Final Report.

Deliverable WP2, Final report

CREATING/Final report/WP2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12/ Page 0 of 115

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [1.6.2]

Sustainable Surface Transport

Deliverable WP2, Final report Innovative logistics concepts for Integrated Transport Chains

Version 12 October 2006

Project acronym: CREATING Project full title: Concepts to Reduce Environmental impact and Attain

optimal Transport performance by Inland Navigation Contract no.: FP6 - 506542



Document Title Deliverable WP2, Final report

(S)WP number: 2

Document number: CREATING/Final report/WP 2/EVO/09-10-2006/version 12 Document History

Version Comments Date Authorised by

10 draft 26-09-2006 M. Haenen (WPL) 11 draft 18-09-2006 C. Willems (PM)

H. Blaauw (TC) 12 Final 09-10-2006 H. Brombacher (QC) Classification Internal Number of pages:

Number of annexes:

1

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

WP leader Name: WP leader Organisation:

Haenen, M. EVO



Table of Contents 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 7 2 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................. 9

2.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 12

3 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

4 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

5 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 6 Innovative concepts ..................................................................................... 31

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 31 6.2 Conclusions Reality Scans ........................................................................... 31

7 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



7.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 35 7.5.2 Transport corridor and goods flows........................................................... 35 7.5.3 Transport concept ..................................................................................... 35 7.5.4 Feasibility calculations .............................................................................. 35 7.5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 35

7.6 Distriship Ruhr Area Connection................................................................... 35 7.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 35 7.6.2 Transport corridor and goods flows........................................................... 35 7.6.3 Transport concept ..................................................................................... 35 7.6.4 Feasibility calculations .............................................................................. 35 7.6.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 35

7.7 Containerline service Budapest - Constantza............................................... 35 7.7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 35 7.7.2 Transport corridor and goods flows........................................................... 35 7.7.3 Transport concept ..................................................................................... 35 7.7.4 Feasibility calculation ................................................................................ 35 7.7.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 35

8 Bibliography.................................................................................................. 35



List of Figures Figure 4-1: Methodology for selection of an innovative case. ................................................. 17 Figure 5-1: Innovation process and results in CREATING...................................................... 30 Figure 7-1: loading stations – power plant.................................................................................. 35 Figure 7-2: deviation volumes loading stations. ......................................................................... 35 Figure 7-3: feasibility. ................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 7-4: transport distances ................................................................................................... 35 Figure 7-5: service schedule inland barges ................................................................................ 35 Figure 7-6: Danube Ro-Ro vessel “Han Kardam” or sister ship “Han Krum” (Popov, 2005). . 35 Figure 7-7 Danube semi-catamaran built in Deggendorf .......................................................... 35 Figure 7-8 Danube catamaran built in Apatin ........................................................................... 35 Figure 7-9 Ro-Ro barge of "Hungaro Lloyd". .......................................................................... 35 Figure 7-10 Ro-Ro terminal in Passau-Schalding - Danube km 2233 (Popov, 2005) ............... 35 Figure 7-11 Ro-Ro terminal in Vidin - Danube km 793 (Popov, 2005) .................................... 35 Figure 7-12: Cross section of second-generation Ro-Ro vessels (Popov, 2005) ........................ 35 Figure 7-13 Stowage of vehicles on upper and lower deck (cars, vans) (Popov, 2005) ............ 35 Figure 7-14: Ro-Ro pushed-train - existing barges (Popov, 2005) ............................................. 35 Figure 7-15: Cross section of Ro-Ro barges – design (Popov, 2005) ......................................... 35 Figure 7-16: The Danube Corridor (TEN Corridor No. VII) ...................................................... 35 Figure 7-17: Cost structure per ESTR......................................................................................... 35 Figure 7-18: volume of oil and oil products transported by inland ship (source: CBS Statline) 35 Figure 7-19: VT Vlissingen, source: www.informatie.binnenvaart.nl ........................................ 35 Figure 7-20: typical intermodal chain ......................................................................................... 35 Figure 7-21: extensive oil storage facilities at the waterfront. Picture: www.vopak.nl .............. 35 Figure 7-22: shipping route from Velsen to UIthoorn ................................................................ 35 Figure 7-23: conventional inland tanker. Picture: www.damenshipyards.com........................... 35 Figure 7-24: conceptual design new inland tanker...................................................................... 35 Figure 7-25: cost of waterborne transport vs road transport ....................................................... 35 Figure 7-26: conventional and optimized tank cross-section ...................................................... 35 Figure 7-27: ship stability as a function of amount of cargo....................................................... 35 Figure 7-28: Stable demand and order-lead time (Groothedde, 2005a) ...................................... 35 Figure 7-29: Network A .............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 7-30: Percentages of costs for a demand of 240.000 pallets a year. ................................ 35 Figure 7-31: Network A and B using hub Schiedam .................................................................. 35 Figure 7-32: Development of network C without margin for costs of collaboration .................. 35 Figure 7-33 Distance differences for Constantza port................................................................. 35 Figure 7-34 Container throughput in the Port of Constantza 1990 – 2003 ................................. 35



List of Tables Table5-1: Scoring the innovative cases on the supply criteria. ............................................... 24 Table5-2: Legend of the supply criteria scores ....................................................................... 25 Table5-3: Input for Database analysis of reality cases............................................................ 26 Table5-4: Legend of input for database analysis of reality cases............................................ 27 Table5-5: Scoring the innovative cases on the demand criteria. ............................................. 27 Table5-6: Legend of the demand criteria scores. .................................................................... 28 Table 7-1: seasonal fluctuations (Total of month is same as peat – this is also important for

service schedule)..................................................................................................... 34 Table 7-2: average demand ......................................................................................................... 35 Table 7-3: hours ......................................................................................................................... 35 Table 7-4 : kilometres and hours................................................................................................. 35 Table 7-5: fixed and variable costs. ............................................................................................ 35 Table 7-6: costs of equipment combinations.............................................................................. 35 Table 7-7: costs per hour/kilometre ............................................................................................ 35 Table 7-8: cost drivers................................................................................................................. 35 Table 7-9: total calculated costs .................................................................................................. 35 Table 7-10: total calculated costs per kilometre.......................................................................... 35 Table 7-11: calculated costs versus commercial tariffs............................................................... 35 Table 7-12: Maximum volumes to be transported, based on displacement considerations ........ 35 Table 7-13: Maximum volumes to be transported, based on cargo hold volume considerations 35 Table 7-14: total cargo volumes.................................................................................................. 35 Table 7-15: cost calculation ........................................................................................................ 35 Table 7-16: maximum cargo capacity as a funtion of cargo density........................................... 35 Table 7-17: Total round-trip time and waiting time in given itinerary regime in network A ..... 35 Table 7-18: Costs per pallet in network A ................................................................................. 35 Table 7-19: Costs per pallet in network A as part of A/B........................................................... 35 Table 7-20: Total round-trip time and waiting time in given itinerary regime in network B. ... 35 Table 7-21: Costs per pallet in network B as part of A/B ........................................................... 35 Table 7-22: Waiting time in network C without segment 2-3 and 3-2........................................ 35 Table 7-23: Costs per pallet in network C................................................................................... 35 Table 7-24: Total cost comparison of network A/B with network C .......................................... 35 Table 7-25: Comparison of the number of arrivals in the two options ....................................... 35 Table 7-26: Margin for the costs of collaboration in network C (120.000 pallets/year) ............. 35 Table 7-27: Margin for the costs of collaboration in network C (240.000 pallets/year) ............. 35 Table 7-28: Margin for the costs of collaboration in network C (360.000 pallets/year) ............. 35 Table 7-29: Margin for the costs of collaboration in network C for different market volumes .. 35



List of abbreviations ADN Accord européen relatif au transport international des marchandises

Dangereuses par voie de Navigation intéreure ADNR Réglement pour le transport de matières dangereuses sur le Rhin ARA Amsterdam – Rotterdam – Antwerp (ports) CEC Central European Countries DG TREN EC, General Directorate for Energy and Transport DOW Description of Work DPC Danube Project Centre EEC East European Countries (Moldova and Ukraine) EILU European Intermodal Loading Unit ESTR Equivalent Semi-Trailers EXCAT Existing (CATamaran) vessel GL Germanischer Lloyd GVW Gross Vehicle Weight HWL High Water Level IWW Inland Waterway IWT Inland Waterway Transportation JIT Just In Time Lo-Lo Load on – Load off LNRL Low Navigation and Regulation Level LRRV Large Ro-Ro Vessel LSP Logistics service providers O/D Origin – Destination MUTAND Multimodal Ro-Ro Transport on the Danube River PRRB Pushed Ro-Ro Barge RCU Rate of waterway Capacity Utilisation ROLA Road Rail combined transport Ro-Ro Roll on – Roll off (Road Ship combined transport) SEEC Southeast European Countries (Romania, Bulgaria) SSS Short sea shipping TEN Trans European Network TEU Twenty feet Equivalent Unit (container) TINA Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment VDA Verband der Deutschen Automobilindustrie VLRRV Very Large Ro-Ro Vessel WEC West European Countries



1 ABSTRACT 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)



6. On basis of the data related cargo flows and the defined criteria, specific cargo flows (which can actually be transferred) are selected. This selection of cargo flows which can be transferred will be reported.

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. Distriship Ruhr Area Connection 6. 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.



2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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



evaluation of the concepts to see if there is a viable volume. First the value of the total cargo volume for sound commercial operation of the concept on a certain relation was computed. This was checked with the database to see if this amount of cargo was available from the market demand.

- By understanding the logistic chain, stakeholders are involved in an early stage of the

project. This also means that in the stage of CREATING, that already the work in WP2 gets complicated. Do stakeholders have the same aim? When is the commercial phase starting?

- Commitment of shippers is crucial for the development of new concepts. It has to be stated

that in projects like CREATING some concepts are being pushed into the market. In this case commitment is hard to measure. On the other hand stakeholders get a good impression of the possibilities of other transport concepts and modes. Together with the overview of possible cost reductions it leads to a larger interest of stakeholders toward new intermodal concepts.

- Best examples of developing new concepts are those which are coming from the demand

side (should be incentive driven). - To develop new concepts for inland navigations it is necessary to combine

expertise/knowledge of logistics, inland navigation, technique and stakeholders. CREATING has proven that this also gives an extra dimension to work package 2 towards stakeholders. Stakeholders namely think also in a practical way and ask themselves if besides the economical feasibility also the technique of a new vessel concept leads to further cost reductions (including the effort and organisation for developing a new concept).

- Work package 2 showed us that developing new concepts needs time. Within companies

circumstances are changing continuously. New customers, new markets, new products, new/other demands from customers etcetera. This all has a direct influence on logistics and at the end also on transport concepts and the choice for a transport modes. Therefore can be concluded that changing logistic and transport concepts are mostly long term projects, two till four years. A project as CREATING can be a very good instrument to stimulate companies with the development of the ideas for “new” logistics.

- Work package 2 has invested a lot of time in contacting market parties and finding the

market parties that stood open for thinking in a new way. At the end it was the aim to develop together with market parties new concepts. It appeared that this was not that easy like defined in the Description of Work. The reason for this is that it is necessary to contact the right company, the right staff member within the company at the right time. Most of this work has been done by partners within the Netherlands; in a next CREATING project it is to be recommended to select right partners for this work in the different countries in which the research project takes place.

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



navigation. Even more important is that continuous will be worked on image, namely helping the market to understand the numerous possibilities of inland navigation. At the end this will lead to enlargement of a market oriented fleet. This larger demand will also have its effect on the demand and skills of the working force of this sector. Danube versus Rhine area? The problems of inland shipping in the Rhine and in the Danube region seem to be different. While in the Rhine region the inland shipping at the moment has considerable and strong market positions, in the Danube region the role of this transport mode is much less. While in the Rhine region the main task is to find new type of cargoes, which could be potentially shifted from road to waterway, in the Danube region the inland shipping has to face very serious basic problems: lack of capital, bad quality of the shipping routes (IWW), obsolete technical condition of the Danubiean fleets, narrow offer of cargoes available for shipping, etc. The consequence of these problems are that many of the potential customers think of the IWT as a very problematic and ”unreliable” transport mode and many of them, therefore, have turned toward the other transport modes/possibilities. To stop these very unfavourable tendencies the most urgent task is to improve the market position of the inland shipping in the entire transport economy of the region. This goal meets the declared transport policy of the European Union. In order to achieve a growth of IWT, sources must be reserved for investment in the infrastructure, amongst other. The region needs a good quality IWW, safe ports/berths and as well as ships and barges. For the Danube waterway - TEN corridor VII - it is an imperative to have guaranteed draft throughout the year, i.e. to be regulated, as is the Rhine for instance. Without these infrastructural investments this transport sector can not expect large growth in the future. Nevertheless, there are several other facts that are important for the Danube, as for instance the development of the hinterland, i.e. the Rhine passes through the best developed parts of the Europe/World while the development of the Danube regions vary (the Upper Danube regions, which flows through Germany and Austria are developed, while downstream of Hungry hinterland might be considered as not developed enough etc.). Furthermore, new legislative measures, the awareness about the IWT possibilities, cross-border procedures (which should be simplified) etc. are also considered to be important for IWT development on the Danube, not to mention necessary fleet modernization or vitalization (without technical modernization the sector has to face further market losses). Last but nor least, many countries in the region do not have adequate strategic plans for the development of IWT etc. Whichever, the subsidiary measures for the improvement of IWT on the Danube are most probably indispensable. Results WP2 has delivered four concrete business cases in which market demands has been translated to possibilities for new logistic concepts in which has been focussed on inland shipping. Summarized WP2 dealt with the following concepts as input for the other workpackages: • Bio mass transport • Banana transport • New generation Ro/Ro on the Danube • Small chemical tanker



Two optional concepts are worked out as a feasibility study but are not used as an input for the other workpackages, because the outcomes are less promising as first four concepts. These two extra concepts are: • Distriship Ruhr Area Connection • Containerline service Budapest - Constantza Each case has shown us that inland shipping resulted in possibilities for optimization of transport and logistics and therefore giving inland navigation a stronger position in the supply chain.. The stakeholders of the cases mentioned above are also giving a follow up on the cases, which can be seen as very encouraging for the work that has been done by the CREATING partners. Besides the four cases also two additional cases have been worked out, Container line for the Danube and Distribution concept by inland navigation for the Ruhr area (Germany). At the moment these two concepts are not feasible yet. Details of the concepts can be found in chapter 10.

