = 1516 1627 + 360 = 1987 1185 + 245 = 1430 1401 + 288 = 1689 1070 + 726 = 1796 1922 + 361 = 2283 1479 + 247 = 1726 road
Frankfurt
Costs Fuel consumption According to the German VDA norms, the trucks fuel consumption lies at about 28 l/100 km if it moves at an approximately constant speed of 50 km/h (not making stop-and-go). But if there is one stop at each kilometer and the average speed remains at 50 km/h then the consumption abruptly rises to 52 l. The same source shows that for two stops at each km of the road, the consumption would rise to 84 l or triple as in case of smooth driving. Concerning the trucks age, an average consumption of those manufactured in 2000, 1990 and 1980 is approximately 32, 35 and 41 l/100 km respectively. Summarizing, i.e. taking into account the quality of roadway infrastructure (the number of necessary stops per one km) and large percentage of relatively old trucks in SEEC, it might be assumed that the fuel consumption in undeveloped countries is on average double, or probably even triple, compared to the truck consumption in developed countries. Concerning the environmental pollution, it should be noted, however, that emissions are not necessarily directly proportional to fuel consumption again it might be assumed that older trucks have much larger poisonous emissions than the newer ones! Consequently, for further analysis it was assumed that an average truck consumption is 33 l/100km and 40 l/100 km for motorway and main road respectively, although this is obviously discussible matter. Other costs Beside fuel cost the other costs must be accounted, as for instance the road fees, taxes, different permissions, salaries for the drivers etc. a) Labour costs - salaries vary from country to country, not to mention that much too often instead of two drivers, only one driver drives the truck all the way. Probably these are amongst the reasons that on the same routes the EU truck-fees are often around 50% higher than are the truck-fees from SEEC. The practice in SEEC is that the driver costs approximately 10% of commercial truck cost for particular destination, i.e. around EUR 250 for long haul trucking (SEEC-WEC) and EUR 60 and EUR 110 for routes of
Page 68 of 115
b) c)
Country Total road taxes/fees_(EUR)_____ Germany (DE) 0.12 EUR/km, i.e. from Munich to AT border EUR 20; from Frankfurt to AT border EUR 60 Austria (AT) 150 Slovenia (SI) 50 Croatia (HR) 100 Serbia (CS) 300 Macedonia (MK) 60 Hungary (HU) 100 (assumed) Romania (RO) 100 (assumed) Turkey (TR) 100 (assumed) It should be underlined that the abovementioned taxes should be paid by foreign trucks only, i.e. Serbian or Bulgarian trucks used on the same routes would not pay EUR 300 or EUR 110 in Serbia and Bulgaria respectively, but much less than that. Costs per direction Consequently, total costs (in EUR) per direction are given in the following table Destination Munich-Sofia Munich-Bucharest Munich-Istanbul Munich-Skopje Frankfurt-Sofia Frankfurt-Bucharest Frankfurt-Istanbul Frankfurt-Skopje Fuel cost (1 EUR/lit) 480 552 681 489 577 643 778 587 Taxes, road Labour fees etc. costs 730 250 370 250 830 300 680 250 770 250 410 250 870 300 720 250 Tires, oil etc. 70 76 100 72 84 90 114 86 Total 1530 1248 1911 1491 1681 1393 2062 1643
Costs per round trip It is assumed that the round trip cost is double the cost of that in one direction. Small reserve of around EUR 50 was added to total costs as shown bellow. Round trip Munich-Sofia Munich-Bucharest Munich-Istanbul Munich-Skopje Frankfurt-Sofia Frankfurt-Bucharest Frankfurt-Istanbul EUR per EUR per direction Round trip (with reserve) 1530 3100 1248 2550 1911 3900 1491 3030 1681 3400 1393 2830 2062 4200 Average trip duration in days1 7 7 8 7 7.5 7.5 8.5 Distance km 2786 3032 3974 2860 3378 3592 4566 EUR/km per trailer 1.11 0.84 0.98 1.06 1.01 0.79 0.92
Page 69 of 115
Transport costs should be calculated for the same routes WEC-SEEC as given above but applying intermodality that consists of a) short distance haulage from the destination point trucking mode b) transhipment in Ro-Ro terminal and waterborne transport onboard the Ro-Ro vessel, then again the transhipment and c) short distance haulage to the destination point trucking mode. This should be repeat on the way back round trip. Thus, door-to-door service is enabled. Short distance haulage trucking mode to/from O/D point to/from Ro-Ro terminal Ro-Ro terminals of interest in this Study are in Passau and Vidin. Distances and other parameters of interest to/from chosen points in WEC/SEEC are given bellow. Destination Vidin Sofia Vidin Bucharest Vidin Istanbul Vidin Skopje Passau Munich Passau Frankfurt Via countries BG RO, BG TR, BG MK, BG DE DE Motorway + Main road Total km --- + 219 = 219 98 + 236 = 334 521 + 286 = 807 33 + 402 = 435 187 + 10 = 197 429 + 13 = 442
All further calculations are made according to the method/logic used above for the long distance haulage, except that for the route Vidin-Sofia only EUR 30 was accounted (instead of EUR 110) for the taxes etc. since Willi Betz is using the Bulgarian trucks which need not to pay all taxes that foreign trucks are paying when crossing/entering Bulgaria. Consequently, for one direction costs are given bellow Destination Vidin Sofia Vidin Bucharest Vidin Istanbul Fuel cost (1 EUR/lit) 88 127 286 Taxes, Road fees etc. 30 210 210 Labour costs 20 50 100 Tires, oil etc. 11 17 41 Total 149 404 637
Page 70 of 115
Comment: Probably taxes, road fees etc. that are accepted here are a bit exaggerated, particularly since cargo (trailers) is in the intermodal transport, so that some State substances could be expected. Trucking costs per round trip It is assumed that the round trip costs are double the costs of that in one direction. Small reserve of around EUR 20 was added to total costs as shown bellow. Round trip Vidin Sofia Vidin Bucharest Vidin Istanbul Vidin Skopje Passau Munich Passau Frankfurt EUR per EUR per direction Round trip (with reserve) 149 320 404 830 637 1300 424 870 121 260 280 580 Average trip duration in days 1 1.5 2 1.5 0.5 1 Distance km 438 668 1614 870 394 884 EUR/km per trailer 0.73 1.24 0.81 1.00 0.66 0.66
Finally, trucking costs, which should be added to waterborne and transhipment costs, in the following table. Trucking part of round trip Munich-Sofia Munich-Bucharest Munich-Istanbul Munich-Skopje Frankfurt-Sofia Frankfurt-Bucharest Frankfurt-Istanbul Frankfurt-Skopje EUR per roundtrip (trucking part only) 320+260= 580 830+260= 1090 1300+260= 1560 870+260= 1130 320+580= 900 830+580= 1410 1300+580= 1880 870+580= 1450 Average trip duration 1.5 2 2.5 2 2 2.5 3 2.5 Distance km 832 1062 2008 1264 1322 1552 2498 1754 EUR/km per trailer 0.70 1.03 0.78 0.89 0.68 0.91 0.75 0.83
Comment: Trucking costs are exceptionally high and are not in favour to intermodal transport, except in a case when the truck is Bulgarian (Munich- or Frankfurt-Sofia) since then the road taxes are lower than for other (foreign) trucks. Nevertheless, road taxes might be significantly reduced if particular SEEC would reduce them just for the trucking part of intermodal transport chain. Furthermore, it is obvious that owning a Ro-Ro terminal is great advantage (naturally for the countries which do share a part of the Danube) since domestic trucks are not paying expenses for passing through the other country (case for Romania). Waterborne part of intermodal transport chain (with transhipment) All data that concern the vessels, waterborne part of transport chain, were obtained from DST. During the design process (which should be performed by DST and is explained elsewhere) it was necessary to estimate the transport costs, transhipment costs etc. for various cases which were considered. After the elimination of less profitable cases, in the First iteration two selfpropelled ship concepts will be examined as well as the pushed train (2 barges + push-boat).
