Danube Shipping Study
-
Upload
sandeepgovil -
Category
Documents
-
view
41 -
download
4
Transcript of Danube Shipping Study
COLD CONTAINER LINER SERVICE DANUBE An Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks of Container Transport on the Danube River between Austria and the Black Sea
FINAL REPORT, Vienna at August 2006
in cooperation with:
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 2 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Project Team via donau
Coordination: Manfred Seitz
Project Manager: Gerhard Gussmagg
Staff: Alfred Heiserer
Csaba Pusztay
Josef Schwanzer
Project Team ÖIR (Macro-economic Analysis of Transp ort Flows)
Reinhold Deußner, Stephanie Novak
Project Team Port of Constanta
Alexandru Capatu and staff of Constanta Port Authority
Companies and persons who have supported this proje ct:
Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology
Austrian Chamber of Commerce
Mierka Donauhafen Krems
Laszlo Somlovari, Port of Budapest
Sasa Jovanovic, Jugoagent Belgrade
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 3 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Table of Contents
1 STARTING SITUATION ................................. ..................................................................... 8
1.1 Global container flows and transhipment volumes at sea ports ........................................... 8
1.2 Modal split in hinterland transport and success stories of inland navigation ...................... 11
1.3 (Container) transport on the Austrian Danube .................................................................... 16
1.4 Promising Market – Black Sea ............................................................................................ 18
1.5 The Port of Constanta ......................................................................................................... 19
2 MARKET AND PEER ANALYSIS........................... .......................................................... 23
2.1 Current overseas container volumes of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia as well as estimated
costs for rail transport ........................................................................................................ 23 2.1.1 Austria .............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.1.2 Hungary............................................................................................................................................ 26 2.1.3 Slovakia............................................................................................................................................ 27 2.1.4 Truck prices on the Black Sea route................................................................................................. 28 2.2 Forecast of the flow of goods (ÖIR) .................................................................................... 29
3 INLAND Navigation CONCEPT .......................... ............................................................. 32
3.1 Definition of the Liner Service Concept............................................................................... 36
3.2 Hindrances to Danube navigation ....................................................................................... 36
3.3 Inland port charges.............................................................................................................. 38
3.4 Fees for Black Sea Canal ................................................................................................... 39
3.5 Travel times and operating costs of ships (base scenario)................................................. 40
3.6 Transit times and operating costs of ships (optimised scenario) ........................................ 43
4 TARGET GROUP OCEAN CARRIERS........................ .................................................... 48
4.1 Overall view of the supply chain – length of time and rates................................................ 49 4.1.1 Transit time....................................................................................................................................... 49 4.1.2 Costs (Status Quo)........................................................................................................................... 51 4.1.3 Costs (convergence of ocean freight rates)...................................................................................... 53 4.2 Environmental balance........................................................................................................ 54
4.3 Result of the talks in Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade........................................................ 55 4.3.1 Results of talks in Austria ................................................................................................................. 55 4.3.2 Result of talks in Hungary (Budapest) .............................................................................................. 57 4.3.3 Result of the talks in Serbia (Belgrade) ............................................................................................ 58
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION.......... .................................. 60
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 4 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Index of Illustrations
Figure 1: Container flows worldwide ....................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Global volume of container transhipment – status quo and forecast....................................... 9
Figure 3: The “Jowi” next to a conventional inland navigation ship ...................................................... 12
Figure 4: Container shipments on French waterways........................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Inland navigation container ship “Arc en Ciel“ on the Seine .................................................. 14
Figure 6: Waterborne container transhipment at Flemish inland ports ................................................. 15
Figure 7: Transport volumes on the Austrian section of the Danube.................................................... 16
Figure 8: Container transport volumes on the Austrian section of the Danube .................................... 17
Figure 9: Container transhipment volumes on Black Sea ports, 1995 to 2005..................................... 18
Figure 10: Constanta South Container Terminal................................................................................... 19
Figure 11: "Short cut" to Central Europe............................................................................................... 21
Figure 12: Istanbul and the Bosphorus (Satellite photo)....................................................................... 22
Figure 13: The Danube as a link from Central Europe to the Black Sea .............................................. 32
Figure 14: Container transhipment at the Mierka Donauhafen Krems.................................................. 33
Figure 15: Distances and inland ports................................................................................................... 34
Figure 16: Photographs Scheduled Container Services Belgrade - Constanta.................................... 35
Figure 17: Photographs of Black Seal Canal ........................................................................................ 39
Figure 18: Proposed convoy of ships (base scenario) .......................................................................... 40
Figure 19: Scheduled services Krems – Constanta (base scenario) .................................................... 41
Figure 20: Calculation of ship’s costs per container (base scenario).................................................... 42
Figure 21: MCV "Greifenstein" with pushed barge at Budapest port .................................................... 43
Figure 22: Transit time Constanta – Krems (optimised scenario)......................................................... 44
Figure 23: Transit time Krems – Constanta – Krems (optimised scenario) .......................................... 45
Figure 24: Calculation of ship’s costs per container (optimised scenario) ............................................ 47
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 5 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Index of Tables
Table 1: The most important container ports worldwide (in million TEU).............................................. 10
Table 2: Modal split in hinterland transport, Container (2005) .............................................................. 11
Table 3: Preferred sea ports by Austria ................................................................................................ 24
Table 4: Railway rate matrix Austria (selected routes).......................................................................... 25
Table 5: Estimate of overseas container transport volume Hungary, in EUR (2005) ........................... 26
Table 6: Railway rates matrix Hungary (selected routes) ..................................................................... 27
Table 7: Railway rates matrix Slovakia (selected routes) ..................................................................... 28
Table 8: Truck prices door-to-door ........................................................................................................ 28
Table 9: COLD Potential, forecasting method foreign trade ................................................................. 31
Table 10: Rough structure of the costs of inland navigation ................................................................. 36
Table 11: Container transhipment rates at selected inland ports.......................................................... 38
Table 12: Cost calculation inland vessel round trip Constanta – Krems – Constanta .......................... 46
Table 13: Top 10 Container Carrier worldwide ..................................................................................... 48
Table 14: Transit time comparison of the supply chains (in days) ........................................................ 50
Table 15: Cost comparison of the supply chain (as of 1 Q 206) ........................................................... 52
Table 16: Costs of the Supply Chain Krems – Shanghai (convergence of freight rates)...................... 53
Table 17: Container volumes in Serbia (Estimates for 2005) ............................................................... 58
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 6 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In contrast to other rivers in Europe, the volume of container shipments on the Danube has not
been of much significance up to now. In the light of the double digit growth rates in the global
transport of goods and the chronic capacity bottlenecks at Europe's major ports and
connecting routes in their hinterland, now would be the right time for establishing container
transport along the Danube. This study confirms this assessment: the cost benefits of using
inland vessels specialised in container transport are significant. A look at the entire supply
chain for Europe-Asia shipments shows that the frequently mentioned setback of long
transport times is not that severe. Moreover, as the environmental impact balance is good, a
win-win situation is possible for all actors.
The first chapter of the study entitled “Starting Situation” investigates the growing volume of
transhipments at the major container ports throughout the world. While this volume was
around 100mn TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) at the beginning of the 1990s, by 2005, the
figure had climbed to 350mn TEU. The estimate for 2015 is 600mn to 700mn TEU. A crucial
issue for Europe’s economy is the capacity to efficiently deliver and collect such container
volumes in the hinterland of the sea ports, specifically, in the economic core regions of
Europe. Inland navigation can be used effectively for transport in addition to road and rail as
the success stories of the Rhine, Rhône, Seine and the Belgium waterways illustrate. The
boom at the Black Sea ports could be a great opportunity for the Danube River to trigger a
similar development. The Romanian port of Constanta, which is linked to the Danube
waterway by the Black Sea Canal, has seen a remarkable rise in container volumes.
Chapter 2 of the study presents a “Market and Peer Analysis” . It analyzes the existing
overseas container volumes of the countries of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia. The estimates
of the project team are based on a current total volume of some 700,000 TEU per year
(Austria 400,000 TEU, Hungary 200,000 TEU, Slovakia 80,000 TEU). The larger share of
containers is transported by shuttle trains, and the smaller share by truck. The rail tariffs were
surveyed for the most important connections per TEU and 40-ft. container, including
connections to the ports in the Adriatic Sea and truck prices in the Danube region. To assess
the future potential of regular scheduled container services on the Danube River, the Austrian
Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning (ÖIR) conducted a macro-economic
analysis of the flow of goods. The analysis includes transport volumes that could theoretically
be containerised transported within the Danube region as well as short sea and overseas
connections. The potential of the Danube in the three countries of Austria, Hungary and
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 7 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Slovakia was found to be around 0.65 to 1.15mn TEU until 2010, and by 2020, it could grow to
1.3 to 2.4mn TEU.
Chapter 3, “Inland Navigation Concept” deals with the transport of containers on the
Danube waterway. The subjects of waiting times at locks and border crossings, port fees,
Black Sea canal fees and possible nautical hindrances were investigated. Two scenarios were
developed that represent duration, costs and capacities of container liner services between
Krems in Lower Austria and Constanta. The “base scenario” is based on the use of
conventional Danube ships and double-stack container loading. The bottom line of this
scenario shows that the transport costs per container are the same as by rail. An “optimised
scenario” uses ships with larger capacities (triple-stacked containers) adapted for transporting
containers and covers the round-trip Krems – Constanta – Krems in 16 days. At a capacity
utilization of 75 % the basic costs per container are very attractive.
Chapter 4 investigates the ocean carriers as the target group for implementing a container
liner service along the Danube. Using the example of a transport chain between Shanghai and
Krems, the duration and costs of the transport variants Hamburg plus rail are compared to
Constanta plus inland navigation. This comparison sheds a new light on the frequently
mentioned disadvantages of Danube navigation: In the direction of Asia, the shipment took
around 30 days in both cases, while imports to Europe took two and a half days longer using
the Danube variant. The comparison of the costs of the supply chain is based on the level of
ocean freight costs of the first quarter of 2006 (Constanta more expensive than Hamburg) and
on a second calculation using equal freight costs, as the equalization is already underway. In
the latter case, the cost advantage per container attainable via the Danube is around 20 %.
Moreover, the environmental balance of the variant via Constanta and the Danube is very
encouraging: By avoiding more than 4,000 km of deep sea voyage, an average of 16 % less
CO2 is produced per container. This chapter closes with statements by shipping companies
and their agents in Vienna, Budapest, and Belgrade. The basic sentiment revealed is positive
if reliability is ensured and the price is right. In the short term, a number of companies are
interested in the transport of empty containers along the Danube.
The last chapter of the study presents recommendations for future approaches . After
publication of the study, a first step will be to obtain feedback from ocean carriers and large
transhipment companies. A round table will be held to bring together interested companies
and to create project alliances. The objective of all actors involved could be stated as the
launch of scheduled container services between Austria and Romania in 2007.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 8 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
1 STARTING SITUATION
1.1 Global container flows and transhipment volumes at sea ports
The global exchange of goods has increased enormously in the past few decades. This is
especially true in the segment of high-value goods, i.e., container shipments where the growth
rates are usually double digit. Shipments from Asia (China, Taiwan, Korea etc.) to Europe play
a great role and the growth rates observed were over 15 % p.a. Consumers in Europe are
demanding cheaper electronics, textiles and shoes from the “Tiger States“.
Figure 1: Container flows worldwide
Source: Hulocon, 2005
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 9 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
There is a direct relationship between the rising volume of transport and the transhipment
figures at international sea ports. While the volume of transhipment was around 100mn TEU
(20-ft. container) at the beginning of the 1990s, the figure had climbed to 350mn TEU by 2005.
The estimates for 2015 are 600 to 700 mn TEU.
Figure 2: Global volume of container transhipment – status quo and forecast
Source: ISL, Lemper/Stuchtey, 2004
It is still unclear whether the ports are able to efficiently deal with these volumes. According to
a study by the HVB Group / Drewry1 , global bottlenecks at ports are threatening the growth of
global trade – port enlargement and alternative strategies are needed. The overloading of
capacity at the seaside quays are being exacerbated by the problems on landside
infrastructure. The number of gates is often not enough, overloaded port railways, road
congestion and an insufficient number of truck drivers are all factors that limit the smooth
conveyance of containers through the terminals and create backlogs.
1 „Globale Hafenengpässe – Keine schnelle Lösung in Sicht“ (Global Bottlenecks – No Fast Solutions in Sight), published by Hypo Vereinsbank AG Hamburg; Author: Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd. London, February 2005
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 10 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Since 2005, the world’s largest container port of the world has been Singapore and no longer
Hong Kong. An incredible volume of 23.2 mn TEU was transhipped there in 2005. The largest
European container port is still Rotterdam with 9.3mn standard boxes. In comparison to 2001,
Hamburg has nearly doubled the volume and today the figure is 8.1mn TEU. Hamburg
expects the growth rates to continue to climb steeply and forecasts a 10 % yearly increase in
the coming years – starting out from an already very high level! Compared to these ports, the
Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta may still seem insignificant, but its performance in the
past three years has been very impressive.
Table 1: The most important container ports worldw ide (in million TEU)
Container-ports 2001 2004 2005 Growth rate
2001-2004 Growth rate 2004-2005
Singapore 15.6 21.3 23.2 + 37 % + 9 %
Hong Kong 17.8 22.0 22.5 + 24 % + 2 %
Shanghai 6.3 14.6 18.1 + 130 % + 24 %
Shenzen 5.1 13.7 16.2 + 169 % + 18 %
Busan 8.1 11.4 11.8 + 42 % + 4 %
Kaohsiung 7.5 9.7 9.5 + 29 % - 2 %
Rotterdam 6.1 8.3 9.3 + 36 % + 12 %
Hamburg 4.7 7.0 8.1 + 49 % + 16 %
Constanta 0.12 0.39 0.77 + 224 % + 97 %
Source: Websites of the port authorities and the publication “Port Statistics 2005“, Rotterdam Port
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 11 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
1.2 Modal split in hinterland transport and success stories of inland navigation
The most crucial issue for Europe’s economy is the capacity to efficiently deliver and collect
the container volumes mentioned in the hinterland of the sea ports, specifically, in the
economic core regions of Europe.
Generally, all three modes of land transport (road, rail and inland navigation) are suitable for
transporting containers in the hinterland. Depending on availability, state of the infrastructure
and service level, they are used to varying degrees.
Table 2: Modal split in hinterland transport, Cont ainer (2005)
Truck Rail Inland navigation Feeder vessel
Rotterdam 43 % 7 % 23 % 27 %
Antwerpen 50 % 8 % 26 % 16 %
Hamburg 52 % 25 % 1 % 22 %
Source: ÖIR, 2006
The table above shows that the share of truck and feeder transport in all three ports selected
ranges around plus/minus 10 %. The reason is that for certain transports, the selection of the
most suitable mode is clear: if the containers remain in the region (within < 100km), a truck is
selected. Should another sea port be the destination, feeder ships are used for transport (so-
called “short sea transport”).
The choice for the share of “hinterland container” with distances of 200 to over 1,000 km will
be between rail and inland navigation as of a certain volume. There are two differences in the
sea ports in this context: The ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp, which are easily reachable by
waterway, account for a share of 23 % to 26 % for inland navigation, while for Hamburg it is
only 1 %.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 12 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
In European comparison, inland navigation has gained substantial market shares in container
transport. Overall, the volume transported via European rivers and canals has risen within 10
years from less than 500,000 TEU to almost 4 mn TEU. Here, the larger share of the transport
volume involves sea containers in the hinterland of the major sea ports.