2.2 Recommendations 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,



shippers and authorities should guarantee customer orientation and the successful launch of new services. In this context, the regional and national Chambers of Commerce and Industry can play an active role to promote the use of inland navigation among their members (page 9 of the report1).” It is important to recognize that CREATING has worked along these lines as proposed by NAIADES. It is indeed important to get into dialogue with the stakeholders, because they are the decisive factor for implementation. What was unique in the CREATING process is that direct participation was sought from the stakeholders. This also meant that in the project a flexible line with stakeholders was established since business circumstances change quite fast, and for each new situation a new calculation on the feasibility has to be made for the stakeholders. This is one of the reasons why the initial phase of setting up database and selecting from there possible inland waterway flows was changed. The database had more or less as function to confirm whether it is also applicable to other parts of the transport market. A recommendation from CREATING would be that involving stakeholders usually takes considerable time, this was one of the reasons that for the Distriship case, although very promising, more time is needed than was foreseen in the study to develop a good relationship with stakeholders (in WP2 we had less than 1 year time to establish relationships, this should be at minimum 2 years). It should be noted that al other elements reported in NAIADES are important prerequisites that help as well in stimulating inland waterway transport. Further the Commission has published the Consultation Document on “Logistics for Promoting Freight Intermodality”, this aims at preparing the basis for a Communication planned for June 2006 that will examine how framework conditions could be improved in Europe to foster transport logistics excellence with an emphasis on intermodality. It contains the following interesting elements that could promote and encourage the use of intermodal transport in which inland waterways can play in important role: 1. Liberalisation and harmonisation: Liberalisation should be used as an important target in

order to promote further competition conditions between the different transport modes. Further harmonisation should also be enhanced: harmonisation of documents and procedures, of functioning rules, of tax rules, of work legislation and of working time is far from being a reality, even between neighbouring countries.

2. Infrastructure: Infrastructure is of key importance if efficient logistic chains are to be established. In order to develop the use of intermodality, actions should focus on nodal points as connections between the transport modes is being made through them.

3. Dialogue on intermodal logistics: a platform could be used to discuss concrete issues, exchange experiences and identify best practices, analyse problems and remove obstacles and come up with proposals to overcome them in a more efficient way than through the “usual channels”.

It should be stated that these 3 mentioned elements have in CREATING been found as well as important for stimulating inland waterway transport. Especially the dialogue on intermodal logistics is one of the elements that was missing, with this innovative concepts can be promoted faster and targeted more efficiently on specific groups of shippers and transporters.

1 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



3 INTRODUCTION

3.1 Objective of the WP2 Deliverable

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 sub-work 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.

Database/cargo flow analyses

Criteria

Loading/unloading

Costs

Concepts



Collecting innovative (new) concepts/

cargo flows

(database)

Screening on possible chain improvements

(Reality scan)

Feasibility

analyses

Collecting innovative (new) concepts/

cargo flows

(database)

Screening on possible chain improvements

(Reality scan)

Feasibility

analyses

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.



These concepts are in this chapter worked out as a business cases. The concepts that are detailed: • Bio mass transport • Banana transport • New generation Ro/Ro on the Danube • Small chemical tanker Extra (but not chosen for further elaboration): • Distriship Ruhr Area Connection • Containerline service Budapest - Constantza 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.



4 METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY AND ANALYSE INNOVATIVE CASES (M.02.02)

4.1 Introduction 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.

Can the case be proven?

Can the case be exploited by an LSP?

Case identification

Reality scans

Feasibility study

Pilot

Implementation

Supply criteria

Demandcriteria

Market criteria

Businesscriteria

What cases have the highest opportunity?

Has a case potential?

Which case might realise modal shift to IWW?

How does the innovative concept work?

Is the case feasible?

What are the operational barriers?

Figure 4-1: Methodology for selection of an innovative case.



Methodology In accordance with the tasks 02.02.01A, B, C, D, E, F, all research steps and criteria have been shared with the CREATING consortium partners, have been presented in a work package meeting (Brussels, 12-14-2005) and all consortium partners have been able to comment. All parties have agreed to work via this structure and criteria.

4.2 Case identification 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



- Specialty - slow moving - All - Market analysis required

10. Scale of concept - Low volume - Low volume / low frequency required - Low volume / high frequency required - High volume - High volume / low frequency required - High volume / high frequency required - All - Market analysis required

11. Explanation of type of goods and scale of concept 12. Opportunities for wider application of the concept This case identification can easily be processed in a database structure (e.g. MS Excel). On the one hand it aides in an easy overview of all the cases. On the other hand, it gives a predefined structure through which each idea needs to be studied, so that all cases are analysed in the same way.

4.3 Supply criteria for innovative concepts 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



4.4 Reality scan 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. Context

- Problem issue analysis: what dilemma’s drive shippers to reject road transport? - Type of innovation deployed to realise modal-shift (incl. explanation)

2. Transport corridor analysis - Goods type - Geographic analysis including transport routes and transhipment locations

3. Market opportunities - Identification of regions with transport demand and modal shift opportunities - General (rough) transport price comparison road versus multimodal transport

4. Macro goods flows - Origin – Destination analysis - Volumes - Distance - Number of shipments - Goods type per industrial sector - Truck type

5. Contact parties - Identify willingness to participate in feasibility study

4.5 Demand criteria for innovative concepts 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



- Level of constraining national and international regulation

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. Port of origin (origin of main cargo flow, destination for the back flow) 2. Port of destination (destination of main cargo flow, origin for the back flow) 3. Kind of commodity to be transported from O to D 4. Kind of commodity to be transported from D to O 5. Annual transport volume from O to D 6. Annual transport volume from D to O 7. Seasonal (three-month) distribution of volume (% of total annual) from O to D 8. Seasonal (three-month) distribution of volume (% of total annual) from D to O 9. Time requirements from O to D (t1, t2, t3 = loading, voyage time, unloading) 10. Time requirements from D to O (t1, t2, t3 = loading, voyage time, unloading)



11. Required service frequency (N° of departures/arrivals per week or per month) 12. Value of time2 (€/day) 13. Storage conditions on board:

- Temperature (max/min) - Humidity - Sensitivity on atmospheric conditions/precipitations (rain, sparkling water).

14. State-of-the art solutions along the concerned route – mode (truck, train) and basic parameters as time, estimated costs and average price level.3

15. Road (and/or rail) distance between the ports of origin and destination. ADDITIONAL DATA:

16. Type of freight units to be transported: pallet, ISO-1 container, inland container, refrigerated container, swap-body (type to be specified), semitrailer (length to be specified), with or without trucks, accompanied or non-accompanied (drivers on board or not).

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 Pilot and implementation 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. 2 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.

3 Necessary to establish reference level – to check rougly (outer loop) the economic viability of waterborne solution



5 INNOVATION PROCESS IN CREATING

5.1 Case identification 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.



5.2 Selection for reality scans The 19 innovative ideas have been analysed in the next phase. Goal of this phase is to select the most promising ideas for a further analysis in a reality scan. This analysis scored each idea on the supply criteria (see section 4.3). Information required was found in the descriptions of the case identification (in a 17x24 matrix in Excel in accordance with the topics mentioned in section 4.2), and on conversations and discussions with stakeholders involved in one or more ideas. Table 5.1 summarises the results of this evaluation, while the next table, as a legend, explains the score types per criterion. Table 5-1: Scoring the innovative cases on the supply criteria.

Con

cept

as

pect

s

Con

sort

ium

as

pect

s

Fina

ncia

l as

pect

s

Logi

stic

s as

pect

s

Oth

er a

spec

ts

TOTA

L

Distriship + 0 0 + 0 ++ Paper supply chain 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multipurpose vessel + − 0 + 0 + Banana transport + + 0 + 0 ++ Fragile materials 0 0 0 − 0 − Wood chips + + 0 + + ++++ Waste chains 0 0 0 + 0 + Sea going barges 0 0 − + + + Ro/Ro transport on Danube + 0 + + 0 +++ IWW on Odra 0 0 − + + + Fruit juices + 0 + + + ++++ North/South transport 0 + 0 0 + ++ Inland terminals concept + 0 0 − 0 0 Connecting centres − − 0 0 0 −− Hinterland containers 0 0 − 0 0 − Composite material vessels 0 − − 0 + − Steel, metal, break bulk via Rhine

0 0 0 − 0 −

Two linked barges + 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.



Table 5-2: Legend of the supply criteria scores

Con

cept

as

pect

s

Con

sort

ium

as

pect

s

Fina

ncia

l as

pect

s

Logi

stic

s as

pect

s

Oth

er a

spec

ts

+ Full concrete and applicable concept

High sense of urgency in market

Low investment High ROI

High modal shift opportunity Well intermodal transport route

Very logistical and technical innovative

0 Full concrete concept

Lobby efforts required

Medium investment Medium ROI

High modal shift opportunity Medium intermodal transport route

Some logistical and technical innovation

− Interesting idea No market interest

High investment Low ROI

Low modal shift opportunity Bad intermodal transport route

Some logistical or technical innovation

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. Distriship Rotterdam to Ruhr District 2. Ro/Ro transport on the Danube 3. Banana transport 4. North/south transport of hazardous materials (Small chemical tanker) 5. Multipurpose vessel in Central Europe 6. Hinterland transport (**Sea going barges) 7. Wood chips transport 8. IWW Transport Poland on Odra 9. Waste chains 10. 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.



5.3 Selection for feasibility study The 10 cases that have been selected for the reality study are evaluated on the basis of demand criteria in the third phase. In addition to the demand criteria that were discussed in section 4.5, the cases can also be evaluated by the database tool that has been set up in the CREATING project (see Annex report). This tool can easily demonstrate the actual freight transport demand on a specific corridor (between countries). This section firstly discusses the evaluation methodology of using the database and, next, the overall evaluation on the basis of the demand criteria.

5.3.1 Evaluation by the database tool To be evaluated in the database, all 10 cases need to be specified with respect to the goods types involved and the estimated minimal transport volume per year. The goods type has been specified through the NSTR groups involved. For example, Banana transport (case #3) relates to agricultural products (NSTR 0) and Foodstuffs (NSTR 1). The standard estimated transport volume per year is valued at 25.000 tonnes per year for a one week service. This amount is based on a 500 tonne capacity per barge and a 50 week service per year. Further, this standard volume for one service per week is multiplied by an estimated minimal services per week. This last estimation is both (roughly) based on the length of the transport route and the logistics characteristics of the goods types involved. For example, Ro/Ro transport on the Danube (case #2) includes a distance of circa 1700 km. If we expect one vessel needed in three days for a proper logistics service, there need to be 4 barges (rounded up from circa 3.6) in service along the route. That makes 4 x 25.000 = 100.000 tonnes per year as a minimal transport volume. The database with the most promising commodities (table 5.3) has been the basis of the directions for new concepts. The table below specifies the minimal volume per case. Table 5-3: Input for Database analysis of reality cases Origin – desti-

nation relation NSTR groups involved (seeTable 5.4)

minimal # barges needed on route

Min. tonnes/year

Distriship Randstad to Ruhr district

0, 1, (5, 8), 9 3 75.000

Ro/Ro transport on Danube

South Germany to Rumania

9 4 100.000

Banana transport Rotterdam to Germany

0, 1 2 50.000

North/South transport Netherlands via Belgium to France

8 2 50.000

Multipurpose vessel Randstad to South Germany

0, 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 3 75.000

Hinterland transport Intra Central Europe

0, 1, 6, 8, 9 2 50.000

Wood chips Intra Finland 0 2 50.000 IWW on Odra Intra Poland 0, 1, 6, 8, 9 2 50.000 Waste chains Rhine delta 7 2 50.000 Fruit juices Rotterdam –

West Germany 1 2 50.000



Table 5-4: Legend of input for database analysis of reality cases NSTR CODE Goods type 0 Agricultural products 1 Foodstuffs 2 Solid mineral fuels 3 Crude oil 4 Ores, metal waste 5 Metal products 6 Building minerals & material 7 Fertilisers 8 Chemicals 9 Machinery & other manufacturing

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.

Con

cept

as

pect

s

Con

sort

ium

as

pect

s

Fin

anci

al

aspe

cts

Logi

stic

s as

pect

s

Dat

abas

e an

alys

is

Oth

er a

spec

ts

TOTA

L Distriship + 0 0 0 + + +++ Ro/Ro transport on Danube

0 − + + + + +++

Banana transport + + 0 + + + +++++ North/South transport of hazardous materials

+ + 0 0 + 0 +++

Multipurpose vessel + − 0 − + 0 0 Container transport on the Danube

0 − + + + - ++

Hinterland transport 0 − + 0 + − 0 Wood chips + + 0 + N/A + ++++ IWW on Odra 0 −

commit ment

0 + N/A − techn −

Waste chains 0 0 − handling time

0 N/A − regul −

Fruit juices + - 0 + - + +



Table 5-6: Legend of the demand criteria scores.