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 71 of 115
Total voyage duration (upstream + downstream) is 9 days (216 hours) at 16 km/h Transhipment time (total) in all cases is up to 2 days Distance - Passau-Vidin 1437 km Lifetime of a new vessel 30 years Fuel price - 0.45 EUR/lit Specific fuel consumption (with the auxiliary engines and boiler) 0.22 kg/kWh Crew structure in all cases - 2 masters, 1 helmsman, 2 unlisted Total annual capacities were based on 25 turnovers per year Annual number of days in operation 340 days Reloading costs - assumed 150 and 50 EUR/trailer and 30 and 10 EUR/van (or car) in Passau and Vidin respectively Power requirement 1000, 700 and 1300 kW for LRRV, SRRV and PRRB (2-barges train) respectively Vessels cost (new) 10 mil, 3.2 mil and 1.5 mil (+ push-boat 3.5 mil) EUR for LRRV, SRRV and PRRB respectively.
Summarizing, the following loading cases per ship were analysed with also an indication of the transport and transhipment costs. Loading case 1 LRRV s.tr. 45 vans 88 ESTR=89 s.tr. 45 Transshipmt EUR 25040 SRRV Transshipmt EUR PRRB Transconvoy of shipmt 2 barges EUR vans 82
Page 72 of 115
s.tr. 20
Transport 85010 43618 59595 cost EUR ESTR Equivalent number of Semi-Trailers (one ESTR can carry 6 cars or 2 vans only or 2 vans + 1 car Under the assumption that 6 cars or 2 vans only or 2 vans + 1 car (of already given specification) can be transported on one semi-trailer (according to the professional car transporters Hoedlmayr Int.), equivalent number of semi-trailers (ESTR in the Table above) was evaluated. ESTR are regarded as nominal loading units in this Study. It should be noted that vessel stowing rate for the vans is much better than semi-trailers stowing rate, which is exactly opposite for the cars. Hence, relatively large variations in the ESTR capacities per vessel between some loading cases. In following table the costs for waterborne transport part (with the transhipment cost) are shown. LRRV Loading Total Waterborne case waterborne cost per cost ESTR 110050 1 1237 111970 2 1777 101330 3 993 105650 4 2457 SRRV Total Waterborne waterborne cost per cost ESTR 56098 1934 52258 1686 53538 2676 PRRB Total Waterborne waterborne cost per cost ESTR 86635 1139 88715 1479 83915 865
7.4.4.2 Total intermodal costs and other important parameters Intermodal transport costs (waterborne + trucking) are given in the following three tables a) For LRRV total intermodal and long distance haul trucking costs as well as travel time for a roundtrip per ESTR follows: Intermodal mode - LRRV Destination Case Round trip 1 Munich-Sofia Munich-Bucharest Munich-Istanbul Munich-Skopje Frankfurt-Sofia Frankfurt-Bucharest Frankfurt-Istanbul Frankfurt-Skopje 1817 2327 2797 2367 2137 2647 3117 2687 Case 2 2357 2867 3337 2907 2677 3187 3657 3227 L. Haul Trucking Case Case Travel 3 4 time (days) 1573 3037 12.5 2083 3547 13 2553 4017 13.5 2123 3587 13 1893 3357 13 2403 3867 13.5 2873 4337 14 2443 3907 13.5 Total cost EUR 3100 2550 3900 3030 3400 2830 4200 3330 Travel time (days) 7 7 8 7 7.5 7.5 8.5 7.5
Page 73 of 115
Comment: SRRV is also not suitable for carrying passenger cars only (loading case 4 is always more expensive than trucking mode). c) For PRRB total intermodal and long distance haul trucking costs as well as travel time for a roundtrip per ESTR follows Intermodal mode - PRRB Destination Case Round trip 1 Munich-Sofia Munich-Bucharest Munich-Istanbul Munich-Skopje Frankfurt-Sofia Frankfurt-Bucharest Frankfurt-Istanbul Frankfurt-Skopje Case 2 1719 2229 2699 2269 2039 2549 3019 2589 L. Haul Trucking Case Case Travel 3 4 time (days) 2059 1445 12.5 2569 1955 13 3039 2425 13.5 2609 1995 13 2379 1765 13 2889 2275 13.5 3359 2745 14 2929 2315 13.5 Total cost EUR 3100 2550 3900 3030 3400 2830 4200 3330 Travel time (days) 7 7 8 7 7.5 7.5 8.5 7.5
Comment: All loading cases for PRRB are convenient (although cases 2 and 4 with less cars and more vans onboard are more convenient). It should be noted that PRRB is not designed for transport of semi-trailers. For LRRV and SRRV routes Bucharest-Munich and Bucharest-Frankfurt are too expensive, i.e. trucking mode is probably more attractive (in direct costs) due to avoidance of high taxes for passing through Serbia (which truckers on the other routes are paying). For PRRB the case is a bit better (due to the low stowing rate of vans on a semi-trailer (hence PRRBs high ESTR). Furthermore, the Ro-Ro terminal in Rousse should be considered for cargo whose O/D is Romania (but this was not done here). Summarizing, the following cases will be eliminated from further consideration: - Route Munich-Bucharest and Frankfurt-Bucharest
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 74 of 115
Concerning the table above: Eastern Greece was added as interesting destination, costs were evaluated as (MK-DE + TR-DE)/2 Evaluation of costs - For LRRV cases (1+2+3)/3; for SRRV cases (2+3)/2; for PRRV cases (2+3+4)/3 Routes SEEC-DE evaluated as (Cap.City-Munich + Cap.City-Frankfurt)/2 LRRV and SRRV are assumed for larger vehicles, while PRRB is for smaller ones The Second iteration In the Second iteration VLRRV and EXCAT will be considered as well as LRRV and SRRV (meaning that some data obtained in the First iteration will have to be repeated), while PRRB will be rejected, as triple-deck PRRB cannot transport heavy loaded semi-trailers but only lightweight vehicles like cars and vans. Actually, the First iteration clearly indicated that larger vessel is better (more economical) option than the smaller one. That was the basis for enlargement of LRRV to VLRRV. On the other side, 11 SRRV have the same capacity as 5 LRRV and can offer double departure frequency, which might be a very important aspect, not to mention that their capital cost per ship is three times lower. Besides, in this study SRRV was not hydro-dynamically optimised, meaning that optimisation