The most impressive success story is the one of the Rhine . Last year, some 1.8mn TEU were
transported on this waterway. There are well established scheduled services between the
ARA ports and the German terminals such as Duisburg. These offer daily departures and use
special container ships with enormous capacities (JOWI class, max 482 TEU). At distances of
200 to 300 km, the transport times are 24 hours (z.B. www.alcotrans.de)
Figure 3: The “Jowi” next to a conventional inland navigation ship
Source: Manual on Danube Navigation, via donau, 2005
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 13 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Container inland navigation is booming also in France . A few large shippers such as
Conforama, Carrefour, Monoprix and Auchan use inland navigation as an alternative for
containerised imports and exports. A total of 400,000 TEU were shipped in 2005, which is 8.3
% more than in 2004. Almost half of the volume travelled on the Rhine. The highest growth
rates have been posted on other rivers though: in 2005, 20 % more containers were shipped
on the Rhône than in 2004, and on the Seine, it is even 40 %. Furthermore container imports
and exports via the sea ports of Dunkerque and Antwerp using the network of canals in
northern France and the Schelde are also of significance.
Figure 4: Container shipments on French waterways
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
TE
U
Source: POINT PRESSE, Voies navigables de France, April 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 14 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Along the transport route Rhône-Saône , the subsidiaries of CMA-CGM, “River Shuttle
Containers“ (www.rsc.fr) and Alcotrans Container Line offer scheduled services between
Marseille-Fos and the inland ports of Lyon, Mâcon and Chalon. The shipping of a 40-ft.
container from Marseille to Lyon costs around €400 with Alcotrans and takes around 36 hrs
(upstream).
There are already five operators on the Seine . The metropolis of Paris accounts for half of the
total containerised transhipment volume in Le Havre. The price of transport from Le Havre to
the city limits of Paris is stated at €380 per 40-ft. container and the duration at around 30 hrs
(distance 330 km vs 200 km on road).
The prices mentioned are door-to-door prices, i.e., they include transport on an inland
navigation ship, pre- and post-haulage by truck, handling fees at the ports as well as custom
fees for imports and exports.
Figure 5: Inland navigation container ship “Arc en Ciel“ on the Seine
Source: River Shuttle Containers, 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 15 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The volumes have increased steeply in Flanders (Belgium) as well. As reported by the
partner organization of via donau “Promotie Binnenvaart Vlaandern“ growth in container inland
navigation volumes has practically exploded. In 2005, the waterborne container handling at
the Flemish inland container terminals was 456,279 TEU, which is 52,328 TEU or 13 % more
than in 2004.
Figure 6: Waterborne container transhipment at Fle mish inland ports
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
TE
U
Source: Promotie Binnenvaart Vlaanderen, 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 16 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
1.3 (Container) transport on the Austrian Danube
A volume of around 11.5mn tons of goods were transported along the Austrian section of the
Danube. Approximately half of the transport volume stems from imports (largely iron ore for
voestalpine Linz), one-third travels on transit routes. Since 1992, the volumes have been rising
moderate but steadily. In 2003, the Danube lost some volume because of the extremely low
water levels in the second half-year. According to forecasts by ÖIR, with implementation of
measures under the National Action Plan Danube Navigation (NAP) the volume is expected to
rise further up to 27.7mn t by 2015.
Figure 7: Transport volumes on the Austrian sectio n of the Danube
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Tra
nspo
rt v
olum
es in
mn
tons
Domestic Import Export Transit Total
Source: Statistik Austria, in-house calculations, 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 17 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The situation on the Danube with respect to container transport is not very bright. The
development of the past few years contrasts starkly to the success stories described,
specifically, it has plunged. In 2005, the volume transported on the Austrian Danube was
merely 3,000 units, which is around 5,000 TEU. This corresponds to around 1 % of Austria’s
imports and exports via sea ports. Currently, only exports of cut timber in the direction of
Antwerp as well as empty containers from Hungary and Germany to Austria are shipped via
the Danube.
Figure 8: Container transport volumes on the Austr ian section of the Danube
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Con
tain
ers
tran
spor
ted
in 1
,000
(20
ft, 3
0 ft
and
40
ft)
Source: Statistik Austria, 2006
There are many reasons for the decline in container shipments on the Danube. The massive
impediments by the two crises in former Yugoslavia must be mentioned, and the nautical and
economic difficulties for inland navigation in the western direction (long transport times to
ARA-ports passing through more than 60 locks as well as very competitive shuttle train
connections). In contrast to the Rhine, the development of container inland navigation was not
bolstered by sea ports, i.e., the transport of overseas containers in the hinterland as the basis
for scheduled services was lacking.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 18 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
1.4 Promising Market – Black Sea
In the context of the region more beneficial for Danube navigation for nautical and economic
reasons, namely the Black Sea, had hardly been any sea ports that handled significant
volumes of maritime containers. However, the situation has changed: The container
transhipment volume in the Black Sea region increased in the period from 1995 to 2005 by ten
times to almost 1.8mn TEU. The most important container port is the Romanian port of
Constanta, followed by the twin port of Odessa/Ilychevsk and the ports of Southern Russian,
Georgia and Bulgaria.
Figure 9: Container transhipment volumes on Black Sea ports, 1995 to 2005
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1,00
0 T
EU
s
Constanta
Varna
Burgas
Odessa/IlychevskOdessa
Ilychevsk
Novorossiysk
Poti
Total
Source: Ocean Shipping Consultants Lim.; “The European & Mediterranean Container Port Markets to 2015”, 2006
According to a recently published report by Ocean Shipping Consultants, the container
volumes in the relevant countries are expected to rise to 3mn TEU by 2010, and to 5mn TEU
by 2015.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 19 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
1.5 The Port of Constanta
The port of Constanta has reported a steep rise in container volumes. Transhipment volume
has nearly doubled in the past three years from 206,000 TEU in 2003 to 387,000 TEU in 2004,
and finally 768,000 TEU last year.
This positive development is closely linked to the start of operations at the CSCT – Constanta
South Container Terminal.The operator is the company DP World2 (www.dpworld.com). The
length of the main berth is 634 m, and there are three Post-Panamax bridge cranes by
Mitsubishi in use at present. The available draught along the quay is at least 14.5 meters.
Further container terminals in Constanta are SOCEP, APM terminals and Umex.
Figure 10: Constanta South Container Terminal
Source: Constanta port, 2006
2 Dubai Ports International (DPI) was renamed in DP World after the acquisition of CSX World Terminal in Jannuary 2005
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 20 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
There have been direct liner service between Asia and Constanta since 2004, e.g. Asia Black
Sea Service (Hapag Lloyd/Norasia), Tiger Service (MSC) and Bosphorus Express (CMA
CGM). The largest ships in these direct services currently have a capacity of 3,000 to 4,000
TEU. In addition, there are a few scheduled container lines within the Black Sea as well as
feeder connections to Gioia Tauro, Piraeus and Istanbul. Since June 2006, Constanta has
been integrated into the AMP Service (Asia Mediterranean Pacific) of the shipping company
ZIM. This round-the-world service operates 13 ships between Mediterranean ports, China,
Canada and the US. An interesting fact is that Constanta has replaced the ports in the Adria of
Koper, Venice and Triest – according to ZIM “to meet the changed market needs”.
The capacities of the Constanta South Container Terminal are to be enlarged by 2007 to
around one million TEU p.a. Two new container bridges will be installed in March that can
cover 18 rows of containers. The reason for these measures is that container ships with more
than 5,000 TEU are expected to dock at Constanta. Dubai Ports has also signed an
agreement on the enlargement of the area around the terminal according to the port
authorities.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 21 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
We would like to mention the strategic opportunities for Constanta in the opinion of the
project team:
• An alternative to the ports in the northern range (Rotterdam, Hamburg) which are
struggling with capacity problems as regards transhipment and hinterland transport.
(Railway infrastructure, lack of locomotives and wagons, strikes, etc.)
• Connection to Corridor VII (Danube) via the Black Sea Canal (64.4km) and thus a link
to the dynamic regions of Central Europe by waterway.
• Shorter ocean route for Europe – Asia services: Avoids more than 2,400 nautical miles
(almost 4,500 km) versus North Sea ports and thus shortens travel time by 3 to 4
days.
• Membership of Romania in EU very soon -> Unified customs procedures
Figure 11: "Short cut" to Central Europe
Serbia
Source: Constanta port, 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 22 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
However, the risks to Constanta should also be mentioned:
• Waiting times at the “bottleneck” Bosphorus. The connection of Marmara and Black
Sea is 30 km long with a width of 0.7 to 3.5 km and an average depth of 50 to 75 m.
At present, there are a few restrictions to the passage of larger cargo vessels. Higher
volumes and poor transport management could cause hindrances to container
shipment.
• Competition from Adria ports for shipments from and to Central Europe. Ports such as
Triest (Italy), Koper (Slovenia) and Rijeka (Croatia) have close ties to Austria and
Hungary for geographic and historic reasons. Any expansion in container transport at
these ports could diminish volumes at Constanta.
• Ocean freight rates to and from Constanta were higher at the beginning of 2006 for
market reasons versus Hamburg and Rotterdam – despite the shorter distance by
sea. Should these price differences continue over the long term, this would hindrance
the development in Constanta.
• Inefficiencies in the area of customs: a slower and deficient implementation of EU
standards could have a detrimental effect.
Figure 12: Istanbul and the Bosphorus (Satellite p hoto)
Source: NASA Earth Observatory, 16 April 2004
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 23 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
2 MARKET AND PEER ANALYSIS
In order to assess the transport opportunities of the Danube hinterland, it was necessary to
evaluate the relevant sea container flows. The project team of via donau conducted the
analysis of the status quo presented in this study. The Austrian Institute for Regional Studies
and Spatial Planning (Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung, ÖIR) prepared a forecast of
future volumes.
The study covers Austria, in particular, the counties of Upper Austria, Lower Austria and
Vienna as well as the neighbouring Danube states of Hungary and Slovakia. It is in particular
the major cities of Budapest and Bratislava that are potential stations of any Danube
scheduled services between Constanta and Austria.
2.1 Current overseas container volumes of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia as well as
estimated costs for rail transport
There are no official statistics on container transport to and from Austria, Hungary and
Slovakia. The project team therefore attempted to describe the present situation based on
talks with representatives of the sea ports, railway operators as well as on information gattered
from special interest magazines. The following figures are therefore mostly estimates and
should reflect the actual situation with a variation of +/- 10 %.
! Altogether, the current overseas container volume
for the region of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia is
estimated at around 700,000 TEU per year. The base
volume required for scheduled Danube services that
would connect the upper Danube section with
Constanta is around 10,000 TEU per year. This
represents a share of 1.5 % of total volume .
2.1.1 Austria
A look at the “Austrian” portion of traffic volume at the European sea ports reveals that
Rotterdam was the most important sea port for Austria in 2005. Increases in cargo volumes
were recorded mainly for iron ore and coal. The second most important port was Koper
followed by Hamburg, Antwerp and the ports of Bremen. In total, some 70 % of total tonnage
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 24 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
passes through the North Sea ports, 25 % to 30 % via the Adriatic Sea and only a small
percentage via the Black Sea.
There are no precise figures for container traffic volumes. According to the estimates of the
project team, the predominance of the North Sea ports is even stronger here. Approximately
95 % goes through these ports. Hamburg is clearly in first place at over 200,000 TEU, and
some 60 % to 65 % of Austria’s volume is handled at this sea port. Bremen/Bremerhaven and
Rotterdam are in second place as regards container volumes. All in all, the estimated annual
overseas container volume for the year 2005 was around 400,000 TEU. On the whole, imports
and exports are almost balanced, i.e. 200,000 TEU in each case (some ports show
imbalances such as Bremen).
Table 3: Preferred sea ports by Austria
2004 Container*Export Import Total Total in TEU
1. Rotterdam 733,718 3,778,645 4,512,363 4,301,586 80,0002. Koper 788,946 2,738,415 3,527,361 2,969,430 10,0003. Hamburg 1,385,617 938,265 2,323,882 2,167,494 220,0004. Antwerpen 745,808 951,538 1,697,346 1,690,046 10,0005. Bremen Ports 1,017,439 106,282 1,123,721 1,179,433 70,0006. Constanta 40,609 354,708 395,317 420,645 07. Rijeka 175,490 27,221 202,711 195,111 08. Ports Lower Sax. n.a. n.a. 116,185 190,437 0
Trieste n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10,0004,887,627 8,895,074 13,898,886 13,114,182 400,000
* Estimates for 2005
No figures were available for Trieste as of 2004. (2003: Export 609,586 t, Import 324,348 t, Total 933,934 t)
Ports in Lower Saxony: Brake, Cuxhaven, Emden, Leer, Nordenham, Oldenburg, Papenburg, Wilhelmshaven
Austria's transit traffic in tons (2005)
Source: “Sea port balance“ in the magazine Verkehr, in-house estimates
A share of 90 % to 95 % of container volume is transported by shuttle trains and the remaining
volume by truck and inland vessels. A total of about 80 to 100 shuttle trains are travel between
Austrian and the sea ports in Northern Europe per week.
The table below shows the least expensive railway rates (obtained by a small forwarder) for
each of the routes of relevance for Austria. The weight class assumed for 20-ft. container is
< 16.5 t and for a 40-ft. container > 16.5 t. The crane fees are included in the rates.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 25 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Table 4: Railway rate matrix Austria (selected rou tes)
Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling 20 ft 8-16.5 t
40 ft 22-34 t
Vienna Freudenau CCT – Hamburg Waltershof € 325 € 618
Vienna NW CCT – Rotterdam Maasvlakte € 328 € 612
Krems port CCT - Rotterdam Maasvlakte € 340 € 670
Linz Stadthafen CCT – Hamburg Süd/Waltershof / Bremerhaven € 308 € 587
Wels Vbf CCT – Rotterdam Maasvlakte € 254 € 531
Source: in-house estimates in 1HY 2006
The connections to the Adriatic ports are to be taken into account also for the Austrian
terminals far from the Danube in Graz and Villach, of course, and the relevant rates to Koper
and Trieste are sometimes far below the ones mentioned above.
As regards transport times, the average assumed is an A-C connection. This means that if
loading closes at 20:00 hrs on day A and the freight is available at 6:00 hrs on day C, the
transport time is 34 hrs. including the time needed for loading and unloading by crane and
transhipment at the terminal. In some cases, A-B connections (overnight) are offered.
However, these transport times cannot always be observed. In the past few years, the
problems in the railway hinterland of sea ports have been growing. It is especially Hamburg
that is affected by massive infrastructure problems at the Maschen railway station. In the
following is a list of headlines taken from the relevant transport newsletters of Austrian
transport companies:
• Change in computer system at Terminal ECT Delta in Rotterdam-Maasvlakte continues to be a massive hindrance to dispatching
• Hamburger container boom creates bottlenecks in rail traffic
• Workers call union meetings in Maschen and Hamburg
• Access ramp to loading points Altenwerder completely closed off on 15 April 2006
• Hindrances in rail transport Wolfurt – Rotterdam a.v.v.