Con

cept

as

pect

s

Con

sort

ium

as

pect

s

Fin

anci

al

aspe

cts

Logi

stic

s as

pect

s

Dat

abas

e an

alys

is

Oth

er a

spec

ts

+ Full acceptance of concept in market

Parties interested Full willingness

Significant cost reduction

No logistics restrictions

More than sufficient transport demand available

Fully feasible

0 Some acceptance

Parties interested Some willingness

Cost reduction expected

Some logistics restrictions

Just sufficient transport demand available

No restrictions in regulation or technique

− No acceptance

No parties interested

No cost reduction

Dominant logistics restrictions

Insufficient transport demand available

Problems in regulation and/or technique

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



5.4 Innovation process results 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.



Low commitment

Distrivaart concept DistrishipRotterdam - Ruhr

Distriship Rotterdam - Ruhr

DistrishipGermany

RoRo transport on Danube



Banana transport Banana transport Banana transport

Relative short distance

Paper supply chain Paper supply chain Paper supply chain

Multipurpose vessel on (South) Danube

Market initiative Väth KG

Multipurpose vessel on Rhine / North Danube


Steel, metal, break bulkvia Rhine

Wood chips in Finland Wood chips in FinlandWood chips in Finland

Step 1: Identification Step 2: Filtering through supply criteria

Step 3: Reality scan



Banana transport

Wood chips in Finland

Step 4: Feasibility study

Low commitment

Low commitment



DistrishipGermany

















Banana transport



Low commitment



DistrishipGermany

















Banana transport



Low commitment

Low commitment

Low commitment

Low commitment

Composite material vessels

River navigation on Odra


Fruit juice chains Perishable goods transport Fruit juice chains

Fresh fruit chains

Waste transport


Waste transportPressed litter transport


Undeep waters

Too conceptual for higher speed or higher capacity

River going sea vessel

Sea going riverbarge Container transport on Danube (Black Sea)Sea going riverbarge

North / South connectionTwo linked barges Two linked barges

Fruit juice chains

Hazardous materials

Hazardous materials Hazardous materials Too conceptual

Low commitment

Low commitment

Low commitment

Low commitment

Low commitment

Low commitment




Fruit juice chains Perishable goods transport Fruit juice chains

Fresh fruit chains

Waste transport


Waste transportPressed litter transport


Undeep waters

Too conceptual for higher speed or higher capacity

River going sea vessel

Sea going riverbarge Container transport on Danube (Black Sea)Sea going riverbarge

North / South connectionTwo linked barges Two linked barges

Fruit juice chains

Hazardous materials

Hazardous materials Hazardous materials Too conceptual

Tracking & Tracing of

vessels (BLITTS)Market initiative Binnenlloyd B.V.

High safe push barge for liquid gaz

Market initiative Chemgas Shipping B.V.

RoRo (new cars) on Seine and Danube

Market initiative Renault, Volvo

Import non-perishables for retail from sea port

Market initiative Carrefour

Innovative transhipment for liquid bulk

Market initiative Mercurius Scheepvaart B.V.

Modal shift oil transport Market initiative Total Butler

VOPAK

Hinterland container Transport via ECT Low commitment of ECT

Low commitment of VOPAK

Specialised transport of fragile materials

Low commitment

Figure 5-1: Innovation process and results in CREATING



6 INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS

6.1 Introduction 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. Banana transport 2. Distriship Ruhr Area Connection 3. Paper Chains 4. Bio mass transport 5. Ro/Ro on the Danube 6. Container transport on the Danube/Hinterland network 7. North-South connection (Small chemical tanker) 8. Transport of fruit juices 9. IWT Poland 10. 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



changes in the companies’ logistics. Normally changes in logistic concepts of companies are difficult operations and long term processes.



7 FEASIBILITY CALCULATIONS (M02.06)

7.1 Introduction 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 Bio mass transport

7.2.1 Introduction Based on meetings of the CREATING team with representatives of the Jyväskylä 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 Jyväskylä 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.



The plant will be located about halfway the lake area at Jyväskylä. This figure below shows that there are substantial seasonal influences the concept has to deal with. This implies quite a challenge for further development of the concept. The wood is coming out of the forest in the areas along the loading and unloading stations. These stations are therefore a kind of hub for collecting the wood, to shredder the wood and to load the ship(s). The network of the different loading stations is shown in figure 7-1. Consequently a kind of shuttle service in which the loading stations and power plant are integrated should be developed. Wood chips To be more specific the demand for wood chips (forecast) will be divided as follow by the different loading stations (tonnes). Table 7-1: seasonal fluctuations

From LS 17 biomass is transported = 75000 (chips) but also 1500000 (peat, not included in table) maybe this can be integrated.

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 TotalLS 1 24.750 24.750 24.750 17.438 10.688 5.250 - 2.250 10.688 17.438 24.750 24.750 187.500 LS 2 19.800 19.800 19.800 13.950 8.550 4.200 - 1.800 8.550 13.950 19.800 19.800 150.000 LS 3 14.850 14.850 14.850 10.463 6.413 3.150 - 1.350 6.413 10.463 14.850 14.850 112.500 LS 4 19.800 19.800 19.800 13.950 8.550 4.200 - 1.800 8.550 13.950 19.800 19.800 150.000 LS 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - LS 6 4.950 4.950 4.950 3.488 2.138 1.050 - 450 2.138 3.488 4.950 4.950 37.500 LS 7 4.950 4.950 4.950 3.488 2.138 1.050 - 450 2.138 3.488 4.950 4.950 37.500 LS 8 4.950 4.950 4.950 3.488 2.138 1.050 - 450 2.138 3.488 4.950 4.950 37.500 LS 9 4.950 4.950 4.950 3.488 2.138 1.050 - 450 2.138 3.488 4.950 4.950 37.500 LS 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - LS 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - LS 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - LS 13 9.900 9.900 9.900 6.975 4.275 2.100 - 900 4.275 6.975 9.900 9.900 75.000 LS 14 14.850 14.850 14.850 10.463 6.413 3.150 - 1.350 6.413 10.463 14.850 14.850 112.500 LS 15 14.850 14.850 14.850 10.463 6.413 3.150 - 1.350 6.413 10.463 14.850 14.850 112.500 LS 16 19.800 19.800 19.800 13.950 8.550 4.200 - 1.800 8.550 13.950 19.800 19.800 150.000 LS 17 29.700 29.700 29.700 20.925 12.825 6.300 - 2.700 12.825 20.925 29.700 29.700 225.000 LS 18 9.900 9.900 9.900 6.975 4.275 2.100 - 900 4.275 6.975 9.900 9.900 75.000

198.000 198.000 198.000 139.500 85.500 42.000 - 18.000 85.500 139.500 198.000 198.000 1.500.000 13,2% 13,2% 13,2% 9,3% 5,7% 2,8% 0,0% 1,2% 5,7% 9,3% 13,2% 13,2% 100,0%



Developments contributing to innovation • The use of bio-mass for generating power is increasing in Europe. Therefore the transport

volumes will increase substantial within the next years. This means that an example of a concept will also have possibilities for other areas in Europe (scale opportunities).

• The concept is aiming on an innovative loading and unloading facility on board of the ship; to reduce loading and unloading time and to increase the turn-around time of the ship.

The market adoption is depending on several aspects: • Cost benefits • Service (reliability) • Sustainability

7.2.2 Transport corridor and goods flows 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

Total 3.000.000

Month

Average demand wood chips and peat

(%)

Average demand wood chips and

peat (m3)1 13,2 396.000 2 13,2 396.000 3 13,2 396.000 4 9,3 279.000 5 5,7 171.000 6 2,8 84.000 7 0 - 8 1,3 39.000 9 5,7 171.000 10 9,3 279.000 11 13,2 396.000 12 13,2 396.000



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.

17.

1.

8.7.

6.

5.

4.3.2.

13.

12.

11.10.

9

16.15.14.

18.17.

1.

8.7.

6.

5.

4.3.2.

13.

12.

11.10.

9

16.15.14.

18.

LS 1 MaameskiLS2 KuhmoinenLS3 ArvajaLS4 SysmäLS5 too closeLS6 LuhankaLS7 JouksilahtiLS8 KorpilahtiLS9 RutalahtiLS10 too closeLS11 too closeLS12 too closeLS13 LintuklahtiLS14 JurvansaloLS15 HarinkaaLS16 KymönkoskiLS17 KeitelepohjaLS18 Pekkala

LS 1 MaameskiLS2 KuhmoinenLS3 ArvajaLS4 SysmäLS5 too closeLS6 LuhankaLS7 JouksilahtiLS8 KorpilahtiLS9 RutalahtiLS10 too closeLS11 too closeLS12 too closeLS13 LintuklahtiLS14 JurvansaloLS15 HarinkaaLS16 KymönkoskiLS17 KeitelepohjaLS18 Pekkala



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:

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%%

of t

otal

vo

lum

e w

ood

chip

s

LS1

LS2

LS3

LS4

LS5

LS6

LS7

LS8

LS9

LS10

LS11

LS12

LS13

LS14

LS15

LS16

LS17

LS18

Loading station



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.

Loading pre cut Transport to loading station

Shreddering into chips Loading chips Transport to

Power plant Unloading

Feasibility Creating



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

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.

280200

220240

12080

60100

160240

256260

270240

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

LS 1LS 2LS 3LS 4LS 5LS 6LS 7LS 8LS 9

LS 10LS 11LS 12LS 13LS 14LS 15LS 16LS 17LS 18

Load

ing

stat

ion

Transport distance (round trip)

Total operational hours of equipement per year 4.900 Total working hours of drivers per year 2.150



Table 7-4 : kilometres and hours.

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.

The results of two examples of equipment, the costs for equipment with an capacity of 120 m3 looks as follow.

from-toPower Plant

(km)trip

(km)trip duration

(hrs)loading unloading

(hrs/trip)trip duration incl loading

unloading (hrs)LS 1 140 280 7 0,66 7,66LS 2 100 200 5 0,66 5,66LS 3 110 220 5,5 0,66 6,16LS 4 120 240 6 0,66 6,66LS 5LS 6 60 120 3 0,66 3,66LS 7 40 80 2 0,66 2,66LS 8 30 60 1,5 0,66 2,16LS 9 50 100 2,5 0,66 3,16LS 10LS 11LS 12LS 13 80 160 4 0,66 4,66LS 14 120 240 6 0,66 6,66LS 15 128 256 6,4 0,66 7,06LS 16 130 260 6,5 0,66 7,16LS 17 135 270 6,75 0,66 7,41LS 18 120 240 6 0,66 6,66

Fixed costs Variable costsInterest (Depreciation)Taxes TyresOther taxes FuelInsurances OilFixed costs (trailer) Repair/maintenanceGeneral costsDepreciation



Table 7-6: costs of truck equipment combinations

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

The cost drivers for this road transport are as follow. Table 7-8: cost drivers

The total costs for this transport operation is calculated in the next table. Table 7-9: total calculated costs

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.

Combination 1 Combination 2Fixed costs/year (€) 55.084 42.623 Variable costs/km (€) 0,598 0,7474

Costs combination 1 per year (€)

Costs combination 2 per year (€)

Fixed costs/hour 1.975.995 1.467.830 Labour costs/hour 4.696.023 3.935.714 Variable costs/km 3.724.045 4.654.434

10.396.063 10.057.977

Combination 1 Combination 2Fixed costs/hour 11,48 8,52 Labour costs/hour 27,27 22,86Variable costs/km 0,598 0,7474

# hrs peat # hrs wood chips # km peat # km wood chips92.625 79.563 3.375.000 2.852.500



Table 7-10: total calculated costs per kilometre

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

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.

round trip (km) fixed costs labour costs variable total costs/kmLS 1 280 102.028,81 273.571,43 326.987,50 702.587,73 1,61LS 2 200 60.311,55 161.714,29 186.850,00 408.875,83 1,64LS 3 220 49.229,57 132.000,00 154.151,25 335.380,82 1,63LS 4 240 70.967,30 190.285,71 224.220,00 485.473,01 1,62LS 5 - - - - LS 6 120 9.750,01 26.142,86 28.027,50 63.920,37 1,70LS 7 80 7.086,07 19.000,00 18.685,00 44.771,07 1,79LS 8 60 5.754,11 15.428,57 14.013,75 35.196,43 1,88LS 9 100 8.418,04 22.571,43 23.356,25 54.345,72 1,74LS 10 - - - - LS 11 - - - - LS 12 - - - - LS 13 160 24.827,90 66.571,43 74.740,00 166.139,33 1,66LS 14 240 53.225,47 142.714,29 168.165,00 364.104,76 1,62LS 15 256 56.422,20 151.285,71 179.376,00 387.083,91 1,61LS 16 260 76.295,17 204.571,43 242.905,00 523.771,60 1,61LS 17 270 908.029,74 2.434.714,29 2.900.846,25 6.243.590,27 1,61LS 18 240 35.483,65 95.142,86 112.110,00 242.736,50 1,62

cost calc./km current tarif/kmLS 1 1,61 1,10LS 2 1,64 1,10LS 3 1,63 1,10LS 4 1,62 1,10LS 5LS 6 1,70 1,33LS 7 1,79 1,70LS 8 1,88 2,16LS 9 1,74 1,40LS 10LS 11LS 12LS 13 1,66 1,18LS 14 1,62 1,10LS 15 1,61 1,10LS 16 1,61 1,10LS 17 1,61 1,10LS 18 1,62 1,10