would lower fuel costs and would, therefore, additionally reduce the intermodal transport costs. EXCAT data were given previously, while VLRRV main characteristics are actually the same as characteristics of LRRV, except that VLRRV is lengthened to Loa = 133.8 m, so that one additional row of semi-trailers could be carried onboard. This enabled nominal cargo of 73 ESTRs to be transported onboard VLRRV, instead of 63 carried by LRRV. VLRRV and EXCAT power requirement is estimated to be, respectively, 1050 kW and 1300 kW, while their building cost would be 10.1 and 10 mil. EUR. By the way, EXCATs engines have lower RPM hence lower fuel consumption of only 190 g/kWh, but have several other disadvantages that will be discussed elsewhere. All other characteristics/data are assumed to be the same for both vessel types. Besides, for the purpose of clarity, there is neither need to treat all four loading cases, nor all routes that were treated in the First iteration. The loading case 2 and route Frankfurt-SofiaCREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 75 of 115
Waterborne transport cost, with the transhipment, for ship speeds of 16 and 14 km/h follow: 16 km/h 14 km/h Vessel ESTR Transhpm.+ Waterb. EUR/ Transhpm.+ Waterb. = EUR/ type = Total waterb. costs ESTR Total waterb. Costs ESTR 63 26960+85010=111970 1777 26960+75362=102322 1624 LRRV 29 12480+43618=56098 1934 12480+36663=49143 1695 SRRV 73 31040+86948=117996 1616 31040+76851=107891 1478 VLRRV 45 18000+88580=106588 2369 18000+77059=95059 2112 EXCAT Comment: it is obvious (and expected) that intermodal transport costs would be lower if ships speed is reduced. Nevertheless, in that case travel time is increased from 9 days to approximately 10.5 days. Total intermodal transport costs follow, i.e. waterborne, transhipment and pre- and end hauling for the route Frankfurt-Sofia-Frankfurt and loading case 2: Vessel type LRRV SRRV VLRRV EXCAT EUR 2677 2834 2516 3269 16 km/h Cost Index 0.79 0.83 0.74 0.96 14 km/h EUR Cost Index 2524 0.74 2595 0.76 2378 0.70 3012 0.89
Above direct costs and savings (cost-index is a ratio of total intemodal and all-road transport costs) are of primary importance for the transport users. Nevertheless, important are also (for the society) the indirect costs that are mainly influenced-by/depend-on poisons engine emissions. Under the assumption that ship and truck engines are of the same generation (which is not the case for EXCAT) emit the same quality and quantity of emissions - then total fuel consumption for intermodal and all-road transport should also be compared. Fuel consumption
Page 76 of 115
Comment: Although there are slight differences among all treated vessels concerning the total transport costs (all vessels enable cheaper transport than the all-road transport, but LRRV and VLRRV are significantly better options than the other two vessel types), only when it comes to the fuel consumption it is evident that LRRV and VLRRV are environmentally much more acceptable. This is particularly pronounced when sailing at lower speed, i.e. at 14 km/h compared to 16 km/h. Furthermore, all three new concepts LRRV, SRRV and VLRRV show enormous advantage and therefore highlight 25-year technological progress, over the older generation EXCAT (which is, by the way, regarded as advanced vessel compared to others presently sailing along the Danube). Cost structure: All-road transport cost structure Cost Structure Fuel Taxes, Road fees etc. Labour (SEE driver) Consumables (oil, tires) Other All-Road EUR/ESTR 1155 1540 500 168 37 3400 % (3400) 34 45 15 5 1 100% of 3400
Cost structure: Intermodal transport cost structure (for LRRV) 16 km/h (sailing time 216 h) Cost Structure EUR/ESTR % % (2677) 18 7 5 3 1 of 34% 2677 % (3400) 14 5 4 2 1 of 26% 3400 of
Road transport Pre- and End-hauling Fuel Taxes, Road fees etc. Labour (SEE driver) Consumables (oil, tires) Other 470 180 140 68 42 900 52 20 16 8 4 100% 900
Page 77 of 115
Savings over All-Road transport EUR 723 14 km/h (sailing time 247 h) Cost Structure EUR/ESTR % % (2524) 19 7 6 3 1 of 36% 2524 10 4 15 18 47 17 of 64% 2524 100% 2524
Road transport Pre- and End-hauling Fuel Taxes, Road fees etc. Labour (SEE driver) Consumables (oil, tires) Other 470 180 140 68 42 900 52 20 16 8 4 100% 900 15 6 24 29 74 26 100% 1624 -
Waterborne transport with Transhipment Fuel Labour (WE crew) Investment Other Waterborne only Transhipment Intermodal total 249 98 381 468 1196 428 1624 2524
Page 78 of 115
90 %
21 % Savings
100 % 16 % Transshipment
26 %
100 %
80 %
70 %
17 %
60 %
50 %
50 %
40 %
Waterborne
Fuel
47 %
30 %
20 %
34 %
10 %
36 %
0%
All-Road
16 km/h
14 km/h
Intermodal
Figure 7-17: Cost structure per ESTR Values of time and safety As stated in TINA 1999 Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Analysis, values of travel time and safety are not generally available in the form of market prices because these are not traded commodities in their own right. Therefore, an alternative basis is needed for valuing time and safety in project appraisal Values of time should wherever possible be based on local values. Ideally, local values would be derived from local (or at least regional or national) data and survey evidence within the transport market and would reflect individual users willingness to pay for time savings. In order to provide a consistent set of values for safety impacts, definitions are needed for casualty severities, accident severities and the various components of costs associated with them Adopted method for valuing lost time might also be the following: If the difference in travelling time between ship and truck is only one day per roundtrip (for instance, the ship needs 7 days while the truck runs the same route for about 6 days and costs EUR 2700 for the same origindestination) then, roughly, lost time of one day may be valued as 2700 : 6 = 450 EUR.