• Hindrances in rail transport at Hamburg port
• Hindrances in rail transport at Bremerhaven
• Hindrances in rail transport in Hungary due to flooding
• Unscheduled construction work planned with short notice at Hamburg Waltershof
• Strike at Italian national railways (FS) on 5 April 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 26 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
• Workers call union meeting in Maschen on 28 March 2006
• Strike by Italian national railway workers in Lombardy
• Acceptances blocked for Bremerhaven
• Bremerhaven – Congestion
• Route interrupted due to risk of avalanches
• Strike at terminal Rotterdam-Maasvlakte APM
• Strike at Antwerp from 16 Jan. 2006 to 17 Jan. 2006
etc.
2.1.2 Hungary
The annual overseas container volume in 2005 is assessed at around 200 to 250,000 TEU,
with two-thirds being imports. The North Sea ports are also predominant for Hungary although
the share is lower in comparison to Austria, namely 75 %. The remaining shipments travel via
the Adriatic ports, especially the Slovenien port of Koper. The Black Sea ports are hardly of
relevance and only few empty containers are transported along this route.
Table 5: Estimate of overseas container transport volume Hungary, in EUR (2005)
Sea port Export Import Total
Hamburg 37,000 68,000 105,000
Koper 18,000 32,000 50,000
Bremerhaven 12,000 19,000 31,000
Rotterdam 6,500 8,000 14,500
TOTAL 73,500 127,000 200,500
Source: Rotterdam Port Representative Budapest, März 2006
As regards the modal split, 95 % of shipments travel in the direction of the North Sea ports by
shuttle train and the rest by truck. The share of truck transport to Koper is higher due to the
shorter distance (600 km to Budapest). In 2006, a massive increase in container volumes by
rail is expected due to the new shuttle train connections in the direction of the North Sea as
well as to the Adriatic Sea (Rotterdam-Györ, Rotterdam-Budapest, Trieste-Budapest, Koper-
Budapest).
Apart from some empty container repositioning, there is hardly any inland vessel transport on
the Danube from and to Hungary. A scheduled Danube line between Budapest and Constanta
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 27 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
presented in mid-2005 by Freeport Budapest and the agency Genshipping never started
operations. One of the reasons was the announcement of the Hungarian and Romanian
national railways to set up shuttle train lines on this route. Up to now, no such line has started
operating. The prices for transport by ship presented at the time for full containers were
between € 350 / 20 ft. and € 480 / 40 ft. and for empty containers € 270 / 20 ft. and € 370 / 40
ft. (freight including port fees at Constanta and Budapest as well as fees for the Black Sea
Canal).
A look at the railway rates reflects the close vicinity of Hungary to the Adriatic ports, Koper and
Rijeka offer similarly good terms. The new connections to the North Sea ports cannot (yet)
compete, but offer more frequent departures of ocean-going vessels and more competition
among overseas shipping companies.
Table 6: Railway rates matrix Hungary (selected ro utes)
Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling 20 ft
8-16.5 t
40 ft 22-34 t
Budapest BILK – Koper Luka KT € 226 € 445
Budapest BILK – Rijeka Luka € 261 € 489
Györ LCH Terminal – Rotterdam Pernis € 368 € 649
Source: in-house estimates in 1HY 2006
Trucking prices were also investigated for the Northern port routes and these are around
twice as high as the railway rates for a 40 ft. container (Budapest-Hamburg € 1,250). On this
route, transport by truck will be an alternative only in exceptional cases for urgent shipments:
unlike the situation for the Adriatic Sea, trucks are used there more often according to experts.
2.1.3 Slovakia
The overseas container volume for the Czech Republic and Slovakia is a total of around
200,000 TEU, however, exact statistics are not available by country. According to estimates by
experts, some 12 shuttle trains per week for Slovakia with a capacity utilization of 80 % (= 60
TEU) and at 50 operating weeks per year would mean a volume of some 80,000 TEU.
Currently, there are shuttle trains carrying containers between Bratislava and Prague, and
there are many connections to the North Sea ports from there.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 28 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The volume of containers is set to rise steeply due to the start of production at the automobile
factories in Trnava (Peugeot/Citroen, in full operation around 300,000 vehicles p.a.) and Zilina
(Kia, 200,000 vehicles p.a.). The two locations are scheduled to start operations in 2006.
However, automotive component suppliers will probably mostly be of relevance for rail and
road transport due to the tight schedules.
The railway rates determined for Slovakia are set out below. The indirect connections from
Bratislava to Hamburg and Rotterdam are more expensive than the tariffs ex Vienna (see
Table 4).
Table 7: Railway rates matrix Slovakia (selected r outes)
Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling 20 ft
8-16.5 t 40 ft
22-34 t
Bratislava SPAP – Hamburg Eurokai (via Prague) € 413 € 715
Bratislava SPAP – Rotterdam RSC (via Prague) € 605 € 1,000
Bratislava – Koper / Rijeka € 295 € 554
Zilina – Koper / Rijeka € 340 € 650
Kosice – Rijeka € 363 € 654
Source: in-house estimates in 1HY 2006
2.1.4 Truck prices on the Black Sea route
It was not possible to ascertain any rates for shuttle train transport to Constanta. Therefore,
the prices for transport by truck were obtained from a Hungarian trucker. The distance
Constanta – Budapest is around 1,050 road km, Constanta – Vienna around 1,300 km. The
transport time for the two routes is around two to three days taking rest times into account.
Due to the enormous waiting times at the Romanian-Hungarian border (at times up to 48 hrs)
the route is not very “popular”. The trucking rates are probably less expensive at Romanian
road haulier companies.
Table 8: Truck prices door-to-door
Constanta � Budapest
€ 1,100
Budapest � Constanta
€ 1,400
Constanta � Vienna
€ 1,600
Vienna � Constantza
€ 1,800
Source: Hungarian Road Haulier, July 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 29 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
2.2 Forecast of the flow of goods (ÖIR) 3
The study investigated the potential transport volumes of scheduled Danube container
services in a macro-economic analysis (“COLD Potential”).Two methods were applied to
confirm the results:
The first method taken is based on an analysis of foreign trade between Austria, Slovakia and
Hungary, on the one hand, and the southeast European countries and overseas regions, on
the other.
• First, an overall modal potential was derived from the potential containerisation of the
groups of goods and from the assumptions regarding the large-scale route selection.
• In a second step, the inland navigation potential within the Danube region was derived
from the growth forecasts for the Black Sea ports (OCS, 2005: +7.5 % p.a.) and
current shipments via Black Sea ports.
• In a third step, the potential for scheduled container services (COLD potential) was
calculated, with the attainable share being assessed at 5 % of the inland navigation
potential.
The results were backed up by a parallel, second forecasting approach based on the already
available forecasts for the ports of relevance for Danube navigation.
The study arrives at a potential for inland navigation for all three Dan ube countries for
the year 2003 of 180,000 to 280,000 TEU. As early a s in 2010, an increase is expected to
650,000 - 1.15mn TEU and by 2020 of 1.3 to 2.4mn TE U. The inland navigation potential for
Austria is estimated at around 1.25mn TEU by 2020.
Compared to the figures for current overseas container volumes in Chapter 2.1, the following
should be pointed out:
• The calculation was based on a theoretical containerisation. However, the degree of
containerisation in European goods traffic is constantly rising, and therefore, it is well-
founded to argue a containerisation potential.
• The calculation includes continental shipments in the Danube region as well as short-
sea (Maghreb, Levant, Turkey) and overseas shipments (Near East, Southeast and
3 The following text corresponds to the Executive Summary of the Study “Macro-economic Analysis of Transport Flows in the Project COLD” of the Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning (Österreichische Institut für Raumplanung, ÖIR) which was
commissioned by via donau and prepared in 1HY 2006. The complete study is available upon request in PDF format, and German language from [email protected].
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 30 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
East Asia). Broken down by route, around half of the total modal containerisation
potential in the base year 2003 was accounted for routes in the Danube region
(Eastern Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine). These are followed by routes
to the US (16 %), short sea routes (13 %) and East Asia (11 %).
In a last step of the study, the attainable potential for scheduled Danube services (“COLD
Potential”) was assumed at a share of 5 % for inland navigation. The share was set rather low
at 5 %, because:
• the inland navigation potential (containerisation potential) had already been
generously assumed, and
• the limited number of departures of the scheduled services and the longer transport
times would diminish the appeal versus rail transport (share of time-sensitive goods),
and
• finally, the introduction on the market requires an adequate amount of time.
In the area of the Danube states, 9,000 to 14,000 TEU per year are expected, by 2010 a
volume of 33,000 to 57,000 TEU p.a., and by 2020 al most 120,000 TEU p.a. The
corresponding figures for Austria amount to 63,000 TEU per year.
The table on the next page summarises the results.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 31 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Table 9: COLD Potential, forecasting method foreig n trade
Inland navigation potential COLD potential (5 %)
1,000 TEU Exports Imports Total Exports Imports Total
from to from to from to from to from to from to
Austria
Status 2003 27 85 50 74 77 158 1 4 3 4 4 8
Forecast 2007 57 206 103 213 160 419 3 10 5 11 8 21
Forecast 2010 80 298 142 317 223 615 4 15 7 16 11 31
Forecast 2015 119 450 208 491 327 941 6 22 10 25 16 47
Forecast 2020 157 602 274 664 432 1.267 8 30 14 33 22 63
Hungary
Status 2003 30 32 42 50 72 82 1 2 2 3 4 4 Forecast 2007 86 104 121 150 207 253 4 5 6 7 10 13 Forecast 2010 128 158 180 224 308 382 6 8 9 11 15 19 Forecast 2015 198 248 279 349 477 596 10 12 14 17 24 30 Forecast 2020 268 338 378 473 646 811 13 17 19 24 32 41
Slovakia
Status 2003 17 19 10 14 28 33 1 1 1 1 1 2 Forecast 2007 50 61 30 38 81 99 3 3 2 2 4 5 Forecast 2010 75 93 45 56 120 149 4 5 2 3 6 7 Forecast 2015 116 145 70 87 186 232 6 7 3 4 9 12 Forecast 2020 158 198 94 117 252 315 8 10 5 6 13 16
Total
Status 2003 74 144 102 139 176 282 4 7 5 7 9 14
Forecast 2007 194 377 254 401 448 778 10 19 13 20 22 39
Forecast 2010 284 552 367 598 651 1,150 14 28 18 30 33 57
Forecast 2015 433 843 557 926 990 1,769 22 42 28 46 50 88
Forecast 2020 583 1,135 746 1,254 1,329 2,389 29 57 37 63 66 119
Source: ÖIR, 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 32 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
3 INLAND NAVIGATION CONCEPT
The Trans-European Transport Corridor VII, the Danube, links the Black Sea port of Constanta
with the economic centers in Central Europe, e.g., with the capitals of Belgrade, Budapest and
Vienna. After the elimination of the pontoon bridge at Novi Sad in the autumn of 2005, it is now
possible for ships to navigate without interruption or hindrances through the entire route. In
contrast to the structures of western inland navigation on the Rhine and other rivers, on the
Danube, ships must cover much longer distances and pass several border-crossings.
However, this situation is also a great opportunity for Danube navigation, because the long
distances can be covered economically by ship and the waiting times at border-crossings are
minimal due to the free capacities.
Figure 13: The Danube as a link from Central Europ e to the Black Sea
Source: Manual on Danube Navigation, via donau, 2005
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 33 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The destination and departure port in the hinterland of the inland port of Krems in Lower
Austria was selected for the further analysis. Krems is located at Danube km 1998 and has
two dock basins with a total quay length of 1,500 m as well as two KÜNZ bridge cranes with a
maximum capacity of 50 t. The privately-owned operating company of the port (Mierka
Donauhafen Krems GesmbH & Co. KG) was founded in 1939 and is managed by Hubert
Mierka since 1974. The container terminal of the port is operated by the subsidiary WienCont
Krems and reported a total transhipment volume of 40,000 TEU in 2005.
On 20 October 2005, the port of Krems and the port of Constanta signed a marketing
cooperation agreement. The objective is to intensify business between the ports and increase
the use of the Danube.
Figure 14: Container transhipment at the Mierka Do nauhafen Krems
Source: Mierka Donauhafen Krems – www.mierka.com
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 34 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The distance between Krems and Constanta is 1,763 river kilometres and there are eight locks
(Altenwörth, Greifenstein, Wien-Freudenau, Gabcikovo, Iron Gate I and II, Cernavoda and
Agigea). By way of comparison: The distance on the river between Krems and Rotterdam is
almost just as long, but it has 62 locks! Therefore, in this respect the Eastern route is much
more advantageous.
Figure 15: Distances and inland ports
Source: via donau, 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 35 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The first activities for scheduled container services have already been launched on the lower
Danube section. Thus, the company Jugoagent started scheduled services between
Constanta and Belgrade in May 2005 together with ZIM Lines, the port of Belgrade and BRP
(Bulgarian River Shipping Company). Every 15 days, large pushed barges from BRP (four
containers across, a total of 80 TEU in double stacks) depart from Belgrade or Constanta.
Transport prices for full container are around € 300 / 20 ft. and € 430 / 40 ft. container per
route.
Until May 2006, 738 TEU were transported on the Danube, i.e., on average 60 TEU per
month. It is obvious that the capacity of inland navigation is not being fully exploited. The
integration of the container barges into convoys with bulk cargo helps to guarantee the
continuation of the services. It is very difficult to increase the capacity utilization due to the
limited container market in Serbia – estimates state 20,000 TEU p.a. for the entire country.
The company is therefore considering an expansion of the services to Budapest.
Figure 16: Photographs Scheduled Container Service s Belgrade - Constanta
Source: Sasa Jovanovic, Jugoagent, 2006
The critical factors of the inland navigation concept are travel times and costs . The analysis
presents the information provided by Alexandru Capatu (base scenario: conventional ships)
and the calculations by via donau (optimised scenario, use of ships adapted for containers).
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 36 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The following rough structure applies to the costs:
Table 10: Rough structure of the costs of inland na vigation
Availability costs (ship staff, depreciation, insurances, etc.)
+ Operation costs (fuel and lubricants)
+ Transhipment costs at inland ports
+ Fees for Black Sea Canal
BASIC COSTS INLAND VESSEL
3.1 Definition of the Liner Service Concept
Scheduled container services are defined in this study as meeting the following criteria :
• Keeping deadlines and binding offers even if the waterway is temporarily unavailable
(nautical hindrances),
• Existence of a time schedule (at least every 14 days),
• Service available throughout the year (in both directions),
• Offer made to the general public
3.2 Hindrances to Danube navigation
Generally, a differentiation must be made between blocked navigation for safety reasons due
to flooding or ice and the limited use in low-water periods.
• Blocked navigation: In January and February 2006, ice formed on the Danube after
many years for the first time and this caused the locks in Austria to be closed thus
bringing navigation to a standstill. Immediately following the ice came the flooding,
which affected mainly the regions of the lower Danube especially in Romania. In the
event of flooding, navigation must be suspended for safety reasons as well. However,
over the long-year average, the times of blocked na vigation are only 3 to 4 days
per year.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 37 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
• Restricted use due to low water levels: In the free-flowing sections the fairway depth
becomes low in the event of low waters, which limits the possible draught of the
vessels and thus restricts the use of the vessel’s capacity. Restrictions due to low
waters occur frequently, but should not cause any d isadvantages to customers
of scheduled Danube container services .
In the event of low water, there are several possible responses for Danube navigation. The
draught of the vessels can be lowered by reducing the payload (tonnage). Either fewer full
containers are transported (and more empty ones) or the cargo is distributed across additional
barges. The latter option would slightly prolong the travel time.