This all being summarized means: Current tariff (average) € 2,43/m3 Cost calculation, possible tariffs for near future (average) € 3,35/m3 Nautical and infrastructural aspects In the different lakes are locks situated, the dimensions are: 110 X 16 m. The inland barges can have a draught of 2,4 m. Although after dredging operations that have already been promised, this may be increased to 3.4 m. The width of the barges should be less than the breadth of the locks because of the ice in the locks. There are two bridges in the canal restricting the air draught to 5.5 m, north of the power plant. To the south, air draught is less critical and can be set at 8 m. In the winter the lakes are frozen. The barges must be able to cope with up to 60 cm of ice. The main dimensions of the barges could be: 105 X 14 X 6 m and a draught of 2,4 m. Volumes to be transported It is anticipated that 5.5 million (loose) cubic meters will have to be transported at the end, i.e. at 2008…2009. Half of it is peat and the other half bio mass. About 3 million will be transported by the barges. The number of barges required to transport this volume is dependent on the cargo carrying capacity of the barges. This is in turn dependent on the displacement of the barges and the volume of the cargo hold: when carrying relatively heavy peat (0.4 T/m3), displacement will be the restriction on carrying capacity, while for the lighter woodchips (0.27 T/m3), the total volume of the cargo hold will be critical. Displacement considerations The displacement of the barge can be estimated: assuming a block coefficient of 0.85, a barge with draught of 2.4 m has a displacement of 3000 T, while a barge with a draught of 3.4 m has a total displacement of 4250 T. assuming a 25%/75% division between cargo weight and the barge’s own weight, the following volumes of biomass can be transported. Table 7-12: Maximum volumes to be transported, based on displacement considerations Draught Volume peat (m3) Volume woodchips (m3) 2.4 m 5625 8330 3.4 m 7970 11800 Volume considerations For a barge of mentioned dimensions we can assume an approximate cargo hold size of 75*14*5.5 m = 5775 m3. If the draught can be increased to 3.4 m and the assumption is made that the barge can be ballasted down sufficiently to clear the bridges when empty, the height of the cargo hold can be increased by another meter, resulting in a cargo hold of 75*14*6.5 m = 6825 m3



Table 7-13: Maximum volumes to be transported, based on cargo hold volume considerations Draught Volume peat (m3) Volume woodchips (m3) 2.4 m 5775 5775 3.4 m 6825 6825 Total cargo volumes When the two set of limitations are combined, the following potential cargo volumes can be transported by a single barge on a single trip: Table 7-14: total cargo volumes Draught Volume peat (m3) Volume woodchips (m3) 2.4 m 5625 5775 3.4 m 6825 6825 Loading and unloading aspects The loading/unloading can be done with 1000 cubic meters per hour, but some time is needed to initiate and terminate the operation, resulting in an estimated effective loading and unloading speed of 700 cubic meters per hour. The loading and unloading of the goods is aimed to be done by a sucking and blowing system (automatically). The sucking distance should be about 100 m. During loading operations, the barges should be kept in place by (simple forms of) dynamic positioning. This will be a technical innovation within this concept.

7.2.4 Feasibility calculations 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:



LS 1 Maameski 115 km LS2 Kuhmoinen 90 km LS3 Arvaja 80 km LS4 Sysmä 100 km LS5 too close - LS6 Luhanka 70 km LS7 Jouksilahti 50 km LS8 Korpilahti 30 km LS9 Rutalahti 30 km LS10 too close - LS11 too close - LS12 too close - LS13 Lintuklahti 85 km LS14 Jurvansalo 120 km LS15 Harinkaa 100 km LS16 Kymönkoski 120 km LS17 Keitelepohja 145 km LS18 Pekkala 120 km 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.



month loading station nr of trips total distance sailed m^3 type of biomassJanuary 17 32 9280 176000 peatFebruary 17 32 9280 176000 peatMarch 17 32 9280 176000 peatApril 17 25 7250 137500 peat

17 4 1160 22000 woodchips16 2 960 11000 woodchips15 2 800 11000 woodchips

May 17 15 4350 82500 peat18 1 240 4250 woodchips17 2 580 11000 woodchips16 1 240 5500 woodchips15 1 200 5500 woodchips14 1 240 5500 woodchips13 1 170 5500 woodchips

9+8 1 100 4400 woodchips7+6 1 120 4400 woodchips

4 1 200 5500 woodchips3 1 160 5500 woodchips2 1 180 5500 woodchips1 2 460 11000 woodchips

june 17 8 2320 42000 peat18 1 240 2100 woodchips17 1 580 5500 woodchips

17+16 1 600 5000 woodchips15+14 1 260 5500 woodchips14+13 1 260 2900 woodchips9+8+7+6 1 200 4200 woodchips4+3 1 220 5500 woodchips3+2 1 200 5500 woodchips

1 1 230 5250 woodchipsjuly 0august 17 4 1160 18000 peat

18+17+16 1 350 5400 woodchips15+14+13 1 280 3600 woodchips9+8+7+6+4 1 300 3600 woodchips3+2+1 1 280 5400 woodchips

sept 17 15 4350 82500 peat18 1 240 4250 woodchips17 2 580 11000 woodchips16 1 240 5500 woodchips15 1 200 5500 woodchips14 1 240 5500 woodchips13 1 170 5500 woodchips

9+8 1 100 4400 woodchips7+6 1 120 4400 woodchips

4 1 200 5500 woodchips3 1 160 5500 woodchips2 1 180 5500 woodchips1 2 460 11000 woodchips

okt 17 25 7250 137500 peat17 4 1160 22000 woodchips16 2 960 11000 woodchips15 2 800 11000 woodchips

nov 17 32 9280 176000 peatdec 17 32 9280 176000 peat

88700 1674550 Figure 7-5: service schedule inland barges 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



- fixed maintenance and repairs 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:



Table 7-15: cost calculation concerns 2 biomass vessels FinlandCapacity 5500 m^3/2200 Tdimensions LBT = 105*14*2.4service fully continuous

value of the cascos 16,000,000.00

total insured value ships 16,000,000.00

remaining value ship 3,200,000.00

calculated value ship 12,800,000.00

PERSONNEL COST 1,280,000.00

FIXED MATERIAL COST depreciation 20 jr 640,000.00

interest 0.04 384,000.00

insurance 160,000.00

maintenance and repairs 24,000.00

other 45,000.00

TOTAL FIXED MATERIAL COST 1,253,000.00 1,253,000.00

VARIABLE MATERIAL COST fuel 835,000.00

repair & maintenance 24,000.00

port fees 0.00

TOTAL VARIABLE MATERIAL COST 859,000.00 859,000.00

total cost 3,392,000.00

0.00profit 0.08 271,360.00

necessary earnings per year 3,663,360.00

EARNINGSnr of trips per year 1.00 cost per m^3 2.19nr of m^3 per trip 1,674,550.00



The costs of the loading/unloading device will be approximately 20% of the total investment costs. Values found in this table are determined as follows: Crew cost at fully continuous service of a 105 m barge are approximately € 640.000 per barge per year, based on indications by a Dutch shipping company and the ROS regulations for the composition of crews on the Rhine The building cost of the barges is estimated at € 8.000.000 per barge, a very conservative estimate by a shipyard, and fixed and variable material cost are deduced from this value, based on calculations done by Dutch logistics research institute NEA. This leaves fuel cost as the main variable to be calculated In summertime, this is governed by the required propulsion power of the barge to achieve a speed of 10 km/h, while in wintertime it will be determined by the power required to break the ice. To account for the time spent passing locks, the average speed of the barge while actually sailing is set at 14 km/h, thus arriving at the value of 10km/h for the entire trip based on haul resistance calculations, required power of the barge at 14 km/h is approximately 800 kW while loaded and 550 kW while empty. In the summer months April – October a total distance of 42300 km is sailed by the two barges combined, half of which empty. Resulting fuel consumption is approximately 430 tons, costing about € 150.000 As a reference for power required in winter the icebreaker MV Arcticaborg is taken; a 16 m wide icebreaker, able to break through 1 m of ice, which has approximately 4000 kW of installed power. Required average power during a trip is estimated to be about 2000 kW on the basis of:

A. maximum ice thickness is 60 cm B. required power will be limited since during winter both barges will be sailing on the

same route, keeping it clear on a daily basis C. due to currents, ice will not be present on all stretches

In the winter months use of 2000 kW of power for the 46400 km sailed from November till march results in a fuel consumption of 1400 tons at a cost of about € 485.000. A further € 200.000 of fuel is thought to be required for powering the loading and unloading pump and heating the accommodation of the barge. Cost reduction This leads to the cost calculation for the two barges as presented below, resulting in a transport price of € 2.19 per m3, a saving of € 0.24 cent per m3 , in respect to transport by truck, which equals 10% of the total cost per truck (4,07 mio/year), over € 400.000 per year. With the expected increase of road transport costs these savings will increase also. If the allowable draught is increased, this would lead to a 25% increase in cargo carrying capacity, which would lead to a further reduction in cost, which is estimated at about 15 %, reducing cost per m3 to € 1.86. This would increase savings to over € 1.000.000 per year.



Using the barges to carry woodchips to nearby paper mills as well would lead to a significant further reduction of costs.

7.2.5 Conclusions 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 barge’s 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



estimated. Although errors are expected to be small, further specification of these distances would benefit the accuracy of calculations

7.3 Banana transport

7.3.1 Introduction Dole, the producer and importing company of bananas and other exotic fruit is the main stakeholder in this concept. Dole’s 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.



Some current transport cost as provided by Dole: Antwerp – Strassbourg: 800 euro/truck (24 pallets) Antwerp- Hamburg: 730 euro/truck (24 pallets)

7.3.2 Transport corridor and goods flows 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 A) Antwerp-

Hamburg B) Antwerp-Hannover

C) Antwerp-Strassbourg

ROAD Distance by road 560 km 450 km 470 km Cost by road (per pallet) € 30.40 ≈ € 24.40 € 33.30 IWW Distance by IWW 775 km 541 km 760 km Final haulage to Hamburg/Strassbourg

≈ 10 km 155 km ≈ 10 km

Est. time for round trip ex transhipment

8 days (semi-continuous)

7 days (day sailing) 8 days (day sailing)

Max. no. of layers of pallets 2 2 4 Max no of pallets per shipment (demand)

≈ 2000 ≈ 2000 ≈ 900

Max ship dimensions (100*9.6*2.4 m)1 (165*9.6*2.4 m) (---) Max no of pallets per ship (physical limitations)

≈ 1200 ≈ 2000

3000+

1On the last stretch of canal between Hannover and Hamburg, the maximum possible size of ships decreases



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 DLD’s earlier feasibility studies for the Banana case.



A) Antwerp - Hamburg concerns: inland reefer Antwerp-Hamburgcargo 1200 palletscargo capacity 1200 tonservice semi continuous

Insured value 6,000,000.00remaining value 1,200,000.00calculation value 4,800,000.00personnel cost 365,018.40fixed material cost depreciation 20yr 240,000.00

interest 0.04 144,000.00insurance 60,000.00repair and maintenance 7,200.00miscellaneous 45,000.00

total fixed material cost 496,200.00 496,200.00variable material cost fuel 216,000.00

repair and maintenance 7,200.00total variable material cost 223,200.00 223,200.00total cost 1,084,418.40profit over total cost 0.08 86,753.47Necessary earnings 1,171,171.87

36 voyages per year 1200 pallets per voyage cost per pallet 27.11pallets per year 43,200.00 B) Antwerp - Hannover

concerns: inland reefer Antwerp-Hannovercargo 2000 palletscargo capacity 2000 tonservice day sailing

Insured value 10,000,000.00remaining value 2,000,000.00calculation value 8,000,000.00personnel cost 393,775.20fixed material cost depreciation 20yr 400,000.00



repair and maintenance 12,000.00total variable material cost 228,000.00 228,000.00total cost 1,418,775.20profit over total cost 0.08 113,502.02Necessary earnings 1,532,277.22

36 voyages per year 2000 pallets per voyage cost per pallet 21.28pallets per year 72,000.00



C) Antwerp - Strassbourg concerns: inland reefer Antwerp-Strassbourgcargo 900 palletscargo capacity 900 tonservice day sailing

Insured value 4,500,000.00remaining value 900,000.00calculation value 3,600,000.00personnel cost 151,603.20fixed material cost depreciation 20yr 180,000.00



repair and maintenance 5,400.00total variable material cost 175,400.00 175,400.00total cost 710,403.20profit over total cost 0.08 56,832.26Necessary earnings 767,235.46

36 voyages per year 900 pallets per voyage cost per pallet 23.68pallets per year 32,400.00 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) New cost (E/pallet)route ship transhipment end haulage total new advantage newAntwerp - Hamburg 30.4 27.11 5 4.17 36.28 -5.88Antwerp - Hannover-Hamburg 30.4 21.28 5 16.15 42.43 -12.03Antwerp - Strassbourg 33.3 23.68 5 4.17 32.85 0.45



7.3.5 Conclusion 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 New generation Ro/Ro on the Danube

7.4.1 Introduction 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-Ro’s 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.



General advantages RoRo service are: - Door-to-door service is available - Just-in-Time Service almost guaranteed - Multimodal Ro-Ro transportation might be economical - It is safe and reliable - Environmentally clean - Allows significant increase in transport volumes - Can overcome border crossing problems and thus be faster than expected.

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)



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, echo-sounders, 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).

Figure 7-8 Danube catamaran built in Apatin



Following the successful effects of this first Ro-Ro service on the Danube, the German-Hungarian joint venture "Hungaro Lloyd" established the regular Ro-Ro line between Passau and Budapest in 1992. The "Hungaro Lloyd" fleet consists of four converted and properly equipped pushed barges of Europe IIb type of the following characteristics: • Length overall 76.5 m • Breadth maximal 11.4 m • Draught fully loaded 2.7 m • Cargo capacity 1800 tons or 32 road semi-trailers These barges designated as "RO RO 51" through "RO RO 54" have two trailer decks and are equipped with one 15 m long inner ramp to enable access either to upper or lower deck, one two-fold ramp astern for ship-to-shore transhipment, ballasting system and one diesel aggregate for power supply. The ramps are hydraulically operated. Two barges - "RO RO 53" and "RO RO 54" are additionally equipped with 220 kW bow thrusters. The convoys of two barges, whereby one with bow thruster, are pushed by one 2200 kW push-boat, usually chartered Bulgarian "Naidan Kirov" class vessels. The convoy capacity is 64 forty-feet semi-trailers. The scheduled departures from Passau were each Monday afternoon, and from Budapest each Thursday morning. Danube catamarans and Ro-Ro barges are also sporadically used for transports of new passenger cars from German ports on the upper Danube to Vienna or Budapest. Thereby, the capacity of one leg is between 200 and 250 cars.