Page 79 of 115
The purpose of CREATING is to examine various IW transport possibilities, evaluate them and consequently produce the preliminary design documentation of contemporary IW vessels that satisfy economic and environmental requirements. The Study gives findings concerning the logistics of the Danube Ro-Ro transport and shows that the waterborne part (with transhipment) of intermodal transport chain is economically efficient on the Danube stretch Passau-Vidin, long
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 81 of 115
For goods carried in bulk, inland waterway transport is often the transport mode of choice, due to the large batch sizes that can be accommodated in a single vessel and the resulting cost advantages. This is reflected in the vast amounts liquid bulk cargoes that are transported by inland ships across Europe. Annually, this includes roughly 50 to 60 million tons of oil and oil products (the largest liquid bulk goods flows), as is shown in figure 7-18. All in all, this type of cargo is responsible for roughly a quarter of all goods transported over water.
Page 83 of 115
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001 ye ar
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Figure 7-18: volume of oil and oil products transported by inland ship (source: CBS Statline)
This figure is also reflected in the fleet statistics: 1519 out of 8403 self propelled cargo ships active in the EU are tank ships (source: informatie.binnenvaart.nl). Of these tank ships, over 700 are Dutch, over 350 are German and around 200 are Belgian. Other nations only have relatively few tank vessels under their flag. Tank ships come in many sizes, ranging from under 600 T to 9000 T for the largest bunker tanker, VT Vlissingen, shown in figure 7-19.
Figure 7-19: VT Vlissingen, source: www.informatie.binnenvaart.nl Many of the older tankers are built as single hull vessels, but with increasingly stringent ADNR regulations, new ships will have to be built as double hulled ships. This in turn results in a loss of available tank width and, if nothing is done to the general design of the ship, in maximum available tank volume. For large ships, the effects of this are relatively small, but to ensure the commercial viability of small ships, it is feared by shipowners that as a result of this, the commercial viability of the ship is restricted.
Page 84 of 115
7.5.3
Transport concept
Some logistic aspects of liquid bulk transport It is a well-known fact that the feasibility of applying an intermodal chain to transport commodities is highly dependent on the number of transport phases involved: each step brings with it its own cost and especially transhipment actions rapidly increase the overall transport cost.
Loading of cargo
Transport by road
Transfer of cargo
Transport by IWW
Transfer of cargo
Transport by road
Unloading of cargo
Figure 7-20: typical intermodal chain When transporting liquid bulk, the transport chain used is hardly ever as elaborate as shown in the figure above: many major oil storage facilities and refineries are located directly at the waterfront and are completely accustomed to having the transport of their goods done by ships. As a result of this, the chain is shortened and cost are reduced, making waterborne transport highly competitive with road-based transport
Figure 7-21: extensive oil storage facilities at the waterfront. Picture: www.vopak.nl
Page 85 of 115
7.5.4
Feasibility calculations
CASE STUDY 1: Tar transport in the Amsterdam area: inland navigation vs road transport In the area around Amsterdam, there is substantial transport of ADNR goods in the form of liquid bulk related to Cindu Chemicals in Uithoorn. This is currently done by water, road and rail, depending on the origin and destination of the cargo. One very substantial cargo flow is 100.000+ tons of tar between Corus in Velsen, and Cindu Chemicals in Uithoorn. The main activity of Cindu Chemicals is refining and processing of crude coal tar into high quality products. This raw material is in fact a by-product, which is formed during the manufacturing of coke, which is used in the production of iron and steel. So, traditionally, the steel industry of Corus is Cindus most important supplier. The coal tar is shipped from Corus in Velsen to Cindu Chemicals in Uithoorn by tanker. For the transfer of coal tar to and from seagoing vessels, Cindu has its own tank storage facility in the Amsterdam port area, in the Petroleumhaven. The only way to transport the tar is through the city of Amsterdam, which imposes many restrictions on the ship to be used (i.e. length under 67 m, beam under 7.2 m, draught 2.35 m and airdraught 4.5 m.). As a result of this, the amount of cargo that can be transported in a single ship is limited to roughly 800 tons.
Page 86 of 115
Figure 7-22: shipping route from Velsen to Uithoorn Logistic data Both Corus and Cindu are located at the waterfront, making door-to-door delivery by inland navigation a possibility The one-way distance to be travelled by road is 37 km. The commercial cost of this transport is currently 8,- per ton in case the tar is transported in 30 T trucks. The distance travelled by water is 47 km., 25 of which are class VII fairway and 22 are class III. Ship length may not exceed 67 m, width is restricted to 7.20 m, draft to 2.35 m and airdraft to 4.5 m. Sailing time between Corus and Cindu is estimated at 5 hours, at an average nominal speed of 12 km/h, but substantial time needs to be reserved for loading and unloading. This is estimated at 4 hours for loading as well as unloading. Ship All inland tankers in service today have the same basic layout: the accommodation and wheelhouse are located at the stern, behind the cargo hold, which is relatively low. As a result of the new requirements for a double hull, a higher tank deck is required in order to still be able to fit the same amount of cargo into the ship. This is believed to be technically feasible, although the wheelhouse will have to be made height-adjustable in order to be able to still see over the deck but still fit under low bridges.
Page 87 of 115
Figure 7-23: conventional inland tanker. Picture: www.damenshipyards.com As an alternative, the general arrangement of the ship can be altered by putting the wheelhouse at the bow. This will allow for virtually unlimited tankdeck height and a large additional cargo capacity.
Figure 7-24: conceptual design new inland tanker With maximum dimensions L = 67 m, B = 7.20 m, T= 2.3 m and Tair = 4.5 m. and assuming a block coefficient of 0.85, displacement of the ship is 1020 T, which leads to the previously mentioned estimated cargo capacity of 800 T. Assuming that the first 10 m of the ship, at the bow, and the last 5 m, at the stern, can not be used for cargo storage, and a 2 x 0.80 m wide double hull is used, tanks with a depth of no less than 3.4 m need to be used. Which is easily possible, s shown in the general arrangement shown in figure 7-24.