In the event of extremely low waters and if the river is blocked, the response is to turn to
alternative transport routes and means (substitute transport ), which is very likely to incur
higher costs. The study also investigated the options for buying insurance against such
additional costs. None of the insurance companies interviewed has an appropriate product on
offer now (among other things, explained by the lacking statistics on the Danube region).
The substitute mode of transport in the event of longer-lasting hindrances to Danube
navigation should be rail and truck in the Danube Corridor (it is assumed that regular railway
lines will run from Constanta to Vienna in the future, for example). In special cases, a
somewhat more complicated variant using feeder vessels at sea ports in the Adriatic Sea is
feasible.
• In the case of a go ahead decision for an alternative mode of transport, Austrian
imports containers in Constanta are loaded onto a feeder vessel to Koper/Trieste
instead of onto the inland vessel, and from there to the sea port shuttle train "Butterfly"
overnight to Villach and then (plus 1 day) to Krems.
• For Austrian exports ex Krems, the containers are loaded onto the railway line to
Villach instead of onto the inland vessel and from there to the sea port shuttle train
”Butterfly” (overnight connection to Trieste/Koper) and from there to a feeder vessel to
Gioia Tauro, Taranto, Piräus, Malta, Damiette, etc. for shippment on a direct line to
Asia.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 38 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
3.3 Inland port charges
To guarantee comparability with the shuttle train rates in Chapter 2.1, which usually include
crane handling, the costs of the inland port must be added to the calculated “production costs”
of inland navigation.
These consist of the tariff for waterside handling and the pierage. As shown in Table 11 a
differentiation is made at Danube ports between empty and full containers for lifting waterside,
but not between 20 ft. and 40 ft. (exception: Belgrade port). The rates are higher on average
than the rates for land-side lifting (probably due to the need to use the more expense bridge
cranes). On the average of the four Austrian ports, transhipment of full containers waterside
costs €35 per lift.
Table 11: Container transhipment rates at selected inland ports
Linz Enns Krems Vienna Budapest Belgrade
OperatorContact
Linz AG EHG WienCont WienContMAHART Container
CenterPort of Belgrade
landside empty € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 25.00 € 25 / € 33landside full € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 34.00 € 25 / € 33
waterside empty € 33.20 € 27.00 € 24.00 € 24.00 € 25.00 € 30 / € 40waterside full € 40.40 € 33.00 € 32.70 € 32.70 € 34.00 € 45 / € 66
plus € 23 for indirect handling
- -different tariffs for
20 ft/40 ft
Storage fee
full containers:up to 3 workdays free,next 4-7 days € 1.00
/TEU/day,as of day 8 € 2.00
/TEU/day
empty containers:up to 7 workdays free,
afterwards € 0.87 /TEU/day
full containers:up to 3 workdays free,
afterwards € 1.00 /TEU/day
empty containers:up to 7 workdays free, afterwards € 0.87 /TEU
and day
full containers:€ 3.63 /TEU/day
empty containers:€ 1.82 /TEU/day
full containers:€ 3.63 /TEU/day
empty containers:€ 1.82 /TEU/day
full containers:up to 3 workday free,next 4-10 days € 8.00
/TEU/day, 10-20 days € 15.00
/TEU/day; as of day 21 € 20.00
/TEU/day
empty containers: € 3.00/TEU/day
14 days free, afterwards
20 ft € 0.50/day40 ft € 1.00/day
For empty containers, an additional handling fee is charged, because they are transferred
from storage to the quai or v.v.
Another cost element at ports is the pierage for inland navigation. The fee per tonne
transhipped is € 0.38 and at an assumed container weight of up to 14 to including tare it is
about € 5 per TEU and € 10 per 40 ft. container.
Therefore, a total of € 40 per 20 ft. and € 45 per 40 ft. container are to be added to the
ship’s operating costs per container.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 39 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
3.4 Fees for Black Sea Canal
Constanta is linked to the Danube via the 64.4 km long Danube-Black Sea-Canal which starts
at Cernavoda at Danube km 300. It shortens the distance to the Black Sea by 240 km. The
mouth of the river in Constanta is at the southern part of the port right near the new CSCT and
the planned inland navigation terminal. There are two locks to be passed: one at Cernavoda at
the west end of the canal and Agigea at the east end.
Figure 17: Photographs of Black Seal Canal
Photograph: Cernavoda lock Agigea lock
Source: www.acn.ro
The state-owned canal management body at Constanta (ACN) is responsible for collecting the
passage fees. As a rule, € 0.50 per ton deadweight of the convoy (€ 0.48 > 4,000 t) are due.
Based on three examples, the – relatively high – amount of these fees is illustrated.
• Coupled formation consisting of motorised cargo vessel and 1 barge, 1,400 resp.
1,700 to deadweight: (1,400 + 1,700 = 3,100) x € 0.50 = € 1,550 per passage/direction
• Push-boat without barge: 2,400 HP x € 0.20 = € 480 per passage/direction
• 3-vessel convoy consisting of 1 motorised goods vessel (1,400 to deadweight) and 2
barges (1,400 + 1,700 + 1,700 = 4,800) x € 0.48 = € 2,300 per passage/direction
Special agreements need to be considered for the im plementation of scheduled
services (fixed passage fee per container, discount s for empty containers, etc.).
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 40 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
3.5 Travel times and operating costs of ships (base scenario)
In accordance with the information provided by Alexandru Capatu (representative of
Constanta port in Vienna and expert for Danube navigation), a scheduled service line using
existing, conventional Danube ships for the route Krems – Constanta - Krems is described.
For the concept, convoys of ships made up of motorised cargo vessel (also called self-
propelled vessel) and non-motorised barges were selected. A small self-propelled vessel with
around 1,500 t deadweight and 900 HP was selected for cost reasons (rent and fuel) that can
push a barge. A convoy consisting of a push boat and two barges would be much slower
according to navigation experts (resistance of currents, effectiveness of propeller).
Figure 18: Proposed convoy of ships (base scenario )
60 TEU 60 TEU Total 120 TEU
Source: via donau
The cargo hold of the self-propelled ship can carry up to 30 TEU per stack (10 TEU
lengthwise, 3 TEU across) and double stacks, i.e., total 60 TEU or 30 40 ft containers can be
transported. The barge with a hold of 65 x 7.95 m can also carry 30 TEU per stack and
therefore a total of 60 TEU can be transported. The capacity of such conventional double
convoys is 120 TEU.
At an average container weight of 14 to per TEU (incl. tara), the cargo weight per ship is 840
tonnes. A loaded draught of 1.60 m to 1.80 m is achieved with such a cargo and thus the ship
should be able to navigate in low waters without problems as well.
The loading of these ships can only be done in double stacks. The reasons are:
• Lacking stability of the ship units as well as lacking extendable wheel house (to
guarantee the captain unhindered view).
• Ship’s deck is not reinforced (greatest weight at the four corner fittings of the
containers).
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 41 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
To be able to guarantee one fixed departure per week for the scheduled line, a round trip
Krems – Constanta – Krems of three weeks and the use of three convoys is proposed.
The following draft schedule by Mr. Capatu assumes a departure every Friday from Krems and
every Sunday from Constanta. The effective travel time of the containers would therefore be
12 days upstream Constanta – Krems and 8 days downstream Krems – Constanta.
Figure 19: Scheduled services Krems – Constanta (b ase scenario)
Fr Su Fr Su Fr Su Fr Su
Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Convoy I 1 2 3 4 5 X 6 7 8 9 10 KR
1 2 3 X 4 5 6 B CO
1 2 3 4 5 X 6
Convoy II 3 X 4 5 6 B CO
1 2 3 4 5 X 6 7 8 9 10 KR
1 2 3 X 4 5 6 B CO
Convoy III 7 8 9 10 KR
1 2 3 X 4 5 6 B CO
1 2 3 4 5 X 6 7 8 9 10 KR
1 2
CO Konstanza
KR Krems
Upstream
Downstream
B Buffer
X Border crossing or stay at port
Source: DI Alexandru Capatu
In the case of an all-year service (17 round trips per convoy and year), an annual capacity of
4,100 TEU per convoy can be achieved. By using three convoys, the total capacity in this
system amounts to around 12,500 TEU per year.
According to Mr. Capatu, the costs of one round tri p of the convoy must be estimated at
least at € 70,000 (inclusive of fees for passage of the Black Sea Canal).
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 42 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
This results in the following costs for the round-trip Krems – Constanta – Krems:
Figure 20: Calculation of ship’s costs per contain er (base scenario)
Relation: Krems - ConstantaTyp of vessel: MCV + PL, capacity per 60 TEUCapacity of convoy 120 TEUround-trip time 21 DaysLump sum cost per round-trip € 70,000
Utilisation 100% 90% 75% 50%TEU per round-trip 240 216 180 120Vessel cost per TEU 291.67 € 324.07 € 388.89 € 583.33 € incl. canal fees
Waterside handling fee per container 35.00 € 35.00 € 35.00 € 35.00 € Pierage per TEU 5.00 € 5.00 € 5.00 € 5.00 €
Basic cost 20' 331.67 € 364.07 € 428.89 € 623.33 € Basic cost 40' 628.33 € 693.15 € 822.78 € 1,211.67 €
!
For the base scenario and the double stacking of
containers, 90 % capacity utilization is assumed to be
realistic and attainable. This means that 216 TEU a re
transported on every round trip. Taking the transhi pment
costs and port fees into account, the basic costs a re around
€ 364 for a 20 ft. container and € 693 for a 40 ft. container.
In comparison, the estimated value in Chapter 2.1.1 for the
rail connection from Krems to Rotterdam is stated a t € 340 /
TEU and € 670 / 40 ft. Travel time: A-C.
The basic costs of Danube navigation are thus more or less
just as high as the customer rates for rail transpo rt. The
capacity of Danube navigation and the inherent cost
advantages per container are not fully exploited in this
scenario. However, it would be possible to start su ch a
service at any time, as there are ships and (intere sted
operators) in the Danube region.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 43 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
3.6 Transit times and operating costs of ships (opt imised scenario)
The basis for the calculations of the project team for the optimised scenario is a convoy of
ships consisting of a motorised cargo vessel (MCV) (“Steinklasse”4) and one pushed barge for
containers. These ships are currently in use at DDSG Cargo GmbH. The motorised cargo
vessel has a capacity of 90 TEU (3 containers across, 10 TEU lengthwise, 3 stacks), the
pushed barge has 132 TEU (4 across, 11 lengthwise, 3 stacks). The horsepower is 1,650 HP
(means 1,500 HP on the propeller, i.e., some 1,100 kW).
Figure 21: MCV "Greifenstein" with pushed barge at Budapest port
Source: Pilot project DCS (Danube Combined Services), December 2001
The optimised scenario assumes triple-stack loading. The necessary air clearance of around
seven metres is given at almost all bridges east of Krems, even at high water levels. The only
exception is the “temporary railway bridge Novi Sad“ at km 1254.3; the air clearance there is
4 The “Steinklasse“ comprises the sister ships Aggstein, Dürnstein, Greifenstein, Jochenstein, Kreuzenstein and Partenstein of DDSG Cargo. These motorised cargo vessel were built in 1974/75 at the wharf in Linz and have a length of 95 m, a width of 11.4 m, a
maximum deadweigt of 2,000 tonnes at a loaded draught of 2.70 m and a horsepower of 2 x 750 resp. 2 x 825 HP. Dürnstein has an extendable wheel house.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 44 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
6.82 at highest navigable water level – this occurs only on a few days at year. The calculations
of the air clearance and the list of bridges is contained in Annex C.
The calculation of travel times is based on the assumption of maximum load and the current
speed per section of the route as well as two scenarios for the fairway depth (average water
level and low navigation and regulation level. When the water is “good“, the upstream trip
takes longer due to the faster currents, while the downstream trip is shorter of course.
The average travel speed is between 6 and 12 km/h upstream and 12 to 20 km/h downstream.
On the route Constanta – Krems, around 30 % of the total route of 1,760 km is dammed and
70 % is free-flowing.
Figure 22: Transit time Constanta – Krems (optimis ed scenario)
Krems – Constanta Transit time in hours
WL = 5 m
~ AWL
WL = 3.5 resp. 4 m
~ LNWL
Downstream 91.6 109.9
Upstream 161.4 153.4
253.0 263.4
WL …Water Level
AWL …Average Water Level
LNWL …Low Navigable Water Level
The further calculation depends on the duration of the round trip at an average water level.
The longer trips at low navigation regulation level (LNRL) (around 10 hours) are compensated
by smaller loads, shorter transhipment times or the convoy formation "cigar" as of km 1811
downstream (see Annex D). The pure travel time is therefore in the ideal case 92 hours
downstream and 162 hours upstream. If the schedule of operation is 24/7 (24 hours a day,
7 days a week) this would mean almost 4 days downstream and 6.5 days upstream. The
waiting times at border crossings, locks and ports must be added to the pure travel time.
There are eight locks between Krems and Constanta: Altenwörth, Greifenstein, Vienna-
Freudenau, Gabcikovo, Iron Gate I and II, Cernavoda and Agigea. The three Austrian locks
can be assumed to take around 45 minutes locking time, while for Gabcikovo and Iron Gate II
1.5 hours are to be expected and for the other three locks around 3 hours per lock. This
means an amount of time needed of roughly 11.25 hours per direction and 22.5 hours for the
round trip.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 45 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The border crossings in Serbia (Bezdan and Veliko Gradiste) and Hungary (Mohacs) take
about 3 hours on average in each case. This requires an advance notification of the border
officials or the agency on site. The stays in Slovakia (Komarno) and Austria (Vienna) take
around 2 hours. This means an amount of time of roughly 13 hours per direction and 26 hours
for the round trip.
Furthermore, waiting times of inland vessels at sea and inland ports must be taken into
account (transhipment, transfer and making the containers available). The number of hours
assumed for the port of Krems is 18 (incl. buffer) and for the sea port Constanta is 24 hours in
each direction per round trip, thus 36 and 48 hours, which equals 84 hours all together.
Figure 23: Transit time Krems – Constanta – Krems (optimised scenario)
Transit time per round-trip Krems-Constanta-Krems ( optimised scenario)
Necessary hours downstream upstream round-trip
Transit time only 91.58 161.39 252.98Locks 11.25 11.25 22.50Border crossing 13.00 13.00 26.00Krems: Handling + buffer 18.00 18.00 36.00Constanta: Handling + buffer 24.00 24.00 48.00
157.83 227.64 385.48
Necessary days with 24-hrs-operation
6.6 9.5 16.1
! In total, the round trip Krems – Constanta – Krems would take
16 days (1/3 standing times at ports, locks and border crossings).
If the service is operated year round and 22 round trips are
made per year, the theoretical capacity per convoy would be
around 10,000 TEU and year. If two convoys are used , then
there could be a departure every 8 days, and the to tal
capacity per year would be 20,000 TEU.
(See detailed calculation of travel times in Annex F)
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 46 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
3.6.1.1 Costs
The detailed calculations for standby costs and travel costs are included in Annexes G and H.
The following tables summarise the results.
Table 12: Cost calculation inland vessel round trip Constanta – Krems – Constanta
Utilisation ratio 100% 75% 50%TEU / Payload in round-trip 444 / 6,216 333 / 4,662 222 / 3,108
Standby costs (MCV + PL)Daily costs € 1,954.- x
16 days round-trip€ 31,261 € 31,261 € 31,261
Operating costs round-trip(MCV)
70,000 l Gas oil at full capacity
€ 46 per 100 l, incl. Lubricants
€ 32,533 € 28,467 € 24,400
TOTAL VESSEL COSTS € 63,794 € 59,727 € 55,661
Remarkable is the fact that the costs of travel (fuel consumption and lubricant) are just as high
at 75 % capacity utilization as the standby costs. Just like in other sectors, the rising oil price
plays a significant role here.