Figure 7-9 Ro-Ro barge of "Hungaro Lloyd".

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.



7.4.2 Transport corridor and goods flows 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, semi-trailer, 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.



In broader sense, a parallel between Ro-Ro service and ROLA exists, i.e. it should be noted that (among other places) ROLA terminals are mainly situated near the borders. For instance, concerning the ROLA trains operated by the Austrian and Hungarian railways, terminals now exist in Szeged, Sopron, Sezana, Wells etc. enabling trucks to enter/live border-country efficiently and thus overcome quota limitation. Consequently, it might be expected that in the near future similar services will be offered by Ro-Ro vessels too, so new terminals might be expected near the Austrian-Hungarian border. Probably for this type of service (to pass through one country only, or to pass through the Alps, to overcome heavily congested road stretches etc.) the buss-stop operation might be very convenient. State of the art of Ro-Ro terminals on the Danube The present situation concerning the Ro-Ro terminals is the following: In Germany: Regensburg, Passau In Austria: Linz, Vienna In Hungary: Gyor, Budapest, Baja In Serbia: Does not exist, but one in vicinity of Belgrade is planned to be built In Bulgaria: Vidin, Rousse In Romania: Does not exist, probably Russe which is on the opposite side of Port of Giurgiu (connected with a bridge) can serve the purpose. In Ukraine: Izmail. On the Upper Danube ("above the Alps") Regensburg, Passau and Linz should be considered. For further consideration preference is given to Passau (Danube km 2233), although some sailing time could be saved with Linz; Regensburg is too far away upstream, with few bottlenecks, low bridges and locks on the way. On the Middle and Lower Danube there are two possibilities (scenarios):

a. Short voyage - just to pass Austria (Austrian Alps pose a bottleneck), then Gyor and Budapest should be considered, and Ro-Ro service could be utilized similarly as already existing Ro-La service.

b. For efficient long-distance intermodal IWW transportation of more than 1000 km, Belgrade, Vidin, Rousse, and probably Cernavoda or Constantza should be considered.

Explanation for case ad b):

- Belgrade (Danube km 1170) - cross point with TEN corridor X; Serbian, Bosnian, Macedonian (FYROM), Greek and Turkish trucks could use this terminal.

- Vidin (Danube km 790) - Cross point with TEN corridor IV; Bulgarian (from Sofia area), Greek and Turkish trucks could use this terminal.

- Rousse (Danube km 495) – Bulgarian, Romanian (industrial zone around Bucharest) and Turkish trucks could use this terminal.

- Cernavoda (Danube km 300) or Constanza (Danube km 300 - km 65) - these terminals do not exist now but in the case of successful long distance Ro-Ro service probably Turkish trucks coming over the Black Sea could use this terminal.

Former experiences from the Danube gave preferences to Vidin rather than to Rousse in Bulgaria and to Passau rather than to Regensburg in Germany or Linz in Austria.



Special Case - Turkey Taking into account that Ro-Ro service can provide service to large number of Turkish trucks, besides those of SEEC and EU, this will be discussed in more details. There are few possibilities for transport of goods from Turkey towards Germany (and countries accessed from G, like NL, F, B etc.). In all cases the trucks are considered as loading units. Business As Usual (BAU) a. Turkey - Mediterranean-Ionian-Adriatic-Sea (sea Ro-Ro) - Italy or Slovenia (Koper) -

AUSTRIA (Bottleneck) - Germany. b. Turkey - Sea transport onboard Ro-Ro sea vessels over the Black Sea - by trucks from

SEEC (bad road infrastructure, borders) - AUSTRIA (Bottleneck) - Germany. c. Turkey - Sea transport to ARA ports (long way). The new possibilities d. Turkey - Sea transport onboard Ro-Ro sea vessels over the Black Sea - Bulgaria (for

instance) and from there on (from one of the Danube Ro-Ro terminals) onboard Ro-Ro vessels directly to Germany.

e. Turkey - Sea transport onboard Ro-Ro sea-river vessels over the Black Sea and Danube (without the transhipment) all the way to Germany - probably this could be a task for CREATING II since looks complicated at the moment.

Conclusions: For further interest is case ad d) since it would overcome transport bottleneck in Austria and its consequences – limited number of quotas for non-EU trucks for passing through Austria. Transhipment facilities There are a number of technically feasible solutions for ship-to-shore Ro-Ro interchange. The features and execution depend on the stowage pattern of vehicles on deck as well as on the local morphology, available space, price to be paid for real estate or land leasing as well as on the amplitude of the water level variations on site. Principally the longitudinal loading pattern (first-in/last-out) might offer simpler and cheaper solutions than for transverse (random access) pattern. The following solutions might be implemented: a. Concrete slope (for longitudinal pattern only) is pretty cheap when the amplitude of water

level remains relatively low. See the 2 figures below. b. Platform sliding on the concrete slope (analogue to launching platforms in the shipyards). c. Jetty (pontoon) with linkspan. d. Lifting platform for trucks (conditionally convenient only for transversal pattern). e. “Blind lock” chamber. f. Lifting platform for ship (“synchro-lift”). The facility price might vary in large extents, from relatively cheap solutions a), b) and c) to relatively expensive e) and f). It is to be mentioned, however, that the investment difference between cheaper and more expensive solutions considerably decreases by the rising amplitude of water level variations.



Figure 7-10 Ro-Ro terminal in Passau-Schalding - Danube km 2233 (Popov, 2005)

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/semi-catamaran 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



only, which suppose to be propelled (convoy of 2 barges) by a standard Danube push-boat. Actually, this new Willi Betz Ro-Ro fleet would differ from the existing mainly in an ability to efficiently transport cars and pickups together with the ordinary trailers (existing vessels were optimised only for trailer/truck transport). So, the task was to design vessels that would transport trailers of 14 x 2.55 x 4.05 m weighting 31 t (allowed deck pressure of 15 t per axle, i.e. 4 tires) and vans of 5.80 x 2.00 x 2.60 m weighting 1.93 t (allowed double-bottom pressure of 1.5 t per axle). All other equipment, including the ramp etc. was more or less similar to that of existing vessels. Consequently, some details of conceived self-propelled vessels are depicted in Figures 7-12 and 7-13.

Figure 7-12: Cross section of second-generation Ro-Ro vessels (Popov, 2005)

Figure 7-13 : Stowage of vehicles on upper and lower deck (cars, vans) (Popov, 2005)



Main characteristics of abovementioned self-propelled vessels are the following: • Loa = 120 m, Boa = 22.8 m, H = 4.2 m • T = 1.7 m (fully loaded with 1735 t) • Fixed point above DWL = 7 m • Cargo capacity = 41 trailers and 95 vans • Installed power = 2 x 1235 kW • Bow thrusters = 300 kW • Speed (at T=1.7 m and h=5 m) = 14 km/h • Crew accommodation for 12 persons. Ro-Ro barges were designed similarly to the existing ones (see figure 7-14), but were larger (90 m long), their loading cases are shown in figure 7-15. Main characteristics of conceived twin-deck barges are the following: • Loa = 90 m, Boa = 11.4 m, H = 3.00 m • Tmax = 2.00 m (900 t ballast water + cargo) • Equipped with bow and inner ramp, generator bow-thruster, ballast system etc. • Cargo: small trucks (6.6 x 2.05 x 2.6 m of 2.5 t) and cars (5 x 2 x 1.45 m of 1.9t) • Cargo capacity: a) vans 94 + cars 58 or b) vans 41 + cars 128.

Figure 7-14: Ro-Ro pushed-train - existing barges (Popov, 2005)



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 12-

14 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.



All other crucial parameters necessary for ship design were not specified, meaning that they should be optimized according to the existing rules and recommendations, the Danube waterway, experience gained so far with the first (successful) generation of vessels etc.

7.4.4 Feasibility calculations 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.

Figure 7-16: The Danube Corridor (TEN Corridor No. VII)



Road: Long Haul Trucking Destinations and distances Distances (according to www.viamichelin.org, preferably using the motorways) From To Via countries Motorway + Main road

Total - one way km Sofia DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG 1106 + 287 = 1393 Bucharest DE, AT, HU, RO 792 + 724 = 1516 Istanbul DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG, TR 1627 + 360 = 1987

Munich

Skopje DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, MK 1185 + 245 = 1430 Sofia DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG 1401 + 288 = 1689 Bucharest DE, AT, HU, RO 1070 + 726 = 1796 Istanbul DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, BG, TR 1922 + 361 = 2283

Frankfurt

Skopje DE, AT, SI, HR, CS, MK 1479 + 247 = 1726 Costs Fuel consumption According to the German VDA norms, the truck’s 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 truck’s 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



around 500 km and 1000 km, respectively. Other parameter for gross driver salaries might be 40 EUR/day or around 1100 EUR/month (all in SEEC).

b) Regular changes of tires, oil, brakes etc. can be taken as 50 EUR/1000 km. c) Costs in EUR for passing through/entering particular country are given in the following

table: 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 Fuel cost

(1 EUR/lit) Taxes, road fees etc.

Labour costs

Tires, oil etc.

Total

Munich-Sofia 480 730 250 70 1530 Munich-Bucharest 552 370 250 76 1248 Munich-Istanbul 681 830 300 100 1911 Munich-Skopje 489 680 250 72 1491 Frankfurt-Sofia 577 770 250 84 1681 Frankfurt-Bucharest 643 410 250 90 1393 Frankfurt-Istanbul 778 870 300 114 2062 Frankfurt-Skopje 587 720 250 86 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

EUR per direction

EUR per Round trip (with reserve)

Average trip duration in days1

Distance km

EUR/km per trailer

Munich-Sofia 1530 3100 7 2786 1.11 Munich-Bucharest 1248 2550 7 3032 0.84 Munich-Istanbul 1911 3900 8 3974 0.98 Munich-Skopje 1491 3030 7 2860 1.06 Frankfurt-Sofia 1681 3400 7.5 3378 1.01 Frankfurt-Bucharest 1393 2830 7.5 3592 0.79 Frankfurt-Istanbul 2062 4200 8.5 4566 0.92



Frankfurt-Skopje 1643 3330 7.5 3452 0.97 1) Expected but not reliable data (taking into account weekends, winters, delays on borders…) An overview of assumed values that influence costs given above

a. One SEE driver only was assumed (for labour costs) b. Fuel price was assumed to be 1 EUR/lit c. Fuel consumption 33 l/100km for motorways and 40 l/100km for main roads d. Taxes, road fees, permissions etc. at present cost level for foreign trucks

Other parameters, not considered here, that might influence costs

e. Availability of a permission for passing through Austria (limited and insufficient quota number - general problem for non-EU trucks), CEMT permission etc.

f. Cleanliness of truck engine (EURO 4 or older engine) g. Vehicle weight h. Refrigerated cargo, cargo inspections (sanitary) etc.

7.4.4.1 The CREATING Case Intermodality on the Danube - Utilisation of Ro-Ro vessels 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 Via countries Motorway + Main road

Total km Vidin – Sofia BG --- + 219 = 219 Vidin – Bucharest RO, BG 98 + 236 = 334 Vidin – Istanbul TR, BG 521 + 286 = 807 Vidin – Skopje MK, BG 33 + 402 = 435 Passau – Munich DE 187 + 10 = 197 Passau – Frankfurt DE 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 Fuel cost

(1 EUR/lit) Taxes, Road fees etc.

Labour costs

Tires, oil etc.

Total

Vidin – Sofia 88 30 20 11 149 Vidin – Bucharest 127 210 50 17 404 Vidin – Istanbul 286 210 100 41 637



Vidin – Skopje 172 170 60 22 424 Passau – Munich 66 25 20 10 121 Passau – Frankfurt 147 60 50 23 280 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

EUR per direction

EUR per Round trip (with reserve)

Average trip duration in days

Distance km

EUR/km per trailer

Vidin – Sofia 149 320 1 438 0.73 Vidin – Bucharest 404 830 1.5 668 1.24 Vidin – Istanbul 637 1300 2 1614 0.81 Vidin – Skopje 424 870 1.5 870 1.00 Passau – Munich 121 260 0.5 394 0.66 Passau – Frankfurt 280 580 1 884 0.66 Finally, trucking costs, which should be added to waterborne and transhipment costs, in the following table. Trucking part of round trip

EUR per roundtrip (trucking part only)

Average trip duration

Distance km

EUR/km per trailer

Munich-Sofia 320+260= 580 1.5 832 0.70 Munich-Bucharest 830+260= 1090 2 1062 1.03 Munich-Istanbul 1300+260= 1560 2.5 2008 0.78 Munich-Skopje 870+260= 1130 2 1264 0.89 Frankfurt-Sofia 320+580= 900 2 1322 0.68 Frankfurt-Bucharest 830+580= 1410 2.5 1552 0.91 Frankfurt-Istanbul 1300+580= 1880 3 2498 0.75 Frankfurt-Skopje 870+580= 1450 2.5 1754 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 self-propelled ship concepts will be examined as well as the pushed train (2 barges + push-boat).