Page 88 of 115
Figure 7-25: cost of waterborne transport vs road transport The cost for waterborne transport is in large part to be attributed to the crew cost as can be seen in the cost subdivision below. If the ship could be made to sail on day-sailing schedule, profits can be increased further. All in all, there can be no doubt that under the conditions described here, transport over water remains a viable alternative to road transport
Page 89 of 115
Figure 7-26: conventional and optimized tank cross-section This problem is further increased if we were to allow the draught of the ship of the previous case study to be increased, in order to allow it to carry more cargo than conventional tankers of the same beam and length (of course provided the water depth is sufficient to allow this larger draught). Several measures can be taken to improve this situation: pinching the tanks at the top as well as providing a longitudinal bulkhead will reduce the reduction of ship stability as a result of sloshing of the cargo (free surface effect), resulting in acceptable stability of the ship. Calculations of ship stability as a function of the amount of cargo carried result in the graph as shown below. The figure reflects the reduction of ship stability (expressed by the so-called GMvalue) as a function of the level to which the tanks are filled with either tar or methanol. The red line represents the minimum allowed level of stability. If the draught of the ship is limited to a maximum of 3.2 metre and the minimum allowable stability is maintained, the values in table 1 represent the amount of cargo that can be carried. From these tables, it can be concluded that in all conditions the ship can be loaded to a cargo weight of over 1100 tons, except in case of the very light substances like methanol, for which some ballast water needs to be added to maintain sufficient stability, as a result of which less weight is still available for cargo.
Page 90 of 115
GM methanol GM tar
5
0 -0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1 GM (m)
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
Figure 7-27: ship stability as a function of amount of cargo Table 7-16: maximum cargo capacity as a funtion of cargo density density weight volume ballast ton/m3 ton m3 ton 0.8 1057 1321 45 0.9 1102 1224 1 1.0 1102 1102 0 1.1 1102 1003 0 1.2 1102 919 0
Economic consequences The economic consequences of this increased cargo carrying capacity are obvious: if waterway conditions allow it, almost 40% more cargo can be carried in the same ship, with only the increase of fuel cost as a result of the increased displacement of the ship and the increase in building cost as a result of the bigger tanks that increase the total cost. This should result in substantially reduced cost per ton of cargo, provided the ship does indeed sail in deep water often enough. Applicability to other ship sizes The matter discussed above is basically valid for all ship sizes, although there are limits: The when applying a conventional double hull instead of a single hull, a tank width of 1.6 to 2 metres is lost. It has been demonstrated for a 7.2 m wide vessel that this is not an insurmountable problem and it can be stated without any doubt that the difficulties become even smaller as the beam of the ship involved increases. On the other hand however, as the ships beam gets smaller, the effect of the reduced tank width becomes larger and will certainly pose problems for Peniche-size vessels that are only 5 m wide. In this case options should definitely be explored to reduce the width of the double hull structure if one aims to keep the amount of cargo that can be carried by the ship at the same level as its single hulled cousins. 7.5.5 Conclusion
The ship-related calculations done as part of this logistics-oriented workpackage are limited. More work is needed to accurately estimate the ships empty weight, hullform, power requirements, centre of gravity of the lightship etc. etc.. Also, in practice it would probably a
Page 91 of 115
Page 92 of 115
7.6.1 Introduction The hub network concept is referred to as a dedicated pallet barge network in which specially equipped barges are deployed on the inter-hub connections (Groothedde, 2005a). The collection and distribution is carried out by road transportation. The objective of the case study is to test if shipment through this intermodal hub network via inland waterways is feasible for shipments between the Rotterdam - Ruhr district compared to individual direct road haulage. To achieve the necessary economies of scale collaboration will be conditionally in most of the cases. All cost functions and input variables for this case study are explained in more detail in the Annex report that accompanies this main report. 7.6.2 Transport corridor and goods flows The main condition for shipments using the intermodal network is that costs have to decrease compared to the current situation (in most of the cases direct road haulage). The network has to exist next to direct road haulage, so the shipments trough the network will be parallel to road haulage. In the first term of the collaboration there will be only used full truck load (FTL) for the network and the logistics service providers will only collaborate on the network. Through using the network parallel to direct road haulage a reliable service can be guarantied for the shipments on the network and the logistics service providers can be flexible with direct road haulage. On the network the stable part of the demand will be hauled, and the peaks in the order pattern will be hauled with direct road haulage. To overcome the problem of a lead-time gap shipments with a stable demand can be send in advance as can be seen in figure below.
Time
shipment time via hub network shipment time via direct trucking order lead-time order lead-time gap
Figure 7-28: Stable demand and order-lead time (Groothedde, 2005a) It is assumed that one actor transports a maximum of eight FTL a day which implies that this actor transports a maximum 60.000 pallets (2400 FTL) a year. If another actor also uses the
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 93 of 115
The case exists of three parts. In part I a two hub network between Schiedam and Duisburg (network A) is evaluated. In this part two barge types will be compared for a total of 60.000 120.000 180.000 and 240.000 pallets a year on the network. The barge types are a Verlengde Kempenaar with a capacity of 600 pallets and a Europaschip with a capacity of 1200 pallets. In part II the previous described network A and a two hub network between Schiedam and Cologne (network B) will be compared with a three hub network between Schiedam Duisburg and Cologne (network C) for the same amount of pallets that were evaluated in part I. In part I and II the costs of direct haulage will be compared to haulage via the hub networks and the service that can be provided through the time it takes between production and consumption. In part III it is discussed what the margins for the costs of collaboration are if an actor only wants to collaborate if he gets a reduction in his costs with the costs found in part II. The reduction in costs has to be five percent in this case. Dependent on this percentage a certain margin to compensate the costs of collaboration has to exist. 7.6.4 Feasibility calculations 7.6.4.1 PART I: Network A.
Page 94 of 115
Figure 7-29: Network A In network A shipments are collected at and distributed from a hub in Schiedam (hub 1) and a hub in Duisburg (hub 2). The shipments are consolidated between hub 1 and hub 2 and are transported on a Verlengde Kempenaar with a capacity of 600 pallets or an Europaschip with a capacity of 1200 pallets. The hubs (depicted as double circles) and origins and destinations (depicted as rectangles) are depicted in the figure above. The distance between hub 1 and 2 is around 250 kilometres which implies that with an upstream speed of 11 kilometres an hour it will take approximately 23 hours to sail from hub 1 to hub 2. With a downstream speed of 13 kilometres an hour it will take approximately 20 hours to sail from hub 2 to hub 1. The average distance for direct road haulage between the origins and destinations is around 220 kilometres. The average pre plus post haulage is around 25 kilometres. It has to be noted that all origins and destinations are not based on real locations but can give an indication in the costs of shipments. Furthermore the hub locations were not assigned to find the optimum location but are chosen to give an indication of what the costs are for a network between the Rotterdam district and the Ruhr district. In network A the net round-trip time is 53 hours for a Verlengde Kempenaar and 63 hours for an Europaschip if the barges are used in full capacity and an (un)loading speed can be achieved of 240 pallets an hour (due to the fully automatic (un)loading system). There has to be a certain time window in which barges can be unloaded and loaded. This time window has to be adapted because most of the origins and destinations are not open twenty four hours a day. Furthermore the barges have to arrive on fixed times at the hubs to (un)load so the shippers know when a shipment has to be send to the hub and the consignees know when they receive a shipment. Therefore the barges sail according to a fixed time table. Therefore a certain waiting time ( Twait ) was added to the net round-trip time to achieve the two restrictions discussed above. The number round-trips a week ( ) and the total time for one round-trip ( Ttrip ) in an itinerary regime are depicted in the table below.