The charges for travelling on the Black Sea Canal amount to exactly € 3,793 for the round trip
at 0.48 € / t deadweight for the convoy types selected. In the event of scheduled services,
special terms should be accorded (fixed price per TEU, volume discounts).
The total costs in this system are therefore around € 67,000 (base scenario € 70,000) at
full capacity including the charges for travelling the Black Sea Canal.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 47 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Figure 24: Calculation of ship’s costs per containe r (optimised scenario)
Relation: Krems - ConstantaTyp of vessel: MCV + PL, capacity 90/132 TEUCapacity of convoy 222 TEUround-trip time 16 Days
Utilisation 100%* 75% 50%
Cost per round-trip € 63,794 € 59,727 € 55,661TEU per round-trip 444 333 222Vessel cost per TEU 143.68 € 179.36 € 250.72 €
Canal fee per TEU 8.54 € 11.39 € 17.08 €
Waterside handling fee per container 35.00 € 35.00 € 35.00 € Pierage per TEU 5.00 € 5.00 € 5.00 €
Basic cost 20' 192.22 € 230.75 € 307.80 € Basic cost 40' 349.44 € 426.50 € 580.61 €
* Required fairway depth not available all year round
! With the 75 % capacity utilisation deemed realistic here, the
basic costs amount to around € 231 per TEU or € 427 per 40 ft.
container. This is much less than the reference val ue for the
railway route Krems-Rotterdam (€ 340 / TEU or € 670 / 40 ft.).
The triple stack loading creates the significant co st
advantages in inland navigation and thus an attract ive supply
chain variant in combination with overseas navigati on.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 48 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
4 TARGET GROUP OCEAN CARRIERS
Compared to the pilot project, DCS (Danube Combined Services) that failed in 2002 and had
concentrated on continental shipments between Deggendorf, Enns and Budapest, this study
has a focus on the transport of sea containers and thus addresses ocean carriers as a target
group. In the ideal case, what is achieved is a “company barge“ solution or a “dedicated
Danube service“, i.e., the overseas shipping company guarantees the capacity utilisation of
the Danube scheduled services and exclusively adjusts the schedule of the inland vessels to
the shipping company.
The target group for acquisitions of the required annual base therefore includes the globally
active shipping companies listed in the table.
Table 13: Top 10 Container Carrier worldwide
Rank Carrier Headquarters No. of ships Capacity of ships (TEU)
1. A.P. Moeller Maersk (Maersk Line, P&O Nedlloyd, Safmarine)
Copenhagen, Demark
549 1,723,170
2. MSC - Mediterranean Shipping Company
Genf, Switzerland
299 893,503
3. CMA CGM Marseille, France 256 507,954
4. Evergreen Group Taiwan 153 477,911
5. Hapag-Lloyd Germany n.a. 412,344
6. China Shipping (CSCL) China 111 346,493
7. APL Singapore 99 331,437
8. Hanjin / Senator Korea/Germany. n.a. 328,794
9. COSCO Container Line China 118 322,326
10. NYK Japan 105 302,213
11. Mitsui O.S.K. Line (MOL) Japan n.a. 241,282
12. OOCL Hong Kong n.a. 234,141
13. CSAV Group Chile 83 234,002
14. K Line Japan n.a. 227,872
15. ZIM Israel 93 201,432
Source: BRS-Alphaliner, wikipedia.org
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 49 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Although the agencies of most ocean carriers still view Constanta as an “Outport” versus the
“Main ports” of Hamburg and Rotterdam, almost all major companies are already represented
in Constanta. The size of the ships and the frequencies are, of course, smaller, but in addition
to feeder transports from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, there are direct lines already
running to the Far East.
Tabelle 1: The most important ocean carriers at por t of Constanta in 2005
Number of vessels TEU
1. MSC 147 215,286
2. CSAV Norasia 165 177,752
3. CMA CGM 161 108,453
4. ZIM 136 96,363
5. Maersk Line 60 41,327
6. China Shipping C.L. 84 40,756
Source: Port of Constanta
4.1 Overall view of the supply chain – length of ti me and rates
In the following, the inclusion of the Danube into the global supply chain of an overseas
shipping company will be discussed with respect to travel times and costs. The explanations
have no claim to completeness especially not in the area of ocean freight rates and sea port
fees. The calculations are to serve as basis for discussion and foundation for further
considerations and implementation projects.
As an example, an import from Shanghai to Krems and an export from Krems to Shanghai will
be discussed. This supply chain that serves as example will be evaluated as to travel time and
costs. The information used is based on shuttle trains connections (Chapter 2.1), the results of
the inland navigation concept (Chapter 3.6), on on information from ocean carriers and the Far
Eastern Freight Conference (FEFC) on ocean freight rates and port terminal handling charges
(THC).
4.1.1 Transit time
For the deep sea voyage trip from Shanghai to Hamburg the direct liner services of Hapag
Lloyd (Europe - Asia Loop 3/EU3) and Maersk Line have been used as examples. The travel
time for import containers from the Far East to Europe (westbound) as well as export
containers (eastbound) is 27 days. For Constanta, the joint services “Asia-Black-Sea-Service
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 50 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
(ABS)“ by Hapag-Lloyd and CSAV Norasia is assumed at 23 days, therefore the travel time
advantage is four days.
As there is no shuttle train at present for the route Krems – Hamburg, the shuttle train travel
time from Vienna (ICA "Wien Container Express") with an actual transit time of 29 hours for
imports and 40 hours for exports was combined with an additional spoke connection to Krems
(12.5 hrs). The time needed for crane loading and unloading and the transfer to the rail
terminal has been included in the calculation because it covers the time from the closing time
to availability. For the inland vessel (Constanta-Krems) the travel times include locking, border
checks and the time at port of Krems from Chapter 3.6.
The time spent at the sea ports, i.e., loading and unloading the sea vessels and the transfer to
the terminals has been assumed at 24 hours for Hamburg and Constanta.
Table 14: Transit time comparison of the supply cha ins (in days)
Hamburg + Rail
Constanta + IWT
Duration in daysHamburg
+ RailConstanta +
IWT
1.7 8.5Hinterland connection
(transport time rail resp. IWT incl. handling in inland terminals)
2.2 5.5
1.0 1.0 Seaport-time(Hamburg resp. Constanta) 1.0 1.0
27.0 23.0 Deep sea voyage(Direct service) 27.0 23.0
29.7 32.5 30.2 29.5100% 109% 100% 98%
PORT SHANGHAI
I M P O R TShanghai -> Krems
E X P O R TKrems -> Shanghai
PORT of KREMS
! Overall, the variant via Hamburg and subsequent rai l transport results in a travel
time of 30 days for imports and exports. Constanta plus Danube navigation
prolongs the supply chain for imports – due to the longer upstream travel times of
inland vessels – by almost 3 days, i.e. around 10 % . In exports, the same overall
travel time for the supply chain is reached or it i s even slightly shorter. Therefore,
with respect to the travel time there is no major d isadvantage.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 51 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Divergent frequencies in transport in the hinterland has been observed. Due to the already
high volumes, daily departures are offered at Hamburg for both deep sea vessles and shuttle
trains. In the case of Constanta where currently one-tenth of container handling, compared to
Hamburg is done, the frequency is cut to one to three times a week. Therefore, it is
absolutely necessary to coordinate the inland vesse l schedule with the deep sea
vessels schedule.
4.1.2 Costs (Status Quo)
During the period investigated (1st quarter 2006), the basic ocean freight rates 5 to and from
Constanta were higher than the level of the North Sea ports at 2 out of 3 shipping companies
(direct lines were compared, no feeder services). The reasons for this are firstly the strong
competition of the major ocean carriers and secondly the economies of scale due to bigger
deep sea vessels. Constanta would have to be at least just as expensive due to the shorter
transit time in Europe – Asia lines or even less expensive.
Exports to China, e.g. Shanghai were quoted in 1Q 2006 (after the price drops of 2005) at
basic rates of 50 to 100 USD per TEU and 50 to 150 USD per 40 ft. container ex
Rotterdam/Hamburg. The rates for direct shipments ex Constanta were around 50 to 150 USD
higher.
In the major import routes, i.e., shipments from Asia to Europe, the basic rates for the northern
range were quoted at 700 to 800 USD per 20 ft. and 1,400 to 1.500 USD per 40 ft. container.
Comparable direct shipments to Constanta usually cost around 100 to 300 USD more per
container.
The most important surcharges CAF (Currency Adjustment Factor) and BAF (Bunker
Adjustment Factor) were at the same level in 1Q 2006 for the Far East route for
Hamburg/Rotterdam and Constanta.6
As regards imports, the rate disadvantage of Constanta was even heighted by the
“Bosphorus surcharge” of USD 75 / TEU. This surcharge was introduced by the members of
the Far Eastern Freight Conference (FEFC) in December 2005 due to the frequent delays in
the Bosphorus. According to the latest information from CSCL and Hapag Lloyd, since August
2006, no Bosphorus surcharge on imports to Constant a has been collected. This may be
related to the elimination of the construction site (tunnel) in the Bosphorus.
5 Basic ocean freight rate = ocean freight rate exclusive CAF, BAF and other surcharges, excl. THC (Terminal Handling Charges) 6 (CAF approx. 5.5% of the basic rate, BAF approx. 250 USD / TEU)
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 52 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
The amount of the transhipment costs in Hamburg and Constanta, the so-called Terminal
Handling Charges (THC) was calculated on the basis of the information given by shipping
companies and the website of FEFC (Hamburg € 153 /Container, Constanta USD 90/TEU
resp. USD 130/TEU).
The reference values of Chapter 2.1.1 were used for the railway rates per TEU and 40 ft.
container. The costs of inland navigation correspond to the calculated values in the optimised
scenario at 75 % capacity utilisation.
Table 15: Cost comparison of the supply chain (as of 1 Q 206)
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40']
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40']
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40']
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40]
€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-Hinterland connection (Railway
and IWT incl. manipulation in Railway or IWT-Terminals)
€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-
€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,- THC(Hamburg resp. Constanta)
€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,-
€ 825,- € 1,649,- € 1,020,- € 2,039,- Ocean freight rate in Euro(incl. all additionals)
€ 242,- € 442,- € 348,- € 569,-
€ 1,318,- € 2,472,- € 1,322,- € 2,570,- € 735,- € 1,265,- € 650,- € 1,099,-
100% 100% 100% 104% 100% 100% 88% 87%
P O R T S H A N G H A I
Hamburg + Railway Constanta + IWT
P O R T K R E M S
I M P O R TShanghai -> Krems
E X P O R TKrems -> Shanghai
Hamburg + Railway Constanta + IWT
! During the period reviewed 1Q 2006, the supply chai n costs were slightly higher
in imports in the variant via Constanta and the Dan ube. In exports, the cost
advantage of inland navigation is already fully dev eloped and the savings
achieved are up to 13 %.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 53 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
4.1.3 Costs (convergence of ocean freight rates)
A convergence of the Far East ocean freight rates b etween North Sea ports and
Constanta is very likely in the opinion of the proj ect team. The reasons are the continued
growth of container volumes in the Black Sea and thus the greater competition of shipping
companies, the use of larger ocean-going ships and the expansion on local markets. Not least
is the fact that the distance traveled by sea as of the Suez Canal is also more than 4,000 km
shorter.
Another argument for converging prices is the introduction of a temporary surcharge on
imports to the north range. The member shipping companies of FEFC have introduced a
“Peak Season Surcharge (PSS)” of USD 90 per TEU for shipments from Asia (except
Japan) to Northern Europe, Baltic states and Scandinavia. The surcharge entered into force
on 1 June and shall be effective until 31 October 2006. This surcharge will not be collected for
docking in Constanta (Information CSCL, August 2006).
Table 16: Costs of the Supply Chain Krems – Shangh ai (convergence of freight rates)
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40']
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40']
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40']
Tariff[€/TEU]
Tariff[€/40]
€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-Hinterland connection (Railway
and IWT incl. manipulation in Railway or IWT-Terminals)
€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-
€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,- THC(Hamburg resp. Constanta)
€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,-
€ 900,- € 1,800,- € 900,- € 1,800,- Ocean freight rate in Euro(incl. additionals)
€ 325,- € 610,- € 325,- € 610,-
€ 1,393,- € 2,623,- € 1,203,- € 2,330,- € 818,- € 1,433,- € 628,- € 1,140,-
100% 100% 86% 89% 100% 100% 77% 80%
I M P O R TShanghai -> Krems
E X P O R TKrems -> Shanghai
Hamburg + Railway Constanta + IWT
P O R T S H A N G H A I
Hamburg + Railway Constanta + IWT
P O R T K R E M S
! When ocean freight rates converge in the future, th e alternative of Constanta will
become very attractive. In imports, a cost reductio n in the supply chain by 11 % to 14
% will be achieved, and in exports even up to 23 %. The disadvantage of 2 to 3 days
regarding travel time in imports will probably be a cceptable if the cost benefit is so
attractive.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 54 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
4.2 Environmental balance
As a supplement to the calculations regarding travel time and costs, the transport routes
Shanghai – Hamburg – Krems (rail) and Shanghai – Constanta –Krems (inland vessel) were
compared from an environmental perspective. The key ratio here is CO2 emission per TEU.
The detailed calculations are in the Annex J.
A calculation was done to show the dimensions based on a 4,000 TEU sea-going vessel for
Constanta and a 8,000-TEU vessel for Hamburg. At increasing ship sizes in the Black Sea, the
result will of course be even more favourable for Constanta.
The ocean trip breaks down into equal distances for both in the section from Shanghai to the
Suez Canal (Port Said), the smaller ship to Constanta is only slightly worse with respect to
CO2 emissions per TEU. However, from Suez on 3,527 nautical miles have to be covered and
to Constanta it is only 944. On this section, 71 % less CO2 per TEU is produced! In the overall
balance for the ocean section, the variant Constanta is therefore 19 % below the CO2-
emission of the Hamburg variant. [The shipping companies will probably be more interested in
the fuel costs saved…]
In the hinterland, the two environmentally friendly transport means of rail and inland vessel
were compared assuming a 100 % capacity utilisation. The result was a greater advatage for
the Danube downstream, but the railway was slightly ahead upstream due to the stronger
motor power required by the ship. On the round trip, thanks to the transport capacities of the
inland vessel, 2 % less CO2 per TEU is produced.
! If one combines the waterway and hinterland routes, the variant via Constanta
and the Danube produces 22 % less CO 2 per container in exports, 10% less in
imports, and on the round trip 15 % less.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 55 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
4.3 Result of the talks in Vienna, Budapest and Bel grade
The project team via donau conducted many talks with representatives of the major ocean
carriers and agencies in Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade. (A list of all persons contact is in the
Annex A.) In Hungary and Serbia, a staff member with knowledge of the regional language
was employed. The most important statements are summarised in the following section:
4.3.1 Results of talks in Austria
The representatives of the ocean carriers in Austria are oriented strongly on the North Sea.
Hamburg is the most important container port for Austria – as mentioned in Chapter 2.1.1 –
followed by Rotterdam and the Bremen ports.