These are called Large Ro-Ro Vessel (LRRV), Small Ro-Ro Vessel (SRRV) and Pushed Ro-Ro Barges (PRRB). In the Second iteration a Very Large Ro-Ro Vessel (VLRRV) will be considered, while PRRV will be rejected. The reasons for abovementioned will be explained later. In addition, for the sake of reference level the Second iteration was enriched with comparative data for the Existing Ro-Ro vessel (EXCAT, mentioned earlier), which will clearly show the differences – benefits – of new generation of vessels and therefore new technologies. The First iteration The main particulars of these three vessel types that will be treated in the First iteration follow Main dimensions LRRV SRRV PRRB Length overall 120.00 m 109.70 m 90.00 m Breadth max 22.80 m 11.45 m 11.45 m Breadth moulded 20.60 m 11.40 m 11.40 m Depth moulded 4.20 m 2.80 m 2.80 m Draught 1.70 m 1.65 m 1.10 m Air draught 6.90 m 6.50 m 7.20 m Deadweight 1750 t 790 t 350 t Maximum loading capacity 1420 t 760 t 346 t Empty weight 1870 t 1050 t 690 t Max. speed at h=5 m 16 km/h 16 km/h 16 km/h Adopted values for further evaluation are the following: • 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 • Vessel’s 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

LRRV Trans- shipmt EUR

SRRV Trans- shipmt EUR

PRRB convoy of 2 barges

Trans- shipmt EUR

1

s.tr. 45 vans 88 ESTR=89

25040

-

-

-

-

s.tr. 45 s.tr. 20 vans 82



2 cars 112 ESTR=63

26960 cars 56 ESTR=29

12480 cars 256 ESTR=76

27040

3

vans 204 cars – ESTR=102

16320

vans 52 cars 56 ESTR=31

8640

vans – cars 364 ESTR=60

29120

4


20640


9920

vans 188 cars 116 ESTR=97

24320

Transport cost EUR

85010

-

43618

-

59595

-

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-trailer’s 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 SRRV PRRB Loading case

Total waterborne cost

Waterborne cost per ESTR





1 110050 1237 - - - - 2 111970 1777 56098 1934 86635 1139 3 101330 993 52258 1686 88715 1479 4 105650 2457 53538 2676 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 L. Haul Trucking Destination Round trip

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Travel time (days)

Total cost EUR

Travel time (days)

Munich-Sofia 1817 2357 1573 3037 12.5 3100 7 Munich-Bucharest 2327 2867 2083 3547 13 2550 7 Munich-Istanbul 2797 3337 2553 4017 13.5 3900 8 Munich-Skopje 2367 2907 2123 3587 13 3030 7 Frankfurt-Sofia 2137 2677 1893 3357 13 3400 7.5 Frankfurt-Bucharest 2647 3187 2403 3867 13.5 2830 7.5 Frankfurt-Istanbul 3117 3657 2873 4337 14 4200 8.5 Frankfurt-Skopje 2687 3227 2443 3907 13.5 3330 7.5



Comment: LRRV is not suitable for carrying passenger cars only (loading case 4 is more expensive than trucking mode). b) For SRRV total intermodal and long distance haul trucking costs as well as travel time

for a roundtrip per ESTR follows: Intermodal mode - SRRV L. Haul Trucking Destination Round trip

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Travel time (days)

Total cost EUR

Travel time (days)

Munich-Sofia - 2514 2266 3256 12.5 3100 7 Munich-Bucharest - 3024 2776 3766 13 2550 7 Munich-Istanbul - 3494 3246 4236 13.5 3900 8 Munich-Skopje - 3064 2816 3806 13 3030 7 Frankfurt-Sofia - 2834 2586 3576 13 3400 7.5 Frankfurt-Bucharest - 3344 3096 4086 13.5 2830 7.5 Frankfurt-Istanbul - 3814 3566 4556 14 4200 8.5 Frankfurt-Skopje - 3384 3136 4126 13.5 3330 7.5 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 L. Haul Trucking Destination Round trip

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Travel time (days)

Total cost EUR

Travel time (days)

Munich-Sofia - 1719 2059 1445 12.5 3100 7 Munich-Bucharest - 2229 2569 1955 13 2550 7 Munich-Istanbul - 2699 3039 2425 13.5 3900 8 Munich-Skopje - 2269 2609 1995 13 3030 7 Frankfurt-Sofia - 2039 2379 1765 13 3400 7.5 Frankfurt-Bucharest - 2549 2889 2275 13.5 2830 7.5 Frankfurt-Istanbul - 3019 3359 2745 14 4200 8.5 Frankfurt-Skopje - 2589 2929 2315 13.5 3330 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 PRRB’s 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



- Case 4 (car transport only) onboard LRRV and SRRV. Consequently, LRRV and SRRV should be considered mainly for the transport of larger vehicles (semi-trailers, trucks and larger vans) while PRRB is for smaller road vehicles (cars, smaller vans etc). Amongst the considered routes of particular interest is the route Bulgaria-Germany (Willi Betz requirement). So, in the next table the averaged costs per trailer are evaluated and are compared with the Trucking mode. Intermodal mode Comparison per vessel type

From/to DE to/from (round trip)

LRRV

SRRV

PRRB

Total Trucking EUR

Savings % LRRV

Savings % SRRV

Savings % PRRB

Bulgaria 2075 2550 1901 3250 36 22 42 Turkey 3056 3530 2881 4050 25 13 29 Macedonia 2626 3100 2451 3180 17 3 23 Eastern Greece 2841 3315 2666 3615 21 8 26

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 light-weight 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 ESTR’s 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, EXCAT’s 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-Sofia-



Frankfurt were chosen for further evaluation. Furthermore, after preliminary checking, there were indications that slower ship speed of 14 km/h should be examined too, beside already accepted 16 km/h. Consequently, the important data obtained in the First iteration and needed for the Second, follow: • Total trucking (all road) costs on the route Frankfurt-Sofia-Frankfurt are EUR 3400,

average trip duration is 7.5 days, distance travelled 3378 km and fuel consumption is 1155 lit.

• Total trucking cost of the intermodal transport chain (pre- and end hauling) are EUR 900, average trip duration is 2 days, distance travelled 1322 km and fuel consumption is 470 lit.

• Total transhimpent costs in Passau and Vidin are around EUR 400. • Consequently, the waterborne costs per ESTR for efficient Ro-Ro vessel should be bellow

EUR 2100 with fuel consumption of less than 685 lit (per ESTR). • To be competitive, the request is to make a turnover in 12-14 days. • All (further and past) evaluations were made with assumption that 100% of available

onboard lane meters were utilized. Waterborne transport cost, with the transhipment, for ship speeds of 16 and 14 km/h follow: 16 km/h 14 km/h Vessel type

ESTR Transhpm.+ Waterb. = Total waterb. costs

EUR/ ESTR

Transhpm.+ Waterb. = Total waterb. Costs

EUR/ ESTR

LRRV 63 26960+85010=111970 1777 26960+75362=102322 1624 SRRV 29 12480+43618=56098 1934 12480+36663=49143 1695 VLRRV 73 31040+86948=117996 1616 31040+76851=107891 1478 EXCAT 45 18000+88580=106588 2369 18000+77059=95059 2112 Comment: it is obvious (and expected) that intermodal transport costs would be lower if ship’s 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: 16 km/h 14 km/h Vessel type EUR Cost Index EUR Cost Index LRRV 2677 0.79 2524 0.74 SRRV 2834 0.83 2595 0.76 VLRRV 2516 0.74 2378 0.70 EXCAT 3269 0.96 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



and consumption index (a ratio of total intermodal and all-road fuel consumptions) are given in the next table. 16 km/h 14 km/h Vessel type Lit/ESTR Consumption Index Lit/ESTR Consumption Index LRRV 1254 1.09 995 0.86 SRRV 1664 1.44 1256 1.09 VLRRV 1181 1.02 946 0.82 EXCAT 1703 1.47 1269 1.10 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 EUR/ESTR %

(3400) Fuel 1155 34 Taxes, Road fees etc. 1540 45 Labour (SEE driver) 500 15 Consumables (oil, tires…) 168 5 Other 37 1 All-Road ∑ 3400 100%

of 3400 Cost structure: Intermodal transport cost structure (for LRRV) 16 km/h (sailing time 216 h)

Cost Structure EUR/ESTR % % (2677)

% (3400)

Road transport – Pre- and End-hauling

Fuel 470 52 18 14

Taxes, Road fees etc. 180 20 7 5

Labour (SEE driver) 140 16 5 4

Consumables (oil, tires…) 68 8 3 2

Other 42 4 1 1

Σ 900 100% of 900

34% of 2677

26% of 3400



Waterborne transport with Transhipment

Fuel 372 21 14 11

Labour (WE crew) 98 6 4 3

Investment 381 21 14 11

Other 498 28 18 15

Waterborne only Σ 1349 76 50 40

Transhipment 428 24 16 13

ΣΣ 1777 100% of 1777

66% of 2677

53% of 3400

Intermodal total ΣΣΣ 2677 - 100% of 2677

79% of 3400

Savings over All-Road transport – EUR 723 21% of 3400

14 km/h (sailing time 247 h)

Cost Structure EUR/ESTR % % (2524)

% (3400)

Road transport – Pre- and End-hauling

Fuel 470 52 19 14

Taxes, Road fees etc. 180 20 7 5

Labour (SEE driver) 140 16 6 4

Consumables (oil, tires…) 68 8 3 2

Other 42 4 1 1

Σ 900 100% of 900

36% of 2524

26% of 3400

Waterborne transport with Transhipment

Fuel 249 15 10 7

Labour (WE crew) 98 6 4 3

Investment 381 24 15 11

Other 468 29 18 14

Waterborne only Σ 1196 74 47 35

Transhipment 428 26 17 13

ΣΣ 1624 100% of 1624

64% of 2524

48% of 3400

Intermodal total ΣΣΣ 2524 - 100% of 2524

74% of 3400

Savings over All-Road transport – EUR 876 26% of 3400



The intermodal transport cost structures given above are valid for LRRV, loading case 2 and roundtrip Frankfurt-Sofia-Frankfurt. Parameters for other loading cases, ship types and routes were already given in previous sections.

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

Transhipment

Other

Investment

Labour

Fuel

Other

Consumables

Labour

Taxes, Road fees

Fuel

All-Road Intermodal16 km/h 14 km/h

Pre- and End-Haul

Water-borne

Trans-shipment

21 %26 %

Cost Structure per ESTR (for LRRV, loading case 2, roundtrip Frankfurt-Sofia)

100 %

16 %

50 %

34 %

17 %

47 %

36 %

100 %

Savings

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 user’s 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 origin-destination) then, roughly, lost time of one day may be valued as 2700 : 6 = 450 EUR.



Nevertheless, typical value of lost time per day (in SEEC) is around EUR 250, and if cargo is cooled then EUR 350, but is applied rarely in the cases when the lost time is unexpected/unplanned or could be avoided. Actually, this is more a penalty measure than a rule/method for evaluation of lost time. In any case, if either methodology would be accepted here, than the intermodal transport would be much less competitive. What if Scenario The purpose of this section is to show what would happen if costs that were adopted for evaluation, and therefore were important for comparison of all-road and intermodal transport costs (end of 2005), would change. Actually, it is not so important to predict how variation of particular cost influences either all-road or intermodal transport cost, but rather to depict if evaluated intermodal cost benefits – savings compared to the all-road transport – would be endangered in future. Consequently, follows qualitative rather than quantitive discussion that should give a rough idea what might be expected in relation to the Danube intermodal Ro-Ro transport. Furthermore, only direct costs will be examined; the indirect costs (poisonous emissions etc.) and particularly cost of road congestions will be eliminated from discussion that follows. Fuel costs It might be expected that fuel price will continue to grow in the future. If present relationship between ship and truck fuel cost remains, i.e. is 1:2 approximately (actually more than that, since ship’s fuel costs around EUR 0.45 and truck’s EUR 1.00), then when ship fuel cost is doubled to EUR 0.90, it might be expected that truck’s fuel will cost around EUR 2.00, and vice versa. This means that all-road and intermodal transport costs would grow for 34% and 31% (28% for 14 km/h) respectively (out of which for 52% and 21% (15% for 14 km/h) for pre- and end-hauling and waterborne transport respectively). See Section 5.4 Cost structure. Conclusion: Increase of fuel price would significantly influence the all-road transport costs and, therefore, would further increase the intermodal transport benefits/ advantages. Labour costs Both labour categories, ship crew and truck drivers, are critical for some time already. However, the costs connected to drivers are probably a bit more critical due to recent rule changes (expected to be even stringer in the future), resulting that the effective driver’s working time is reduced. This stems toward more expensive all-road transport, since two drivers will have to be engaged on the long distance hauling, instead of only one (as is presently done). Concerning the intermodal transport, there are no indications that crew will have to be increased, or that more than one driver will be needed for pre- and end-hauling. Under the assumption that crew and driver salaries would equally grow for 50% for instance (from a present level), the all-road and intermodal transport costs would be higher for 7.5% and 4.5% respectively (pre- and end-haling for 8% and waterborne transport for 3% only). Conclusion: Increase of the labour costs will more effect all-road than the intermodal transport costs. Road fees and taxes Road fees and taxes that are taken into consideration are exceptionally high and have a share of 45% of all-road costs! Nevertheless, with gradual integration of SEEC into the EU it might be expected that road fees, which now differ from country to country, would level and would be more or less the same. But, it also may be expected that road fees in the EU will continue to



grow (see Rhenus Logistics study), while pre- and end-hauling road fees – the intermodal transport fees - will be subsidised. Conclusion: It should not be expected that all-road transport costs shall be much lower due to levelled and therefore reduced road fees and taxes; on the contrary, road fees and taxes in the EU will most probably grow. Waterborne transport costs A significant share of the intermodal and particularly waterborne transport costs – in total around 50% consisting of:

a. Transhipment costs b. Other costs (regular maintenance, repairs and conversions, insurance,

management/lock/harbour fees etc.) c. Investment costs (value of a new ship including interest and deprecation).