Page 95 of 115
From the results depicted in table above can be concluded that with 60.000 pallets a year haulage through the network will lead to an increase in costs with 2,18 per pallet (-13%). For the other demands a year a decrease in costs can be achieved from 10 percent with a demand of 120.000 pallets a year to 22 percent with a demand of 240.000 pallets a year. In figure below the percentages of the parts included in the costs are depicted for the option with 240.000 pallets.
Pre plus Post Haulage 5% 5% 7% 55% 22% 6% Sailing Positioning Handling Schiedam Handling Duisburg Delta Holding costs
Figure 7-30: Percentages of costs for a demand of 240.000 pallets a year. The service that can be provided with the network will be calculated through multiplying the number of round-trips a week with the number of barges on the network. The result that is
Page 96 of 115
Figure 7-31: Network A and B using hub Schiedam In network B shipments are collected at and distributed from the hub in Schiedam (hub 1) and a hub in Cologne (hub 3). The shipments are consolidated between hub 1 and hub 3 and are transported on a Verlengde Kempenaar with a capacity of 600 pallets or an Europaschip with a capacity of 1200 pallets. The hubs (depicted as double circles) and origins and destinations (depicted as rectangles) are depicted in the figure above. The distance between hub 2 and 3 is around 110 kilometres which implies that with an upstream speed of 11 kilometres an hour it will take approximately 10 hours to sail from hub 2 to hub 3. With a downstream speed of 13 kilometres an hour it will take approximately 9 hours to sail from hub 3 to hub 2. The average distance for direct road haulage between the origins and destinations is around 275 kilometres. The average pre plus post haulage between the origins and a hub and a hub and the destinations is around 25 kilometres. Network A where hub Schiedam is used for network A and network B First the costs for shipment through network A will be calculated again. In network A the costs per pallet will decrease compared to the above described option because of the economies of scale that can be achieved at the hub in Schiedam. Therefore the costs per pallet in network A are calculated again and are depicted in the table below. The maximum round-trips a week will
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 97 of 115
60.000 (day) 600 120.000 (cont) 600 1 180.000 (cont) 1200 240.000 (cont) 1200 1) utilization of 75 percent
When the previous 2 tables are compared, it can be concluded that a marginal cost reduction can be achieved due to combining shipments of network A and B on the hub in Schiedam. Network B where hub Schiedam is used for network A and network B In network B the net round-trip time is 72 hours for a Verlengde Kempenaar and 82 hours for an Europaschip if the barges are used in full capacity. The total round-trip time of the barges a week ( ) in an itinerary regime including the waiting time is depicted in the table below. Table 7-20: Total round-trip time and waiting time in given itinerary regime in network B. Regime BARGE NETWORK B
Tsail
(hour) 62 62 62 62 62 62
Tun / load
(hour) 10 20 10 20 10 20
Tnet
(hour) 72 82 72 82 72 82
Twait
(hour) 24 14 18 8 48 38
Ttrip
(hour) 96 96 90 90 120 120
With the number of round-trips known a week the costs for the different demands can be calculated. The different demands are evaluated are 60.000, 120.000, 180.000 and 240.000 pallets a year on the network. The outcomes with the lowest weighted average costs per pallet of these calculations are depicted in table below. Table 7-21: Costs per pallet in network B as part of A/B Pallets/ year 60.000 120.000 180.000 240.000 Regime (semi) (semi) (cont) (semi) Type 600 1200 1200 1200 1 1 1,5 1 Barges Nr. 1 1 1 2 Direct road (/pallet) 18,96 18,96 18,96 18,96 Network B (/pallet) 20,43 17,41 14,80 15,50 Cost reduction (/pallet) -1,47 1,56 4,16 3,46 Cost reduction (%) -8 8 22 18
Page 98 of 115
Tsail
Tun / load
Tnet
(hours) 72 82 72 82 72 82
Twait
(hours) 24 14 18 8 48 38
Ttrip
(hours) 96 96 90 90 120 120
(hours) (hours) 62 10 62 20 62 62 62 62 10 20 10 20
With the number of round-trips known a week the costs for the different demands can be calculated. The different demands evaluated are around 120.000, 240.000, 360.000 and 480.000 pallets a year on the network. These demands are derived through consolidation of the demands of network A and network B. The outcomes with the lowest weighted average costs per pallet of these calculations are depicted in table below. Table 7-23: Costs per pallet in network C Pallets/ year Regime Type Barges Nr. Direct road (/pallet) 17,73 17,73 17,73 17,73 Network C (/pallet) 17,62 16,16 13,95 14,09 Cost reduction (/pallet) 0,11 1,57 3,78 3,65 Cost reduction (%) 1 9 21 21
120.600 (cont) 1200 1,51 1 241.200 (semi) 1200 1,02 2 360.000 (cont) 1200 1,5 2 480.600 (cont) 1200 1,53 3 1) With a network utilization of 56 percent 2) With a network utilization of 56 percent 3) With a network utilization of 74 percent
Page 99 of 115
From the comparison can be concluded that with a demand on network A and network B of 60.000 pallets a year each network C leads to a reduction in costs of 9 percent a year. With a demand on network A and B of 120.000 pallets a year each, network C does not lead to a cost reduction, so network C will not be in favour looking at costs. With a demand on network A and B of 180.000 pallets a year each, network C will lead to a cost reduction of 4 percent. With a demand on network A and B of 240.000 pallets a year each, network C will lead to a small cost reduction of 1 percent. The service that can be provided with the network will be calculated through multiplying the number of round-trips a week with the number of barges on the network. The figure that is obtained with this is the arrivals a week per hub. The results are depicted in table below.