The were complaints of the problems of delivery and removal of containers, but usually only an
alternative within the North Sea range is considered, e.g., Rotterdam instead of Hamburg. The
Adriatic ports are currently not attributed any major significance as container transhipment
ports.
An alternative via Constanta and the Danube seemed a bit “exotic“ for the persons
interviewed. There are frequent prejudices regarding the Danube with respect to reliability
without having any detailed knowledge of the nautical problems in detail (flooding, ice and low
water levels). Some of the persons interviewed generally reject a Danube solution. Others
believe it is a very interesting option over the medium term – on the condition that the quality
of the service and the price are right – and want to be informed on the developments.
Statements by companies interviewed:
• “Ocean freight rates in the Black Sea region are much higher than North continent
rates, because not all shippers are there (The higher rates are positive for ocean
carriers and agencies from the perspective of earnings!)“
• “The travel time is still too long despite the geographically shorter route, especially due
to the bottleneck at the Bosphorus: Even if the construction site is completed in
summer, two days waiting time is still common, e.g. when oil tankers pass through.”
• “Our ship docks directly at Koper and from there I am in Central Europe in two days!“
• “The transit time of inland vessels is not the biggest problem, reliability is a bigger
issue. But in Hamburg there are also massive problems with the railways.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 56 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
• “The conditions are unclear at the Danube ports (keyword terminal-terminal rates).“
• “Customers of our oversea shipping company would never go to Constanta, because
they prefer the “premium” ports on the norther continent (quality aspect), Adria is
possible but Romania is viewed as Balkan.“
• “The logical alternative to the North Sea ports is the Adriatic Sea (geographic vicinity!),
Koper and Trieste ought to cooperate more closely.“
• “Austrian carriers are only permitted to book direct ships via Constanta if there is no
direct service. In Austria customers are generally forwarders and they are allowed
Merchant’s Haulage (detention-free time7: Imports: 6-7 days, Exports: 12-14 days).“
• “The most important ports of Bremerhaven and Rotterdam for Austria have enormous
problems, in Rotterdam the ECT computer was down last week and there was a strike
at the APM-Terminal, in Bremerhaven capacities are exhausted it is not possible to
enlarge.“
• “We view the idea of a scheduled container services on the Danube positively if the
two issues are met of “keeping the schedule“ and “all-year service also if nautical
hindrances occur“.
• “We would urgently need inland vessel offers for the transport of empty containers
between Hungary and Austria.“
• “The capacity problems in access to and from the North Sea ports will become worse
in the foreseable future, we believe the Danube is a good alternative.“
• “Even the commercial banks in Europe and the Far East should be informed of
Constanta and the Danube transports so that they can advise their clients on opening
letters of credit. (Motto: No longer “any European port”, but explicitely “Constanta” or
similar).“
• “Sea containers should ultimately be only the backbone of the service, while the
”meat” should come from continental shipments. For logistics providers this is a very
attractive option due to the fierce competition among maritime operators“
7 Detention: Container rental if the empty container is not returned on time. Demurrage: Container rental if the container is not received as delivered at the port with a specific time.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 57 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
4.3.2 Result of talks in Hungary (Budapest)
Overseas shipping companies in Hungary choose 65 % to 75 % the route through the North
Sea ports and some 30 % the Mediterranean and Adriatic ports (see Chapter 2.1.2).
Since the failed attempt by the Budapest port to set up a scheduled container service along
the Danube between Budapest and Constanta, the representatives of ocean carriers have
been very sceptical in Hungary, almost negative to all inland navigation efforts. Not much
potential is perceived in full containers, while empty containers are a theme.
Statements by companies interviewed:
• “Constanta does not play any role for business in Hungary today, but for Romania,
Bulgaria, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and the Caucasus states it is important.“
• “We export many empty containers to Constanta, but no full containers. In imports
there are currently no containers in Constanta destined for Hungary.”
• “We drive to Constanta 2 to 3 times a week by truck or rail. The transhipment, storage,
loading and unloading functions perfectly since DP World has become operator.”
• We are theoretically in favour of a scheduled container line on the Danube but we do
not want to be the guinea pigs. Just do it, we will then see.”
• “The Bosporus is not a problem for us; we drive through once a week and have not
had any major problems yet.”
• “Up to now we have been using inland navigation only for empty containers – freight
price and transport times must be right for us.”
• “If the service offered is attractive and timely, then we can talk about it.”
• “As of right now there are 60 empty containers for loading ready in Budapest, we are
looking for barges. Even to Giurgiu! We thought you were a Danube shipping
company that accepts goods for direct forwarding.”
• We really need a Danube ship that can take our empty containers from Budapest to
Constanta. The price of the shipment should not be more than €400 per container.”
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 58 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
4.3.3 Result of the talks in Serbia (Belgrade)
Generally, container volumes in Serbia are very small. In 2005, an estimated 20,000 TEU
were transported. First, there are only few Serbian exports (US Steel Smederevo, Tiger tire
factory in Pirot). Second, the degree of containerisation in Serbia is generally very low, and
part of the goods is transferred to trucks at the seaports. Imports are three times as high as
exports. Imported goods come mostly from Asia, i.e., consumer goods such as electronics,
textiles, shoes and food.
Table 17: Container volumes in Serbia (Estimates f or 2005)
FIRM Import Export Total
HUB Dunav 3,000 TEU 1,000 TEU 4,000 TEU
Maersk 1,000 TEU 800 TEU 1,800 TEU
MSC 4,500 TEU 500 TEU 5,000 TEU
CMA-CGM 2,000 TEU 500 TEU 2,500 TEU
Jugoagent 4,000 TEU 2,500 TEU 6,500 TEU
TOTAL 14,500 TEU 5,300 TEU 19,800 TEU
Source: Interviews of via donau in Serbia, 1HY 2006
Bar, Rijeka and Koper are currently the most lively and frequently used ports by the ocean
carriers in Serbia. None of the companies interviewed ships regularly via ARA ports. Only 1 –
2 containers per year go through Rotterdam to Serbia; most orders are moving households of
diplomats.
Jugoagent has been operating a regular scheduled container service line since the beginning
of May 2005 on the Danube between Belgrade and Constanta. Apart from ZIM, other shippers
also use this service.
Statements by companies interviewed:
• “We prefer the ports of Koper, Rijeka, Bar and Thessalonica. For Rijeka, we use
mainly trucks, Koper and Bar have good connection with Belgrade by rail.”
• “A Danube solution must be attractive versus road and rail with respect to price and
travel time!”
• “To connect Serbia via the Danube, the port in Belgrade must be included (to solve
transport and customs problems).”
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 59 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
• “It is a question of time; our customers are accustomed to conventional destinations. If
the delivery time and price are right, we can talk about Danube navigation to and from
Constanta.”
• “The great risk to the Danube is ice and the high and low water levels; furthermore,
the avian flu halted transport this year.”
• “In addition to Bar, we will look more closely to Constanta, the port will receive more
and more goods from the Far East and the Serbian market will absorb part of it.“
• “We would greatly appreciate if all Danube countries were to cooperate in the COLD
project; we have enjoyed working with via donau in Vienna very much.”
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 60 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
There are many signs that the Black Sea ports will develop into a serious alternative to the
northern and southern ports and that Constanta will retain or even expand its leading position
on the Black Sea. This will create an enormous need for efficient connections in the hinterland
to and from Constanta. Only a small part of containers will stay within a 100 km radius – and
will be transported mainly by truck. Apart from a significant share of feeder containers that are
moved by short-sea shipping, a large share of hinterland containers will go to Central
European destinations. A choice will have to be made for these shipments to Serbia, Hungary,
Slovakia and Austria between truck, rail and Danube. Considering the infrastructure deficits of
railways in Eastern Europe and the disadvantages of shipping by truck over long hauls, inland
navigations seems the logical alternative. Generally, it can solve the tasks of hinterland
transport very well as the examples in Western Europe show.
For Austria’s economy, the advantages of a positive development of Danube container
transport will lie in the opening of new, inexpensive transport alternatives in the growth regions
of the lower Danube, Black Sea and overseas routes (Far East).
As the target group and initiator of heightened use of inland navigation, the ocean carriers play
a very important role. This study reveals that the variant via Constanta and the Danube carries
the potential of large cost cuts if one looks at the entire supply chain (example Krems -
Shanghai). The frequently mentioned longer travel times have not been confirmed for exports
in any case and in imports, the difference is a relatively acceptable two to three days longer.
Apart from efficiency in travel time and costs, a Far East variant via the Black Sea ports and
the Danube boasts a very good environmental balance: 16 % less CO2 per container is
produced.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 61 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
This study can only serve as a stimulus for the further realisation of innovative scheduled
services on the Danube. To verify certain aspects, supplement new details and look into the
subject in more depth, it will be necessary to conduct more talks.
• First, feedback from the ocean carriers and large s hippers (manufacturing
industry) is to be obtained.
The aim is to discuss and examine the results of the study with the target groups of
the ocean carriers. Ultimately, the wait-and-see stance taken by these companies
must be overcome in order to implement a container line. Usually, customers want to
wait until the services to go into operation and observe the quality for some time – only
then will contracts for volumes be signed.
A financially robust and balanced structure of the shareholders of the operating
consortium is necessary. The main partner is to be an ocean carrier, as already
mentioned. The activities of CMA CGM may be used as role model, the company that
founded a subsidiary “River Shuttle Containers” and started a scheduled service on
the Rhône and Seine. (www.river-shuttle.com)
To overcome an impasse, the establishment of a central platform modelled after the
“Antwerp Intermodal Solutions” could be of use (see excursus further below).
Proposal: Organisation of round tables in Austria (e.g. at the chamber of
commerce) and in Constanta (e.g. at the port authorities)
• Subsequently, a detailed analysis and validation of the inland navigation
concept must be conducted
Small Danube ships with double-stack container loading and generous travel times no
longer suffice to adequately take advantage of the potential of Danube navigation. In
comparison to the offers of the railway lines, no attractive services can be offered. The
optimised scenario presented in this study therefore points to larger inland vessels
and as short as possible round trips of 16 days. In the further course of the project, it
will be clarified how such ships can be used. Furthermore, availability of a fairway
depth of 2 to 2,20 m throughout the year must be examined in detail and solutions
found if it drops below this level.
Substitute transport in the event of flooding or ice must also be examined in detail. It is
feasible that the ocean carriers will trigger alternative transport when the containers for
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 62 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
imports are waiting for shipping to the hinterland at Constanta and exports are waiting
in Krems for forwarding to seaports.
An efficient tracking & tracing system as well deviation management using the River
Information Services is called for as well.
The costs of inland navigation can be improved by transporting empty containers and
combining with continental cargo (silo and tank containers) as well as ro/ro shipments.
The effects of the necessary stops at intermediate ports of call remain to be analysed.
Nonetheless, all existing assistance programmes at EU and national level should be
used to minimise the initial losses (Marco Polo programme of the EU and national
UCT assistance8).
Within the scope of the inland navigation concept, procedures at inland ports must be
analysed and if necessary optimised. Efficient container handling at the involved
inland ports and attractive transhipment rates for waterside lifts are called for in this
context.
Proposal: Follow-up project COLD II carried out by via donau in cooperation
with companies that have an interest in setting up, operating and using
scheduled container services between Austria and Romania. The objective is to
draft an operation plan.
8 UCT (unaccompanied combined transport)
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 63 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
EXCURSUS: Antwerp as Model for Intermodal Solutions ?
The port of Antwerp founded a communications platform in February 2006 to raise the share
of modal split of railways in hinterland transport. The “Antwerp Intermodal Solutions – AIS“
project is being carried out jointly with terminal operators PSA HNN and P&O Ports and
supported by the rail infrastructure operator Infrabel.
The starting situation is the low share of rail transport in hinterland transport (approx. 10 %,
road 60 %, IWT. 30 %). Only Maersk Line and MSC operate their own railway services from
Antwerp. Up to now, the ocean carriers have not joined forces to operate shuttle trains
together.
The AIS project group has carried out an analysis to serve as starting point for the discussion
on container transport to and from Antwerp. The results are entered into a platform in which
ocean carriers, agencies, logistics providers and carriers come together. Railway operators
develop proposals for intermodal transport and analyse how many containers are necessary to
operate the connections efficiently. The overseas shipping companies examine the option of
combining container volumes to fill the trains. The plans are to start the first train lines in the
four selected regions in 2006 (Northern Rhine Westphalia, Central Germany, Bavaria and
Northeast France).
The COLD Final Report of via donau could serve as “starter” for a similar communication
platform that could be operated by the port authority Constanta, for example, and is open to
shipping companies and carriers.
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 64 of 64
COLD I Final Report August 2006
For further information and contacts:
For inquiries regarding the project: For inquiries regarding the port of Constanta and inland navigation:
Gerhard Gussmagg Alexandru Capatu
Team Manager Transport Development Managing Director
via donau - Österreichische Wasserstraßen- Gesellschaft mbH
Navromsa AG, Vienna branch
A-1220 Wien, Donau-City-Straße 1 A-1020 Wien, Freudenauerhafenstr. 8
tel +43 (0) 50 4321-1617 tel +43 (1) 729 67 00
fax +43 (0) 50 4321-1050 fax +43 (1) 729 67 01
cell +43 (0) 676 613 99 99 cell +43 (0) 664 302 58 74
[email protected] [email protected]
www.via-donau.org
www.donauschifffahrt.info
COLD CONTAINER LINER SERVICE DANUBE An Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks of Container Transport on the Danube River between Austria and the Black Sea
ANNEX, Vienna at August 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 2 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 3 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
ANNEX
A List of interview partners (in alphabetic order)... ........................................................................ 4
B Calculation of necessary fairway depth (optimised s cenario) ........................................... ....... 6
C Calculation of necessary vertical clearance (optimi sed scenario) ...................................... ..... 7
D Form of convoy (optimised scenario)................ ........................................................................ 10
E Engine power (optimised scenario) .................. ......................................................................... 10
F Transit time calculation inland waterway Constanta - Krems (optimised scenario) ............ 11
G Calculation of standby costs (optimised scenario).. ................................................................ 13
H Calculation of operating- and total costs (optimise d scenario)........................................ ...... 14
I Calculation of supply chain Krems - Shanghai....... .................................................................. 15
J Calculation of environmental balance ............... ........................................................................ 17
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 4 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
A LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTNERS (in alphabetic order)
Between January and July 2006 the project team did a multiplicity of personal interviews with
representatives of ocean carriers, inland navigation, politics and administration.