Each of these three groups (for both ship speeds) takes significant and more or less similar share of 21-29% and 14-18% of waterborne and total intermodal transport costs, respectively. Furthermore, they do not correspond to any of the all-road transport costs, hence are the only costs that can seriously “endanger” the intermodal transport. For instance, if the value of a ship (to build a new ship) would grow for 20% - from assumed 10 mil. EUR to 12 mil. EUR - then waterborne only (without transhipment), with the transhipment and total intermodal cost (with pre- and end-hauling) would grow for 11.3%, 8.6% and 5.7%, respectively. Obviously, similar results would be obtained if transhipment or other waterborne costs would grow for 20%. However, there are no indications that any of these costs will grow in the near future, hence endanger the Danube intermodal Ro-Ro transport that is proposed. Ro-Ro utilisation Up till now it was assumed that Ro-Ro lane-meters were utilized 100% upstream and downstream, i.e. that ship was 100% full in both directions. Downstream utilization is probably realistic; explanation for this is that ship is sailing much faster downstream than upstream, so that lost time (compared to the all-road transport) is reduced to a minimum. On the other side, all calculations were assumed with ship yearly utilisation of only 340 days and turnover time of 14 days, meaning 24.3 turnovers per year, which is relatively conservative. Namely, ship speed of 16 km/h enables turnover (with transshipment) in 11 days (12-12.5 days for 14 km/h), so that even 31 (28 for 14 km/h) turnovers per year could be achieved. Consequently, in all previous calculations there was a reserve of approximately 15-25%, depending on a ship speed. This reserve, not previously accounted, can compensate eventual non-100% lane-meter utilisation of Ro-Ro vessels. An additional Ro-Ro feature mentioned earlier should be underlined again, and that is the fact that the flat-deck Ro-Ro vessels are the most universal vessels amongst all river-vessel-types, meaning that they can easily transport non-standardised cargo whose transportation costs are often very high. This important feature was not accounted in the previous cost evaluations.

7.4.5 Conclusion 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



1437 km. Data and results obtained within the Study were also needed for ship design (WP3), so close collaboration between CREATING’s WP2 and WP3 was necessary. In particular case of the Danube Ro-Ro vessel, the design “inheritor” might be Willi Betz, a well-known truck and Ro-Ro ship owner/operator. So, his activities and requirements concerning the Danube Ro-Ro vessels were carefully examined. The Danube Ro-Ro transport concept that is examined considers the utilisation of the Danube Waterway as an alternative for the undeveloped and insufficient road and railway networks. The aim of the transport service concept proposed is to overcome the problems and bottlenecks of road transportation - insufficient roadway infrastructure in SEEC and jams on the trans-Alpine routes through Austria - along the major East-West transport axis coinciding the course of the Danube River (TEN Corridor N°VII). The concept is fully in line with current European initiatives, i.e. enables sustainable mobility of goods under the best possible conditions - keeping in mind environmental protection and economic competitiveness. Attention was given to few destinations in WEC and SEEC (including Turkey), but the route between Bulgaria and Germany (utilising Danube Ro-Ro terminals in Passau and Vidin) is considered as very prospective and hence analysed in more details. The Study consists of the following parts: Introduction where important geographical and navigational characteristics of the Danube are given. This was followed by short description of intermodality on the Danube and traffic flows in the region. Then current Ro-Ro services on the Danube were reviewed. Different aspects of the Danube Ro-Ro service possibilities (types of service, types of operation), Ro-Ro terminals along the Danube, transhipment facilities etc. were briefly analysed. Particular attention was given to Willi Betz plans for Ro-Ro development prior to and in the context of the CREATING Study. The last section treats economic viability of the Ro-Ro concept proposed and is considered to be a core of the Study; hence conclusions derived in this section will be stressed in the text that follows. According to the cost structure per ESTR , expected savings of intermodal compared to all-road transport (for route Frankfurt-Sofia-Frankfurt, LRRV and loading case 2, i.e. 45 semi-trailers + 112 cars = 63 ESTR) are at least around 20% to 25% for ship speed of 16 km/h and 14 km/h respectively. Nevertheless, lost time, due to ship speed and longer via-the-Danube route, is around 5 to 7 days. For the other routes considered (WEC–Turkey and -Easter Greece, for instance) the savings would be less. For loading cases, consisting of more vans than cars (than given above), savings would be much larger since LRRV is not designed for car transportation. For car and van transport alone the triple-deck PRRB is much more convenient, while for cargo with the semi-trailers and smaller vehicles in the twin-deck VLRRV is the most efficient. SRRV is always least efficient, but has advantages having three times smaller capital cost per ship and double departure frequency (if the same transport capacity as is that of LRRV has to be achieved). For the all-road transport, road fees and taxes are exceptionally high having a share of even 45% of total costs (on considered route Frankfurt-Sofia-Frankfurt). On some other routes considered, this percentage was even higher. This stresses the importance of Ro-Ro terminal location, as presently entering another country just for loading/unloading will increase, through the road taxes, pre- and end-hauling costs, i.e. total intermodal costs too. Out of total intermodal costs, the share of around 50% belongs to the waterborne transport only, between 15 and 20% to transhipment costs and rest is for pre- and end-hauling. Out of these 50%, approximately 20-30% belongs to fuel consumption (depending on ship speed) and 30% to the investment costs, while the other waterborne costs take a share of up to 35-40%. Total labour costs – drivers and crew – make only around 10% of total intermodal costs.



Eventual increase of both, fuel price and labour costs would more effect the all-road than intermodal transport costs. Ro-Ro utilisation of less-than-100% (100% full ship was only considered) would significantly decrease the benefits – expected savings – obtained with the intermodal transport. Nevertheless, required 24-25 turnovers/year per vessel is relatively conservative and therefore could be increased a bit, probably even to 28-31 turnovers/year (depending on ship speed). This might compensate eventual non-100% ship utilisation, hence could be regarded as 20% reserve. Comparing the influence of ship speed on different vessel types, all considered cases - LRRV, SRRV, VLRRV - were cost effective for both ship speeds (having a cost index of around 0.70-0.80). For the lower speed of 14 km/h the consumption index (or poisonous emission index) is around 0.85, and 1.1 for LRRV & VLRRV and SRRV respectively. For higher speed of 16 km/h the consumption index was around 1.0, 1.1 and 1.45 for VLRRV, LRRV and SRRV respectively, showing again the benefits of larger vessels. Technologically outdated EXCAT clearly depicted disadvantages, being around 25-30% less cost effective and having 35-45% higher fuel consumption (per ESTR) than VLRRV. It should be underlined, however, that several other benefits which cannot be quantified in monetary terms might be achieved with the Ro-Ro vessels, as for instance elimination of well known problem concerning the insufficient number of truck quotas for non-EU trucks when transiting Austria, environmental cleanness, safety, availability to transport non-standardised cargo onboard the single flat-deck, etc. Many other valuable conclusions were derived, but those mentioned above were regarded as the most important.

7.5 Small chemical tanker

7.5.1 Introduction 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.



7.5.2 Transport corridor and goods flows

transport of oil and oil products by inland ship

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

year

volu

me

(mio

ton)

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.



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 IWW

Transferof cargo

Transport by road

Transferof cargo

Transport by road

Unloadingof 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



Objectives of feasibility study: The feasibility study performed here has two main objectives:

1) To show that even with new ADNR regulations, requiring a double hull for tankers carrying chemicals, inland waterway transport can still compete with road transport. In this case, the transport of tar from Corus in Velsen (NL) to Cindu Chemicals in Uithoorn (NL) is reviewed.

2) To show that by clever design of inland tankers, a competitive edge can be gained over existing ships, allowing ship main dimensions (length and beam) to be reduced without loss of cargo carrying capacity or vice versa increasing the carrying capacity of the ship without compromising its ability to sail in narrow canals.

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 Cindu’s 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.



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.



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.



As a first estimate, by a Dutch shipyard, it is assumed that the ship will cost roughly €2.500.000,-. When using this value the following cost comparison between road and inland waterway transport can be made: Cost comparison When assuming the ship will make one trip per day for 250 days per year (5 days per week for 50 weeks per year), while sailing in semi-continuous service, the ship can be operated significantly cheaper than the road transport alternative, roughly 3.8 euro vs 8 euro, as is shown below. This large advantage for inland waterway transport is due to the fact that in this case no additional transhipment moves are necessary and road transport over short distances, with no return cargo available is known to be expensive. An important factor in the total cost price is the actual fuel consumption of the ship during loading and unloading operations. For the values presented below, it is assumed that the ship uses its own pumps at 400 kW to load and unload the tar, which accounts for roughly half the fuel consumption and associated cost of the ship.

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



Case study 2: increasing the carrying capacity of inland tankers Technical feasibility As was shown in the previous case study, the transport of tar by water in the Amsterdam region can be less expensive than road transport, especially if some modifications are made to the cargo tanks: Ships can be loaded to their maximum draught, with the additional weight of the double hull structure and higher tanks as only reason for reduction in carrying capacity. The problem becomes somewhat more complex as the density of cargo becomes less: a substance like methanol, which has a density that is only 2/3 of that of tar, requires far more volume per unit of weight, as a result of which the volume of the tanks becomes more important and the centre of gravity of the cargo will be higher, causing potential stability problems for the ship.

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 GM-value) 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.



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9GM (m)

Car

go H

eigh

t (m

)

GM methanol

GM tar

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 ton/m3 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 weight ton 1057 1102 1102 1102 1102 volume m3 1321 1224 1102 1003 919 ballast ton 45 1 0 0 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 ship’s 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 ship’s empty weight, hullform, power requirements, centre of gravity of the lightship etc. etc.. Also, in practice it would probably a



good idea to design the ship for less diverse cargo than was done for the parameter study done here, which has thus far resulted in a sub-optimal ship.



As already several times mentioned. The following two concepts are additional and are not used as an input for the other work packages within Creating.

7.6 Distriship Ruhr Area Connection

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.

Num

ber o

f ite

ms

in o

rder

Time

peaks viadirect trucking

stable part viahub network

shipment time via hub network

shipment time via direct trucking

order lead-time

order lead-time gap

t1 t2 t3 t4

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



network he will transport an equal amount of pallets through the network. This implies that if two actors use the network and 120.000 pallets are hauled through the network they haul 60.000 pallets each a year. Also the amount of pallets hauled between the Rotterdam - Ruhr district is equal to the amount of pallets hauled between the Ruhr - Rotterdam district. This implies that if for example, 30.000 pallets are hauled from hub Schiedam to hub Duisburg, 30.000 pallets are hauled from hub Duisburg to hub Schiedam and thus 60.000 pallets are hauled on the network a year. Horizontal collaboration between the logistics service providers should be with strategic alliances because of the investments that have to be made for the network, the term the network has to be operated, and the intensity of collaboration, to be feasible. The logistics service providers have to collaborate with shippers and consignees so that bundling of the shipments can be done on the hubs. The shipments will be bundled in time and in space at the hubs. Therefore waiting time at the hubs can be minimized and there is no storage at the hubs. To achieve this collaboration between logistics service providers, shippers, and consignees vertical collaboration between these three actors is needed. The shippers and consignees have to hold more inventory in most of the cases then with direct road haulage, when the cycle times decrease the amount of inventory to be hold at the origin and destination will decrease. Furthermore, they have to give insight in the stable part of the demand between origins and destinations. Contracts have to guarantee demand from the consignees and shippers.

7.6.3 Transport concept 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.



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 ( waitT ) was added to the net round-trip time to achieve the two restrictions discussed above. The number round-trips a week (α ) and the total time for one round-trip ( tripT ) in an itinerary regime are depicted in the table below.



Table 7-17: Total round-trip time and waiting time in given itinerary regime in network A Regime BARGE NETWORK A α

sailT (hour)

loadunT /

(hour) netT

(hour) waitT

(hour) tripT

(hour)

Wait of trip (%)

600 2 43 10 53 19 72 26 Continuous (144 hours) 1200 2 43 20 63 9 72 13

600 1,5 43 10 53 7 60 12 Semi (90 hours) 1200 1 43 20 63 27 90 30

600 1 43 10 53 10 63 16 Day (63 hours) 1200 1 43 20 63 0 63 0

With the number of round-trips a week known, the costs for the different demands can be calculated. The evaluated different demands are 60.000, 120.000, 180.000 and 240.000 pallets a year on the network. The two barge types with a capacity of 600 and 1200 pallets are now compared. The results with the lowest weighted average costs per pallet are depicted in the table below. Table 7-18: Costs per pallet in network A

Pallets/ year

Regime

Type α Barges Nr.

Direct road (€/pallet)

Network A (€/pallet)

Cost reduction (€/pallet)

Cost reduction (%)

60.000 (day) 600 1 1 16,50 18,69 -2,18 -13 120.000 (cont) 600 2 1 16,50 14,92 1,59 10 180.000 (cont)1 1200 1,5 1 16,50 14,27 2,24 14 240.000 (cont) 1200 2 1 16,50 12,96 3,55 22 1) utilization of 75 percent 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.

22%

7%

5%5%

6%

55%

Pre plus Post Haulage

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



obtained is the arrivals a week per hub. Because in all options depicted in table above are with one barge the arrivals a week per hub are equal to the round-trips a week (α). 7.6.4.2 PART II: Comparison Network A/B with Network C. When there also demand occurs between the Rotterdam district and the Cologne district two options for a hub network can be compared. In this case network A and a two hub network between Schiedam and Cologne (network B) can operate were the hub in Schiedam (this with the assumption that the hub will not exceeds its capacity and that the barges are not at the hub in Schiedam at the same time) is used for unloading and loading of the pallets from both networks (see the figure below) or a three hub network between Schiedam – Duisburg and Cologne (network C) can operate. In part II this two options will be compared on costs and number of round-trips a week.

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



not differ from the original case. This due to the assumption that the barges of network A and B are not at the same time at the hub in Schiedam and that the maximum utilization of the hub is not exceeded.

Table 7-19: Costs per pallet in network A as part of A/B

Pallets/ year

Regime

Type α Barges Nr.


Network A (€/pallet)


Cost reduction (%)

60.000 (day) 600 1 1 16,50 18,51 -2,00 -12 120.000 (cont) 600 2 1 16,50 14,83 1,68 10 180.000 (cont)1 1200 1,5 1 16,50 14,15 2,36 14 240.000 (cont) 1200 2 1 16,50 12,87 3,64 22 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 (α ) 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 α

sailT (hour)

loadunT / (hour)

netT (hour)

waitT (hour)

tripT (hour)

Wait of trip (%)

600 1,5 62 10 72 24 96 25 Continuous (144 hours) 1200 1,5 62 20 82 14 96 15

600 1 62 10 72 18 90 20 Semi (90 hours) 1200 1 62 20 82 8 90 9

600 0,5 62 10 72 48 120 40 Day (60 hours) 1200 0,5 62 20 82 38 120 32

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

Regime

Type α Barges Nr.