Table 7-25: Comparison of the number of arrivals in the two options Net A 1 2 1,5 2 Net A Barges 1 1 1 1 Net A Arrivals a week 1 2 1,5 2 Net B 1 1 1,5 1 Net B Barges 1 1 1 2 Net B Arrivals a week 1 1 1,5 2 Net C 1,5 1,0 1,5 1,5 Net C Barges 1 2 2 3 Net C Arrivals a week 1,5 2 3 4,5 Best Network C C C C
From this analysis can be concluded that in all options network C performs the best results. Therefore network C will be chosen above network A/B. 7.6.4.3 PART III: The margin for the costs of collaboration for network C In this part the margin for the costs of collaboration will be calculated for network C. As found in literature actors want a cost reduction compared to the current situation. The reduction in
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 100 of 115
(arrivals at hub/week)
120.000
240.000
360.000
480.000
Pallets/year
Figure 7-32: Development of network C without margin for costs of collaboration In network C a development sequence of the network could be seen from 1 barge with a demand of 120.000 pallets a year to 3 barges with a demand of 480.000 pallets. The cost reduction and arrivals a week in the development of network C are depicted in the figure above. All cost reductions are given compared to direct road haulage in this figure. Due to the restriction that one actor can provide a maximum of 60.000 pallets a year a minimum of two actors have to collaborate if for instance 120.000 pallets are hauled on network C. If the margin for the costs of collaboration has to be calculated in this particular case the following margins will be obtained with a cost reduction of five percent. Table 7-26: Margin for the costs of collaboration in network C (120.000 pallets/year) ACTOR Current Situation (/year) 1 2 TOTAL 1.063.800 1.063.800 2.127.600 Including (5%) (/year) 1.010.610 1.010.610 2.021.220 Reduction Network Situation (/year) 1.057.200 1.057.200 2.114.400 Margin (/year) -46.590 -46.590 -93.180
From the analysis can be concluded that with 120.000 pallets a year on network C the margin for the costs of collaboration is negative. There will be no collaboration and the network will not be feasible in this situation. When 240.000 pallets a year will be hauled on network C, a minimum of four actors will be needed. In the current situation all actors haul their shipment via direct road. If the margin for
Cost Reduction
From the analysis can be concluded that with 240.000 pallets a year on network C a margin for the costs of collaboration can be achieved of 164.040 a year in total. When 360.000 pallets a year will be hauled on network C, a minimum of six actors will be needed. If the margin for the costs of collaboration has to be calculated in this particular case the following margins will be obtained with a cost reduction of 5 percent. In this case the current situation of the actors that collaborated in network C with 240.000 pallets a year have now a current situation that is equal to the minimal cost reduction that they wanted in network C with 240.000. The assumption here is that the total margin is used for the costs of collaboration. For participant five and six the current situation is direct road haulage. Table 7-28: Margin for the costs of collaboration in network C (360.000 pallets/year) ACTOR Current Situation (/year) 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL 1.010.610 1.010.610 1.010.610 1.010.610 1.063.800 1.063.800 6.170.040 Including Reduction (/year) 960.080 960.080 960.080 960.080 1.010.610 1.010.610 5.861.538 Network Situation (/year) 837.000 837.000 837.000 837.000 837.000 837.000 5.022.000 Margin (/year) 123.080 123.080 123.080 123.080 173.610 173.610 839.540
From this analysis can be concluded that with 360.000 pallets a year on network C a margin for the costs of collaboration can be achieved of 839.540 a year in total. This specific case for 480.000 pallets a year on network C will not lead to a cost reduction because the costs per pallet in the network will not differ compared to the case for 360.000 pallets. In this specific case a natural threshold of 360.000 pallets a year will be the maximum for network C. 7.6.5 Conclusion
Although the DISTRISHIP concept will not be brought into WP3 for further elaboration, this concept will improve the possibilities for inland waterway transport considerably. By collaboration between shippers and/or transport firms smaller shipments can be combined which in total are suitable to ship in a barge. The distriship concept in itself is attractive since it it
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 102 of 115
This phenomenon of faster rising margins is explained in the annex report. The central theme is however clear through cooperation between shippers that in itself have too few shipment size to fill a barge, considerable cost reductions can be obtained. However to attain this situation of cooperation between shippers collaborative networks have to be set up that foresee in a cost allocation that is attractive to all partners within the network. It is tried to implement this concept with German and Dutch shippers/transporters, but setting up collaborative networks requires much more time than was foreseen within the CREATING timeframe.
7.7.1 Introduction The number of handled containers is continuously growing worldwide. From 1980 to 2004 the number of TEUs (twenty feet equivalent units) shipped worldwide rose from 11.4 million to 84 million. Container transport is expected to reach 96 million TEU in 2005 (approx. 15% growth) and for 2006, not less than 105 million TEU is assumed (approx. 10 % growth) to be transported. Especially the container traffic between the Far-East and Europe is developing very fast. As per professionals estimations this traffic at the moment represents about 70% of the global container transport. The main transport routes are shown in the following figures.
The new F-loop (Source: Port of Amsterdam, Annual Report) Most of the containers coming through the Suez Canal, and then longitudinally crossing the Mediterranean Sea actually go to the big north-west European ports: Rotterdam, Bremerhaven, Antwerp and Hamburg. A special part of these Far-Eastern origin containers has Central
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 104 of 115
The Port Said Rotterdam shipping distance is about 3373 nautical miles, while the Port Said Constantza distance is only 944 nautical miles, abt. 3,5 times shorter. Considering the whole loop, the Shanghai Bremerhaven route is 30% longer than the Shanghai Constantza route. This length difference offers potential for considerable time saving for the ships with cargoes for Central European destinations. This advantage and the potential economic growth of the Central and South-East European region is in the background of the developments in Port of Constantza.
Figure 7-33 Distance differences for Constantza port The Port of Rijeka and Port of Koper are geographically closer to the Central European region than the port of Constantza. For comparison the geographical distance between Koper and Budapest is 574 km, while between Constantza and Budapest is 1038 km. However the distance on the sea from Port Said to Constantza or to Koper is almost the same, but because of the shallow water and the lack of port facilities the containers with destination Port Koper actually are transhipped in a Gioa Tauro. Considering the total transportation fee between the departure and arrival points, this additional transhipment causes additional transport cost. However, it should be noted that this increases the cost but does not definitely increase the price of transportation. 7.7.2 Transport corridor and goods flows
An advantage to shift a given volume of cargo to Constantza and further by inland waterway transport onto the Danube is to reduce the load on the road and rail transport between NorthWest European ports and Central Europe. The capacities of these motorway and railway connections between the traditional ports and Central Europe are almost completely utilised, and considering environment protectional points of view no reason to enlarge these road capacities.
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 105 of 115
North European ports The consequence of the container traffic trends projects the already continuous traffic jams in front of the traditional container ports of Europe. Many ports like Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg - are expanding their terminal capacity; however much of this expansion will not be ready in time to comfortably handle the current growth. The diagram below makes clear where and when the planned additional capacity takes place.