1. Baumann, Norbert (Managing Director danu transport GmbH, Vienna)
2. Bicsak, Tamás (General Manager, CMA CGM HUNGARY Ltd., Budapest)
3. Brunelik, Gerhard (Sales, IMS Intermove Systems Speditions- und Transport GmbH,
Vienna)
4. Culafic, Vladica (Head of department, Port Belgrade)
5. Dangl, Georg (Group Director Sea Cargo, cargo partner AG, Vienna)
6. Deininger, Paul (CEO, multimar Seefrachtenkontor GesmbH, Vienna)
7. Demmer, Mag. Andreas (Managing Director, Association of Austrian forwarders)
8. Dworczak, Thomas W. (Managing Director, CargoCompass Schifffahrtsagentur
GesmbH [Agency Yang Ming], Vienna)
9. Eden, Prof. Mamut (Director of CAES „Ovidius“ University of Constanta)
10. Fazekas, András (General Manager, Hapag-Lloyd Austria Budapest Office, Budapest)
11. Ghebaur, Liviu (CEO, Northstar Shipping, Constanta)
12. Hannya, Ernesto K. (Managing Director, China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd,
Budapest)
13. Herzig, Herbert (Instructor, WKÖ – Department of finance and trade policy, Vienna)
14. Hofmann, Johannes (CargoCompass Schifffahrtsagentur GesmbH, Vienna)
15. Hutter, Ing. Andre (Insurance broker, Vienna)
16. Jánovszki, László (General Manager, MSC Hungary Ltd., Budapest)
17. Jovanov, Dejan (Director Marketing and Quality Sector, Port Belgrade)
18. Jovanovic, Sasa (Danube Port Agency Department, Jugoagent, Belgrade)
19. Kastner, Franz (Managing Director, MSC Austria GmbH, Vienna)
20. Katanic Rosaj, Zorica (Director, MSC Belgrade)
21. Kerepesi, Márta (General Manager, ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd., Budapest)
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 5 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
22. Klepatsch, Wolfgang K. (Director ocean freight Central Europe, Kühne + Nagel
GesmbH, Linz)
23. Mayer, Christian (Manager Operations, Hapag Lloyd Container Line, Vienna)
24. Michel, Christophe (General Manager, TOUAX SA, Paris)
25. Mierka, Hubert (CEO, Mierka Danube-Port, Krems)
26. Munkas, Zolt (Managing Director YU-Agent, Bezdan)
27. Netkovic, Zoran (General Manager, Jugoagent, Belgrade)
28. Nistor, Andreaa (Port Strategy and European Integration Department, N.C. Maritime
Ports Administration S.A. Constanta)
29. Obucina, Vojislav (Commercial Director, Jugoagent, Belgrade)
30. Presser-Velder, Gion-Otto (Oxford Said Business School, UK)
31. Rankl, Christian (Head of SCHENKER Ocean-Service-Center, St. Pölten)
32. Ruzic, Dragana (Director, CMA CGM – The French Line, Belgrade Repres. Office)
33. Schmid, Gerhard (National Sales Manager, Maersk Österreich GmbH, Vienna)
34. Skundric, Bilijana (General Manager Assistant, Port Belgrade)
35. Somlóvari, László (CEO, Budapesti Szabadkikötö Logisztikai Zrt., Budapest)
36. Stancu, Vasile (Director Executiv, TOUAX ROM S.A., Constanta)
37. Tomassovich, Wolfgang (Managing Director, IMS Intermove Systems Speditions- und
Transport GmbH, Vienna)
38. Uzelac, Ruzica (Director, HUB DUNAV d.o.o. - Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, Belgrade)
39. Visekruna, Petar (Director, Maersk Line Interlog d.o.o., Belgrade)
40. Weigert, Friedrich (Managing Director, Kühne + Nagel Euroshipping GmbH,
Regensburg)
41. Widhofner, Reinhard (Sales Manager, Reedereikontor Meridian, Vienna)
42. Wiesinger, KommR. Manfred E. (Managing Director, CMA CGM Austria GmbH,
Vienna)
43. Winter, Mag. Alexander (Head of department (Ocean freight), Schenker & Co AG,
Vienna)
44. Wowy, Norbert (Manager Sales, Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, Vienna)
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 6 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
B CALCULATION OF NECESSARY FAIRWAY DEPTH (OPTIMISED
SCENARIO)
Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 100 % uti lisation of loading capacity
Container (TEU) Payload (t)
Fuel + Supply Total Draught
Average Draught*
necessary fairway depth
MCV 90 1.260 80 1.340 2,1 2,35 2,65PL 132 1.848 1.848 2,6
Assumption: 14 t / TEU 14 t / TEU
Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 75 % util isation of loading capacity
Container (TEU) Payload (t)
Fuel + Supply Total Draught
Average Draught*
necessary fairway depth
MCV 68 945 80 1.025 1,79 1,96 2,26PL 99 1.386 1.386 2,13
Assumption: 14 t / TEU 14 t / TEU
Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 50 % util isation of loading capacity
Container (TEU) Payload (t)
Fuel + Supply Total Draught
Average Draught*
necessary fairway depth
MCV 51 709 80 789 1,56 1,67 1,97PL 74 1.040 1.040 1,77
Assumption: 14 t / TEU 14 t / TEU
MCV...Motor Cargo VesselPL…Pushed Lighter* reached by balanced loading between MCV and PL (e.g. heavy container on MCV)
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 7 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
C CALCULATION OF NECESSARY VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OPTI MISED
SCENARIO)
Calculation of necessary air clearance (optimised s cenario)
Container type 8'6" 9'6" 8'6" 2 x 8'6" and 1 x 9'6"
1 x 8'6" and 2 x 9'6"
9'6"
Height 5.18 5.79 7.77 8.08 8.39 8.69add. double bottom 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60add. safety distance 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
6.08 6.69 8.67 8.98 9.29 9.59minus draught 1.40 1.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00necessary air clearance
4.68 5.29 6.67 6.98 7.29 7.59
Draught results from payload resp. ballast tank (proportion of empty containers)Container type: External dimensions of container = 8’6“ = 2.591 mm (Standard ISO Container)
External dimensions of container = 9’6“ = 2.896 mm (High Cube Container)
2 Layer 3 Layer
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 8 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
AWL = Average Water Level, period 1961-1990HNWL = Highest Navigable Water Level
#River
Kilometre Bridge Name at AWL HNWL Comment1 2414.25 Road Bridge Kelheim - Maximiliansbrücke 7.52 5.19 17.02 2412.72 Roadbridge - Europabrücke 8.93 6.78 31.003 2,410.10 Roadbridge Saal 8.88 7.00 64.004 2,400.42 Railway brigde Poikam 7.10 6.98 29.005 2,400.24 Brigde Bad Abbach 6.43 6.24 48.006 2,387.60 Motorway bridge Sinzing 41.77 40.90 50.007 2,386.71 Railway bridge Sinzing 11.25 10.51 48.008 2,385.68 Railway bridge Mariaort 9.22 8.72 32.009 2,381.11 Motorway bridge Pfaffenstein 6.71 6.63 39.0010 2,380.17 Oberpfalzbrücke (Regensburg) 6.63 6.40 67.0011 2,379.56 Protzenweiherbrücke (Regensburg) 8.43 5.94 12.0012 2,378.39 Nibelungenbrücke (Regensburg) 8.82 6.28 50.0013 2,376.82 Railway bridge Schwabelweis 8.12 6.07 31.0014 2,376.32 Road bridge Regensburg-Schwabelweis 10.55 8.71 115.0015 2,369.65 Road bridge Donaustauf 9.40 8.83 102.0016 2,358.27 Motorway bridge Wörth 8.25 7.74 140.0017 2,353.33 Road bridge Pfatter 10.62 8.10 85.0018 2,327.52 Road bridge Lock Straubing 10.72 7.93 25.0019 2,325.70 Agnes Bernauer Bridge 11.05 8.20 100.0020 2,316.98 Road bridge Reibersdorf 11.33 8.10 70.0021 2,311.28 Railway bridge Bogen 7.22 4.60 44.0022 2,308.40 Road bridge Bogen 10.77 8.30 75.0023 2,290.12 Motorway bridge Metten 10.83 8.63 70.0024 2,285.87 Railway bridge Deggendorf 6.89 4.40 40.0025 2,285.50 Motorway bridge Fischerdorf 10.78 8.30 100.0026 2,284.60 Road bridge Deggendorf - Maximiliansbrücke 10.68 7.00 100.0027 2,282.50 Motorway bridge Deggenau 11.88 9.00 87.0028 2,266.22 Donau Wald Bridge 11.01 9.80 62.0029 2,249.16 Road bridge Vilshofen 9.27 7.80 90.0030 2,234.26 Motorway bridge Schalding 35.85 35.00 100.0031 2,230.43 RMD Lock bridge Kachlet 12.01 9.40 27.0032 2,230.28 Railway bridge Steinbach 8.91 6.50 59.0033 2,230.10 Franz Josef Strauß Brigde 14.03 11.50 68.0034 2,226.98 Schanzlbrücke (Passau) 10.57 8.30 102.0035 2,225.75 Luitpoldbrücke (Passau) 7.89 5.60 80.0036 2,223.29 Railway bridge Kräutelstein 12.04 9.30 73.0037 2,203.31 Lock bridge Jochenstein 7.75 7.75 24.0038 2,194.10 Road bridge Niederanna 9.59 8.13 101.0039 2,162.92 Lock Aschach - Pedestrian bridge 8.23 24.0040 2,162.94 Lock Aschach - Service bridge 11.66 10.96 24.00 Source for HNWL-levels for Austrian Danube:41 2,159.97 Road bridge Aschach 9.95 8.76 125.00 KWD 1996, WSD, Vienna42 2,146.73 Lock Ottensheim-Wilhering 9.30 9.00 24.0043 2,135.10 Road brigde Linz Nibelungenbr. 9.33 7.77 90.0044 2,133.83 Road and Rail bridge Linz 8.66 7.42 78.0045 2,133.46 Roadbr. Linz (Voest Brücke) 10.71 9.57 153.0046 2,127.73 Road brigde Steyregg 8.59 / 9.01 8.11 / 8.53 70.0047 2,127.68 Rail bridge Steyregg 8.87 / 8.88 8.39 / 8.40 71.0048 2,127.16 Voest-Werkshafen 7.11 6.65 60.0049 2,119.45 Lock Abwinden-Asten 10.90 10.67 24.0050 2,111.05 Bridge Mauthausen (Road & Rail) 9.21 8.08 72.0051 2,094.50 Lock Bridge Wallsee 13.20 9.96 24.0052 2,080.82 Road Bridge Grein 10.71 8.86 100.0053 2,060.42 Lock Bridge Persenbeug 7.96 7.66 24.0054 2,043.60 Road Bridge Pöchlarn 8.57 / 9.16 8.31 / 8.9 80.0055 2,038.12 Bridge Melk (Lock) 10.26 9.96 24.0056 2,034.43 Road Bridge Melk 12.95 9.62 132.0057 2,003.53 Road Bridge Stein - Mautern 8.96 7.64 79.0058 2,001.51 Railway bridge Krems 8.83 / 8.69 31601.00 77 / 7659 1,999.77 Motorway bridge Krems 9.06 8.58 111.0060 1,980.90 Lock bridge 11.46 11.16 24.00
Source for HNWL-levels German Danube: WSD South, Wurzburg
For bridges 1-36: HNWL in the German Danube does not comply with the statistically defined HNWL value (determined by the Danube Commission). Especially in the free flowing section (Straubing - Vilshofen) where the HNWL exceedance probability is beyond 1 % of the ice-free days of a given year.
Vertical clearance upstream / downstream in m
List of Danube Bridges (as of August 2006)
Lateral Clearance in m
(width)
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 9 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
61 1,965.00 Rosenbrücke Tulln 10.36 9.77 151.0062 1,963.15 Old BridgeTulln 8.17 / 8.28 7.9 / 8.01 83.0063 1,949.23 Lock bridge (Greifenstein) 9.86 9.56 24.0064 1,932.62 Nordbrücke Vienna 8.51 / 8.76 8.16 / 8.41 58.0065 1,932.57 Nordsteg 8.76 / 9.07 8.5 / 8.81 58.0066 1,931.71 Floridsdorfer Brücke 8.52 8.32 57.0067 1,931.20 Nordbahnbrücke 8.32 / 8.29 8.15 / 8.12 65.0068 1,931.17 Subway Bridge 8.51 / 8.47 8.35 / 8.31 65.0069 1,930.45 Brigittenauerbrücke 8.66 8.53 64.0070 1,928.90 Reichsbrücke 7.99 / 7.93 7.94 / 7.88 59.0071 1,925.99 Road bridge Donaustadt 8.32 8.24 94.0072 1,925.76 Praterbrücke 7.99 7.91 65.0073 1,924.96 Ostbahnbrücke 8.11 / 8.07 8.03 / 7.99 65.0074 1,921.05 Lock Bridge Freudenau 9.84 9.74 24.0075 1,920.87 Bridge Freudenau 12.05 8.52 59.0076 1,917.70 Pipeline Brücke Mannswörth 14.42 11.16 126.0077 1,914.35 Barbarabrücke Pipe bridge 14.04 10.98 113.6078 1,886.25 Brücke Hainburg 16.42 13.35 114.4079 1,871.35 Lafranconibrücke B'lava 15.88 120.0080 1,869.10 Schrägseilbrücke B'lava 11.46 180.0081 1,868.14 Reichsbrücke Bratislava 7.59 67.0082 1,867.30 Apollo Road Bridge in B'lava 8.38 -83 1,866.40 New Bridge Bratislava 11.06 170.0084 8,30* Lock bridge Gabcikovo 8.99 34.00 * Navigable canal Gabcikovo; Starting at km 1.85385 1,806.35 Brücke Medvedov 8.77 76.0086 1,770.40 Railway bridge Komarom 8.65 90.0087 1,767.80 Road Bridge Komarom 8.35 80.0088 1,718.80 Road Bridge Esztergom 9.91 103.5889 1,654.50 Uijpester Brücke 7.66 70.0090 1,651.40 Arpadbrücke 7.82 70.0091 1,648.75 Margarethenbrücke 9.95 - 5.00 60.00 Arch bridge higher in mid92 1,647.00 Szechenyi Kettenbrücke 7.36 130.00 8.20 at 80 m width93 1,646.00 Elisabethbrücke 7.42 80.00 8.72 at 80 m width94 1,645.30 Szabadsagbrücke 9.54 80.0095 1,644.30 Petöfibrücke 8.30 80.0096 1,643.25 Südbrücke 9.15 60.0097 1,632.81 Motorway bridge Budapest 10.00 100.0098 1,571.70 Motorway Bridge M8 23.69 50.0099 1,560.55 Bridge Dunaföldvar 8.73 74.00100 1,498.50 Road Bridge Szekszand 9.50 100.00101 1,480.22 Bridge Baja 8.09 60.00102 1,424.47 Brücke Bezdan-Batina 9.50 120.00 For further information on Serbian bridges see:103 1,366.73 Road Bridge Erdut-Bogojevo 9.00 120.00 www.plovput.co.yu104 1,366.50 Railway bridge Bogojevo 8.15 97.70105 1,297.06 Illok - Backa Palanka 9.70 150.00106 1,257.60 Road Bridge "Sloboda" NoviSad 21.29 100.00107 1,255.00 Varadanski Bridge 9.50 124.00108 1,254.30 "Temporary Railway bridge" 6.82 91.30109 1,232.05 Beska Bridge 42.90 180.00110 1,166.50 Belgrade - Pancevo Bridge 9.15 150.00111 1,112.90 Smederevo Pipeline Bridge 13.20 140.00112 1,112.10 Smederevo Road Bridge 10.00 120.00113 1,045.12 Road Bridge Moldova 18.15 130.00114 943.00 Lock bridge Iron Gate 1 10.00 34.00115 863.00 Lock Bridge Iron Gate 2 13.87 34.00116 488.70 Road Bridge Giurgiu - Rousse 13.13 150.00117 300.07 New Bridge Cernavoda 24.99 170.00118 300.00 Old Bridge Cernavoda 30.96 182.00119 237.80 Vadu Oii - Giurgeni 15.20 148.00
Source: ECDIS MapsWESKA 2003 - European Navigation- and Port Calender
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 10 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