Network B (€/pallet)


Cost reduction (%)

60.000 (semi) 600 1 1 18,96 20,43 -1,47 -8 120.000 (semi) 1200 1 1 18,96 17,41 1,56 8 180.000 (cont) 1200 1,5 1 18,96 14,80 4,16 22 240.000 (semi) 1200 1 2 18,96 15,50 3,46 18



Network C In network C shipments are collected at and distributed from the hub in Schiedam (hub 1), the hub in Duisburg (hub 2), and the hub in Cologne (hub 3). The demands occurred in network A and B will be consolidated in this network. In network C also a possibility exists were shipments between Duisburg and Cologne and Cologne and Duisburg can be hauled through the network. If all costs are included and the costs per pallet are calculated it was found that the costs per pallet increase compared to direct road haulage. Therefore it is assumed that the shipments between these two hubs are not included and that the network has a maximum utilization of 84 percent (due to the partly empty sailing between hub Duisburg – hub Cologne and hub Cologne – hub Duisburg). The average distance for direct road haulage between the origins and destinations is around 245 kilometres. The average pre plus post haulage between the origins and a hub plus a hub and the destinations is around 25 kilometres. In network C 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 and an unloading/loading speed can be achieved of 240 pallets an hour. The total round-trip time of the barges a week (α ) in an itinerary regime including the waiting time is depicted in table below.

Table 7-22: Waiting time in network C without segment 2-3 and 3-2

Regime BARGE NETWORK C

α sailT

(hours)

loadunT / (hours)

netT (hours)

waitT (hours)

tripT (hours)

Wait of trip (%)

600 1,5 62 10 72 24 96 25 Continuous (144 hours)

1200 1,5 62 20 82 14 96 15

600 1 62 10 72 18 90 20 Semi (90 hours) 1200 1 62 20 82 8 90 9

600 0,5 62 10 72 48 120 40 Day (60 hours) 1200 0,5 62 20 82 38 120 32 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 α Barges Nr.


Network C (€/pallet)


Cost reduction (%)

120.600 (cont) 1200 1,51 1 17,73 17,62 0,11 1 241.200 (semi) 1200 1,02 2 17,73 16,16 1,57 9 360.000 (cont) 1200 1,5 2 17,73 13,95 3,78 21 480.600 (cont) 1200 1,53 3 17,73 14,09 3,65 21 1) With a network utilization of 56 percent 2) With a network utilization of 56 percent 3) With a network utilization of 74 percent



Comparison network A plus B with network C With the costs per pallet know for network A, B and C the total costs of the two options can be compared. The total costs per year can be derived through multiplying the number of pallets per year by the costs per pallet. The total costs for network A plus B per year are then compared to the network costs per year of network C. The option with the lowest total costs will be in favour of the other option. The cost comparison of network A/B and network C is depicted in table below.

Table 7-24: Total cost comparison of network A/B with network C

Demand A/B (pallets)

Network A (€/year)

Network B (€/year)

Network A+B (€/year)

Demand C (pallets)

Network C (€/year)

Cost efficient Network

Advantage (%)

60.000 1.110.000 1.226.000 2.336.000 120.600 2.125.000 C 9 120.000 1.780.000 2.089.000 3.869.000 241.200 3.898.000 A/B 1 180.000 2.547.000 2.664.000 5.211.000 360.000 5.022.000 C 4 240.000 3.089.000 3.720.000 6.809.000 480.600 6.763.200 C 1 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 α

Net A Barges

Net A Arrivals a week

Net B α

Net B Barges

Net B Arrivals a week

Net C α

Net C Barges

Net C Arrivals a week

Best Network

1 1 1 1 1 1 1,5 1 1,5 C 2 1 2 1 1 1 1,0 2 2 C 1,5 1 1,5 1,5 1 1,5 1,5 2 3 C 2 1 2 1 2 2 1,5 3 4,5 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



costs has to be minimal five percent compared to the current situation in this case. Dependent on the percentage wanted a certain margin to compensate the costs of collaboration exists.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

120.000 240.000 360.000 480.000

Pallets/year

(arr

ival

s at

hub

/wee

k)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cos

t red

uctio

n (%

)

Arrivals athub/week

CostReduction

Pallets/year 120.000 240.000 360.000 480.000Minimum actors 2 4 6 8 Number of barges 1 2 2 3

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)

Including Reduction (5%) (€/year)

Network Situation (€/year)

Margin (€/year)

1 1.063.800 1.010.610 1.057.200 -46.590 2 1.063.800 1.010.610 1.057.200 -46.590 TOTAL 2.127.600 2.021.220 2.114.400 -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



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.



Including Reduction (5%) (€/year)


Margin (€/year)

1 1.063.800 1.010.610 969.600 41.010 2 1.063.800 1.010.610 969.600 41.010 3 1.063.800 1.010.610 969.600 41.010 4 1.063.800 1.010.610 969.600 41.010 TOTAL 4.255.200 4.042.440 3.878.400 164.040

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.



Including Reduction (€/year)


Margin (€/year)

1 1.010.610 960.080 837.000 123.080 2 1.010.610 960.080 837.000 123.080 3 1.010.610 960.080 837.000 123.080 4 1.010.610 960.080 837.000 123.080 5 1.063.800 1.010.610 837.000 173.610 6 1.063.800 1.010.610 837.000 173.610 TOTAL 6.170.040 5.861.538 5.022.000 839.540

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



provides an optimal lay out of the logistics network that includes as well road transport as barge transport. In all cases shippers are interested in the lowest cost given certain service characteristics (such as criteria concerning reliability, frequency, damage, etc.) In the specific case Rotterdam-Ruhr area worked out in this section the largest cost reductions were occurring in network C where also the possibility exists were shipments between Duisburg and Cologne and Cologne and Duisburg can be hauled through the network. In the table below the volumes for network C show that margins rise faster than the volume of pallets within the network.

Table 7-29: Margin for the costs of collaboration in network C for different market volumes

Type of network/ #pallets

Current Situation (€/year)

Including Reduction (€/year)


Margin (€/year)

network C (120.000 pallets/year) 2.127.600 2.021.220 2.114.400 -93.180 network C (240.000 pallets/year) 4.255.200 4.042.440 3.878.400 164.040 network C (360.000 pallets/year) 6.170.040 5.861.538 5.022.000 839.540

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 Containerline service Budapest - Constantza

7.7.1 Introduction The number of handled containers is continuously growing worldwide. From 1980 to 2004 the number of TEU’s (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 A-loop (No.1) (Source: Port of Amsterdam, Annual Report)

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



European destination – Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania (Transylvania). After transhipment the goods follow their way toward Central Europe by road or by rail. 7.7.1.1 Geographic analysis 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 North-West 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.



Constantza is at the end of two Helsinki transport corridors: • Corridor IV – Budapest – Bucarest/Constantza motorway and railway • Corridor VII – the Danube These transport corridors are (will be) parts of the Trans-European Transport Network. Corridor IV is still under construction. The road connection to the port is only a one lane road and the quality is poor , as a result of which the lorries drive slowly. The rail network is also in bad condition, the wagons often have to wait and this results in poor cargo safety. There is only a non-electrified single line from Constantza to Cernavoda. This is why the transport capacities of these road and railway connections are still not good enough, however the developments are going on. After the end of the Balkan wars, and opening of the shipping route at Novi Sad, output of the inland waterway transport on the lower Danube is continuously developing. Port of Constantza – ahead of Galati, Braila, Tulcea, Reni and Ismail, the other lower Danubian ports – became the biggest and most developed port of the region. Since on the Hungarian section and below Prahovo the Danube is not regulated, in case of low water, though the containers are light cargo, the draught of the barges temporarily can limit the capacities of liner service. After examining the nautical characteristics, a depth of 1.65 m is a practical maximum value for safe navigation in all the year, however in winter time the icing can cause some problems. 7.7.2.1 Port capacity 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.



Figure 7-34: North Europe – container port capacity (source: Ocean Shipping Consultants, 2005)

In spite of the huge developments in the northern ports, according to the international professionals, this won’t be enough to fully solve the existing and expected logistical problems related to cargo handling. „ ... Europe’s major ports are going to be in chaos. It is extremely difficult to build new container facilities, complete with the supporting infrastructure, as shipowners can build ships and China can build factories.” (Mr. Wout Pronk – North Sea Line) „ ... a capacity crunch at the mouth of Europe’s big fluvial artery has left shippers and carriers wringing their hands with frustration in congestion in the terminals of Antwerp and Rotterdam resulted in waiting times of up to 60 hours for barge operators.” (Port Strategy Review – 2004 September) Adriatic ports The container ports of the Adriatic Sea are hardly used because the 90% of the Yugoslavian container import comes through Rijeka and Koper. The containers come on the board of feeder or normal container vessels because it is not available for the Suezmax container ships to board. The reason is that there are no ports on the Adriatic Sea which can harbour Suezmax ships. For example the water depth at Koper is enough only for feeder size container vessels. Port of Constantza In the Port of Constantza the water is deep enough for the large size container vessels. So the Port of Constantza in the future can be a new end destination of the container liners coming from the Far-East. Port of Constantza is connected to the Danube by an artificial canal (Cernavoda – Agigea Canal) ensuring that the containers can reach their Central European destination even by waterway. However, the actual turnover of Port Contantza container terminal is only 206 000 TEU per year (2003), the already available container handling capacity is about 700 000 TEU per year, which – since large development areas are still there - can be upgraded even up to 2 million TEU per year volume, within a very short time.



0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

TEU

TEU 28457 46289 30920 32367 40978 68552 86268 86174 98260 85314 105981 1186451362722064491990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 7-34 Container throughput in the Port of Constantza 1990 – 2003

In the 90’s 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.



7.7.4 Feasibility calculation 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): 8 days Budapest – Constantza (downstream): 6 days Comparable transport times - railway: Constantza – Budapest: about. 5 days Budapest – Constantza: about. 5 days - road: Constantza – Budapest: aboutt. 3 days Budapest – Constantza: 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 gentlemen’s 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 40’ container Shipping Company Bremerhaven Constantza Bremerhaven Constantza

MAERSK no data no data 3690$ 4209$ ?Forcont? International Shipping Ltd.

1300$ 1600$ no data no data

MSC 1579$ 1670$ 2953$ 3307$ 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



representatives in Constantza, the big container vessels do not sail into the Black Sea with a few Constantza destined container hence a feeder ship needed, etc. These are only excuses since 5000-7000 TEU container vessels sail to Constanta with containers to Romania, and with a good organisation of the cargo the same vessels could haul containers to other Central-European countries. It should be remarked however that the shipping companies do not want to give up the well-proven, but longer lines to “traditional” North-European ports and change to an “uncertain” service to Constantza. They all sit on the fence and see who will first change because they all know that due to the above mentioned arguments this change is necessary. A reason for this waiting is increased by the fact that after the news of an inland waterway container liner service the Hungarian and Romanian State Railways announced a radical decrease in their prices and bid a very low price per TEU: 150 €. This could be feasible only with the great state subvention of this railway companies. On the other hand, it is well-known to all parties that the road and railway infrastructure around Constantza have its restrictions (see earlier in this section). For comparison, the transport costs from port to the hinterland are summarised in the following table.

Container Transport Fees to Budapest EUR / full TEU

From Road Railway Inland waterway Constantza 1038 150 480 Koper 574 385 no possibility Hamburg 1160 682 no data Rotterdam 1440 1100 no data

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.



Also this concept will not be elaborated in WP3, but still with the growing container market in the Central and Eastern European Countries this is an emerging market. In combination with the Ro-Ro concept and with an emerging share of inland waterway transport this concept could become promising for the Danube area.



8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 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 ÖIR/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)



Magyar Közlekedéspolitika 2003-2015. MUTAND – “Multimodal Ro-Ro Transport on the Danube River”, Prefeasibility Study, VBD – Duisburg and DPC - Belgrade, 2002 Ognian Gubev, Valeri Trendafilov, Dr. Botio Tabakov: Geology, Exploration and Mining in Bulgaria. Inventory Geology, Exploration and Mining in Bulgaria, 2001 Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (ÖIR) Bavaria´s Economy - Facts and Figures - As of August 2004 – Published by Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology Popov, I. “Das Ro-Ro-Schiff im intermodalen verkehr auf der Donau”, 26th Dusburg Colloquium, June 2005. Radojcic, D. “Danube Intermodal Ships – Container vs. Ro-Ro”, 26th Dusburg Colloquium, June 2005. REBIS – REgional Balkans Infrastructure Study – Transport, European Commission, 2002. Rhenus Logistics – “Freeway Toll for trucks in Germany”, www.rhenus.de National Institute of Statistics, Romania : Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 2003 PLANCO Consulting GmbH, TEN Invest – Final Report - Essen, Germany, 2003 Dr. Probáld Ferens: Regionális földrajz Réti Tamás : Közeledő régiók a Kárpát –medencében. 2001 Publications of the Slovak Investment and Trade Development Agency (SARIO) about the regions of Slovakia. Statistics on Bavaria - Published and Printed by Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik und Datenverarbeitung, 2004 The Federal Statistical Office of Serbia: Statistical Yearbook of Serbia 2004, Statistical pocketbook 2004 TINA – “Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Analysis” and – “Final Report”, Vienna, 1999 Te Raa (2003). Optimalizering Goederenstromen Distrivaart. Tilburg University: Delft (Final thesis). TNO Inro (2003). Distrivaart Economics. Delft. www.Willi-Betz.com Zigic, B., “Ro-Ro transports on European inland waterways - state-of-the-art, possible improvements and development trends”, EBD documentation, 1996

Final Report.

Documents

Transcript of Final Report.