200000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
TEU 28457 46289 30920 32367 40978 68552 86268 86174 98260 85314 105981 118645 136272 206449
Figure 7-34 Container throughput in the Port of Constantza 1990 2003 In the 90s the Port of Constantza had ill fame from the point of view of safety and administration. Today this has changed. Dubai Port International, the operator of the Port of Constantza improved the port management, administration and the safety system and broke down the corruption. Today the service quality is as good as, or even better than it is in the North European container ports. The service price is also lower in Constantza. Because of the modern cranes and container transporters, the speed of the loading and unloading is almost as quick or quicker as in the traditional container ports. 7.7.3 Transport concept
The estimated total annual quantity of containers coming from the traditional North-West European ports toward Central Europe is about 700 000 TEU. If 30% of these volume might be directed to Constantza, it would mean - without considering any economical growth in the Central European region - about 230 000 TEU per year additional cargo volume available for inland waterway transport above those containers, which are already potentially there, 206 000 TEU per year (but this mainly goes to Bucharest only and not to the hinterland). If the share of the inland waterway transport could reach about 10% considering the number of the transported TEUs, the Lower Danubian inland waterway container market could be estimated about 45 000 50 000 TEU per year. After the analysis we can conclude that the Budapest Belgrad Constantza container liner service is a promising transport business on the Danube.
Due to the above mentioned favourable circumstances, the Hungarian MAHART Csepel Freeport Co. has started the operation of a container liner service between Budapest and Constantza, with a stop in Belgrade at the end of March 2005. The technical and economical consultancy was made by Gen Shipping Ltd. The operation started by existing ships: converted barges and special, low-draft push boats rented from a Ukraine company. (At the time of beginning there are no special container carrier vessels on the Danube). Important information about the service: Service duration: Constantza Budapest (upstream): Budapest Constantza (downstream): Comparable transport times - railway: Constantza Budapest: Budapest Constantza: - road: Constantza Budapest: Budapest Constantza: 8 days 6 days about. 5 days about. 5 days aboutt. 3 days about. 3 days
The capacity of service is 300 TEU per convoy. Frequency: caravan set in sailing per seven days. Unfortunately because of some reasons, the Constantza Budapest container liner service operated only till the end of June 2005. The reason of stopping the operation is not a question of its economical feasibility. Beside the well-founded economical feasibility the service was based on a gentlemens agreement stated that the big container forwarding companies will book cargo via Constantza not only to Bucharest, Romania, but also to other Central European countries. However, in spite of the agreement there is no container in Constantza waiting to be transported to Hungary, Serbia and Montenegro, etc. The reason is that there is no cargo available in Constantza for Central European countries. Sofar, nobody booked containers via Constantza due to the higher tariffs. The tariff policy of the big container forwarding companies should be changed in a way that the price should be related to the cost of transportation. To find out the actual situation, we asked some forwarding companies for quotation of transporting container from Far-East to a north-European port and Constantza as well (see table below). Shipping price from Shanghai to Bremerhaven/Constantza 20 container Shipping Company Bremerhaven Constantza no data no data MAERSK 1300$ 1600$ ?Forcont? International Shipping Ltd. 1579$ 1670$ MSC
From the table it is obvious why there is no container in Constantza. The companies were asked why Constantza is more expensive. Among the explanations there are: the lack of office and
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 109 of 115
7.7.5
Conclusion
According to the Hungarian experts opinion, a container liner service from Constantza to hinterland will work only if the container shipping companies will change their tariff policy and there will be significant amount of cargo in Constantza, destined to Central-European countries. This certainly will come true in the next few years, the question is only that exactly when and who will make the first steps. The most possible is that a shipping company will build up and operate such a service. After the stop of CBB service in May 2005, another container service started to work on the Danube between Belgrade and Constantza. It is operated by the ZIM Line (ZIM Integrated Shipping Services), a maritime liner service in the Black Sea. According to Sasa Jovanovic expert of Jugoagent, we persuaded ZIM to include Constantza in its schedule, since we didn't have a fixed cargo flow to provide a sufficient number of containers at the beginning. The barges they use are owned by the Bulgarian River Shipping Co., BRP. The service as Mr. Jovanovic describes is now weekly, or at least it tends to be weekly... Transit time is 6 days down and 7 days up the river. The performance in the first six month was 452 TEU (!), Not much, however the service is experiencing slow but constant volume growth. The numbers speak for themselves, and show the same problem that was detailed earlier: no cargo for hinterland in Constantza at this moment. It seems that this is an additional service of ZIM and BRP, who are sailing up to Belgrade with other cargo (say grain) as well. So it is not a scheduled liner service, only if there are some container destined to Belgrade, they put them in a barge, and connect it to a convoy streaming up to Belgrade.
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 110 of 115
Corver, A.W.F. (2000). Palletvervoer via de binnenvaart. TU Delft: Delft (Final thesis). COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 17.1.2006 SEC(2006) 34/3 Commission Staff Working Document Annex To The Communication From The Commission On The Promotion Of Inland Waterway Transport Naiades An Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterway Transport CREATING WP3 Reports and Presentations regarding the Danube Ro-Ro vessels, 2005 Daganzo, C.F. (1999). Logistics Systems Analysis (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer. DANUBE SPACE STUDY - Regional and Territorial Aspects of Development in the Danube Countries with Respect to Impacts on the European Union - Final Report, July 2000 Published EUDET Evaluation of the Danube Waterway as key European Transport resource, Research study within the 4th Frame Programme for R&D of the CEC, First Interim Report issued by the consortium IR/EBD/Impetus, Vienna, 1996 European Commission under the 4th Frame Programme for R&D of the CEC Final Report for Publication issued by the consortium AVV/ANAST/BCI/VBD/VNF, Rotterdam, 1996 EUROSTAT Panorama of Transport 1970-2001 Groothedde, B. (2001). Ontwerp Kansrijke Binnenvaartnetwerken - Een onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden van binnenvaart in de retailsector. TNO Inro: Delft. Groothedde, B., Ruijgrok, C.J., Iding, M.H.E., and Dongen, A. van (2002). Kansrijke Binnenvaartnetwerken II. Logistieke Prestatiemeting. Delf: TNO Inro Groothedde, B. and Rustenburg, M. (2003). Distrivaart netwerkontwikkeling. De weg naar een volwaardig netwerk in de binnenvaart. Delft: TNO Inro. Groothedde, B. (2005). Collaborative logistics and transportation networks A modeling approach to hub network design. TRAIL Dissertation Series, The Netherlands. Groothedde, B., Ruijgrok, C., and Tavasszy, L. (2005a). Towards collaborative, intermodal hub networks A case study in the fast moving consumer goods markets. Transportation Research Part E, pp. 567-583. Guis, E. (2003). Distrivaart Economics. Delft: TNO Inro. IMMUNITY Impacts of Increased and Multiple use of Inland Navigation and identification of tools to reduce negative impacts, Research study funded by the Konstantinov, D., Combined Road Rail Transport, Railway Transport Magazine, No.2, 2005, (in Bulgarian), Bulgaria Louis Berger S.A. : Transport Infrastructure Regional Study (TIRS) in the Balkans (2002)
CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 112 of 115