D FORM OF CONVOY (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
Downstream (Krems -> Constanta):
� up to km 1,640 coupled formation (Pushed lighter on starboard side of motor cargo vessel)
� ex km 1,640 in the slim „cigar“ form
Upstream (Constanta -> Krems):
� „cigar“ form
E ENGINE POWER (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
MCV Aggstein, Built 1974Main engine: 2 x MWM TBD 440.06Power: 2 x 607 kW at 900 rpm
kW HPPower at engine 1,214 1,65110 % Loss of power in gearbox 121 165Power at propeller 1,093 1,486
1 Kilowatt equals 1.36 HP
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 11 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
F TRANSIT TIME CALCULATION INLAND WATERWAY CONSTANT A - KREMS (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
100 % utilisation of loading capacity (90 + 132 = 2 22 TEU per convoy)
downstream WL = 5 m WL = 3,5 resp. 4 m
SectionRiver-
kmRiver-
kmDistance
(km)V River(km/h)
V Vessel(km/h)
Transit time(h)
Prop.(kW)
Engine(kW) kWh
V River(km/h)
V Vessel(km/h)
Transit time(h)
Prop.(kW)
Engine(kW) kWh
Port Krems - Lock Freudenau
1,998 1,921 77 5.0 19.1 4.0 1,100 1,210 4,878 2.0 16.1 4.8 1,100 1,210 5,787
FFS East of Vienna 1,921 1,873 48 10.0 20.0 2.4 350 385 924 5.0 16.0 3.0 1,100 1,210 3,630
Border AT-SK to lock Gabcikovo
1,873 1,851 22 8.0 20.0 1.1 650 715 787 2.0 16.1 1.4 1,100 1,210 1,653
Canal Gabcikovo 37 4.0 12.0 3.1 200 220 678 2.0 12.0 3.1 700 770 2,374
FFS to Budapest Csepel
1,811 1,640 171 6.0 20.0 8.6 1,050 1,155 9,875 3.5 14.5 11.8 1,100 1,210 14,270
FFS East of Budapest 1,640 1,433 207 5.0 20.0 10.4 850 935 9,677 3.0 16.0 12.9 1,100 1,210 15,654
Estuary Save to end dyke section IG I (Belgrade) 1,433 1,170 263 5.0 20.0 13.2 850 935 12,295 3.0 17.0 15.5 1,100 1,210 18,719
Dyke section to IG II 1,170 864 306 4.0 20.0 15.3 1,050 1,155 17,672 1.0 17.1 17.9 1,100 1,210 21,653
FFS to Cernavoda 864 300 564 5.0 20.0 28.2 850 935 26,367 2.5 16.5 34.2 1,100 1,210 41,360
Danube Black Sea Canal
65 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085
1,760 18.3 91.6 85,239 15.3 109.9 127,186
Remarks:Speed limit in canal Gabcikovo and Danube Black Sea Canal 12 km/hMaximum speed upstream 20 km/h due to nautical conditionsFFS = Free Flowing Section
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 12 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
100 % utilisation of loading capacity (90 + 132 = 2 22 TEU per convoy)
upstream WL = 5 m WL = 3,5 resp. 4 m
SectionRiver-
kmRiver-
kmDistance
(km)V River(km/h)
V Vessel(km/h)
Transit time(h)
Prop.(kW)
Engine(kW) kWh
V River(km/h)
V Vessel(km/h)
Transit time(h)
Prop.(kW)
Engine(kW) kWh
Danube Black Sea Canal
65 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085
FFS Cernavoda to IG II
300 864 564 5.0 11.1 50.8 1,100 1,210 61,481 2.5 11.5 49.0 1,100 1,210 59,343
IG II to end dyke IG I 864 1,170 306 4.0 12.1 25.3 1,100 1,210 30,600 1.0 15.1 20.3 1,100 1,210 24,521
End dyke IG I to estuary Save
1,170 1,433 263 5.0 11.1 23.7 1,100 1,210 28,669 3.0 11.0 23.9 1,100 1,210 28,930
FFS to Budapest Csepel
1,433 1,640 207 5.0 11.1 18.6 1,100 1,210 22,565 3.0 10.0 20.7 1,100 1,210 25,047
FFS to lock Gabcikovo 1,640 1,811 171 6.0 10.1 16.9 1,100 1,210 20,486 3.5 9.5 18.0 1,100 1,210 21,780
Canal lock Gabcikovo 37 4.0 12.0 3.1 1,050 1,155 3,561 2.0 12.0 3.1 700 770 2,374
Lock Gabcikovo to border AT-SK
1,851 1,873 22 8.0 8.1 2.7 1,100 1,210 3,286 2.0 14.1 1.6 1,100 1,210 1,888
FFS East of Vienna 1,873 1,921 48 10.0 6.1 7.9 1,100 1,210 9,521 5.0 8.0 6.0 1,100 1,210 7,260
Lock Freudenau - Port Krems
1,921 1,998 77 5.0 11.1 6.9 1,100 1,210 8,394 2.0 14.1 5.5 1,100 1,210 6,608
1,760 10.5 161.4 190,650 11.7 153.4 179,835
Remarks: 275,888 307,021Speed limit in Gabcikovo canal and Danube Black Sea Canal 12 km/hFFS = Free Flowing Section
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 13 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
G CALCULATION OF STANDBY COSTS (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
Standby costs and daily rate
Type of vessel MCV PLOperating mode C (24h/d) C (24h/d)Current value € 1,150,000 290,000Operator Company Companytdwat 2000 t / 1.650 HP 1950 tDays in use/year 320 320Cost in €/year
Crew 184,000 € Repairs 32,500 € 11,250 €
Insurance 23,000 € 9,125 € Miscellaneous 11,000 €
Amortisation/Depreciation 1) 92,000 € 29,000 € Interest 2) 34,500 € 10,875 €
Overhead shipping company (30 %) 3) 113,000 € 18,125 € Total costs 490,000 € 78,375 €
Daily costs 1,531 € 245 €
1) assumed remaining period 12,5 years
2) 6 % of 50 % of the current value
3) including agent fee of about 10 EUR / TEU
Daily cost for convoy 1,776 € Profit margin (+10 %) 178 € Daily cost for convoy 1,954 € Time for round trip 16 DaysStandby cost round trip 31,261 €
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 14 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
H CALCULATION OF OPERATING- AND TOTAL COSTS (OPTIMI SED
SCENARIO)
Operating costs
Fuel consumption 0.21 kg/kWhConversion factor l/kg 1.1765Fuel price 0.46 €/l
WL = 5 m WL = 3,5 m Average*Necessary kWh 275,888 307,021 286,266Fuel consumption in kg 57,936 64,475 60,116Fuel consumption in l 68,161 75,852 70,725Fuel costs € 31,354 € 34,892 € 32,533
*Assumption: 2/3 per year WL = 5 m, 1/3 WL = 3,5 m
Operating costs round-trip € 32,533 at 100 % capacityOperating costs round-trip € 28,467 at 75 % capacity**Operating costs round-trip € 24,400 at 50 % capacity**
**Approximation: 25 % less payload equal 12,5 % less fuel consumption, 50 % results in 25 % less fuel consumption
Utilisation ratio 100% 75% 50%TEU / Payload in round-trip 444 / 6,216 333 / 4,662 222 / 3,108
Standby costs (MCV + PL)Daily costs € 1,954.- x
16 days round-trip€ 31,261 € 31,261 € 31,261
Operating costs round-trip(MCV)
70.000 l Gas oil at capacity
€ 46 per 100 l, incl. lubricant
€ 32,533 € 28,467 € 24,400
TOTAL VESSEL COSTS € 63,794 € 59,727 € 55,661
Transit fee Danube Black Sea Canaltdwat convoy 3,950 3,950 3,950Fee per ton of deadweight capacity 0.48 0.48 0.48 Fee per passage € 1,896 € 1,896 € 1,896Fee per round-trip € 3,792 € 3,792 € 3,792
TOTAL COSTS ROUND-TRIP € 67,586 € 63,519 € 59,453
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 15 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
I CALCULATION OF SUPPLY CHAIN KREMS - SHANGHAI
1) As of 1 st quarter 2006
Comparison ocean freight rate Europe-Asia-Services (HAM vs. CON)"Guideline rates" from Hapag-Lloyd (valid until 31.3.2006)
Basic rates in US $Rate
20'GPRate
40'GPRate
40'HCRate
20'GPRate
40'GPRate
40'HC
Europe-Asia Loop 3Shanghai - Hamburg
$740 $1,480 $1,680 $50 $50 $50
Asia-Black-Sea-ServiceShanghai - Constanta
$900 $1,800 $2,000 $175 $200 $200
Extra costs Constanta $160 $320 $320 $125 $150 $150
Rates excl. CAF, BAF and other additionals
Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin US $
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Europe-Asia Loop 3Shanghai - Hamburg
$1,031 $2,061 $2,272 $303 $553 $553
Asia-Black-Sea-ServiceShanghai - Constanta
$1,275 $2,549 $2,760 $435 $711 $711
Extra costs Constanta $244 $488 $488 $132 $158 $158
CAF 5.50% BAF 250.00 USD/TEUBosphorus-Add 75.00 USD/TEU
Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin EURO (1€=1,25USD)
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Europe-Asia Loop 3Shanghai - Hamburg
€ 825 € 1,649 € 1,818 € 242 € 442 € 442
Asia-Black-Sea-ServiceShanghai - Constanta
€ 1,020 € 2,039 € 2,208 € 348 € 569 € 569
Extra costs Constanta € 195 € 390 € 390 € 106 € 127 € 127
In the 1 st quater of 2006 Constanta was faced with higher cos ts in export of 100 Euro per 20' and 130 Euro per 40' container and in import "thanks" to Bosporus additionals even with about 200 respective ly 390 Euro.
IMPORT EXPORT
IMPORT EXPORT
IMPORT EXPORT
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 16 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
2) Assumption: Equal ocean freight rate
Comparison ocean freight rate Europe-Asia-Services (HAM vs. CON)Assumption: Equal ocean freight rate for Hamburg and Constanta
Basic rates in US $Rate
20'GPRate
40'GPRate
40'HCRate
20'GPRate
40'GPRate
40'HC
Europe-Asia Loop 3Shanghai - Hamburg
$750 $1,500 $100 $150
Asia-Black-Sea-ServiceShanghai - Constanta
$750 $1,500 $100 $150
Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin US $
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Europe-Asia Loop 3Shanghai - Hamburg
$1,110 $2,220 $408 $762
Asia-Black-Sea-ServiceShanghai - Constanta
$1,110 $2,220 $408 $762
CAF 8.00% BAF 300.00 USD/TEU
Bosphorus-Add 0.00 USD/TEU
Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin EURO (1€=1,25USD)
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Rate 20'GP
Rate 40'GP
Rate 40'HC
Europe-Asia Loop 3Shanghai - Hamburg
€ 888 € 1,776 € 326 € 610
Asia-Black-Sea-ServiceShanghai - Constanta
€ 888 € 1,776 € 326 € 610
EXPORT
IMPORT EXPORT
888 Euro for import Shanghai-Krems, 326 Euro for ex port.
IMPORT EXPORT
IMPORT
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 17 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
J CALCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSEL(ex.SUEZ)
4000 TEU Vessel Constanta
8000 TEU Vessel Hamburg
Number of 20' containers 4,000 8,000Engine (MAN-BW) 8K90MC-C/ME-C 12K98MC Mk6Engine power [kW] 36,560 68,640Required engine power (Engine power*0,9)[kW] 32,904 61,776Specific fuel consumption [g/kWh] 171 171Speed [kn] 20 20Distance [nM] ex Suez-canal (Port Said) 944 3,527Time consumption (Distance/Speed) [h] 47.2 176.35Fuel consumption [t] 265.57 1,862.91Fuel consumption per container [kg] 66.4 232.9Kg CO2/kg fuel 3.2 3.2
CO2 emissions per container [kg] 212.5 745.2Relative CO2 emissions [%] 29% 100%
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSEL(Port Said - Shanghai)
4000 TEU Vessel Constanta
8000 TEU Vessel Hamburg
Number of 20' containers 4,000 8,000Engine (MAN-BW) 8K90MC-C/ME-C 12K98MC Mk6Engine power [kW] 36,560 68,640Required engine power (Engine power*0,9)[kW] 32,904 61,776Specific fuel consumption [g/kWh] 171 171Speed [kn] 20 20Distance [nM] Port Said - Shanghai 7,247 7,247Time consumption (Distance/Speed) [h] 362.35 362.35Fuel consumption [t] 2,038.79 3,827.76Fuel consumption per container [kg] 509.7 478.5Kg CO2/kg fuel 3.2 3.2
CO2 emissions per container [kg] 1,631 1,531Relative CO2 emissions [%] 107% 100%
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSELTOTAL
4000 TEU Vessel Constanta
8000 TEU Vessel Hamburg
Shanghai - Port Said 1,631 1,531Port Said - Constanta resp. Hamburg 212 745CO2 emissions per container [kg] 1,843 2,276Relative CO2 emissions [%] 81% 100%
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 18 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE HINTERLAND
Blocktrain Hamburg-Krems
(applies v.v.)
IWT Constanta-Krems
(upstream)
IWT Krems-Constanta
(downstream)
Blocktrain Hamburg-Krems
ROUND TRIP
IWT Constanta-Krems ROUND
TRIPMax. capacity in TEU 75 222 222Payload [t] 1,050 3,108 3,108Distance [km] 1,100 1,760 1,760Ton-kilometres 1,155,000 5,470,080 5,470,080Required kWh 190,650 85,239Fuel consumption [kg/kWh] 0.21 0.21Fuel consumption [kg] 40,036 17,900
kg CO2/ 1000 tkm 27.75 *
kg CO2/kg Fuel 3.2 3.2
CO2 emission [kg] 32,051 128,116 57,280 64,103 185,397CO2 emissons per container [kg] 427 577 258 855 835Relative CO2 emissions [%] 100% 135% 60% 100% 98%
Max. capacity railway 75 TEU / BlocktrainMax. capacity IWT: MCV (90 TEU) + PL (132 TEU) = 222 TEU/Convoy* 40 % proportion of caloric power stations
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 19 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
CO2 emissions per container [kg]
Export Krems->Shanghai Import Shanghai->Krems Total Krems->Shanghai->Krems
HAM+Rail CON+IWT HAM+Rail CON+IWT HAM+Rail CON+IWTHinterland 427 258 Hinterland 427 577 Hinterland 855 835Deep Sea Vessel 2,276 1,843 Deep Sea Vessel 2,276 1,843 Deep Sea Vessel 4,553 3,687
2,704 2,102 2,704 2,421 5,407 4,522100% 78% 100% 90% 100% 84%
22% 10% 16%
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE
less CO2 per container! less CO2 per container! less CO2 per container!
© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 20 of 20
COLD I Annex August 2006
For further information and contacts:
For inquiries regarding the project: For inquiries regarding the port of Constanta and inland navigation:
Gerhard Gussmagg Alexandru Capatu
Team Manager Transport Development Managing Director
via donau - Österreichische Wasserstraßen- Gesellschaft mbH
Navromsa AG, Vienna branch
A-1220 Wien, Donau-City-Straße 1 A-1020 Wien, Freudenauerhafenstr. 8
tel +43 (0) 50 4321-1617 tel +43 (1) 729 67 00
fax +43 (0) 50 4321-1050 fax +43 (1) 729 67 01
cell +43 (0) 676 613 99 99 cell +43 (0) 664 302 58 74
[email protected] [email protected]
www.via-donau.org
www.donauschifffahrt.info
in cooperation with: