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:
COLD I Final Report August 2006
Project Team via donau Coordination: Project Manager: Staff: Manfred Seitz Gerhard Gussmagg Alfred Heiserer Csaba Pusztay Josef Schwanzer
Project Team IR (Macro-economic Analysis of Transport Flows) Reinhold Deuner, Stephanie Novak
Project Team Port of Constanta Alexandru Capatu and staff of Constanta Port Authority
Companies and persons who have supported this project: 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 2 of 64
Table of Contents
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 2.1 STARTING SITUATION ...................................................................................................... 8 Global container flows and transhipment volumes at sea ports ........................................... 8 Modal split in hinterland transport and success stories of inland navigation ...................... 11 (Container) transport on the Austrian Danube .................................................................... 16 Promising Market Black Sea ............................................................................................ 18 The Port of Constanta ......................................................................................................... 19 MARKET AND PEER ANALYSIS..................................................................................... 23 Current overseas container volumes of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia as well as estimated costs for rail transport ........................................................................................................ 23
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 Austria .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Hungary............................................................................................................................................ 26 Slovakia............................................................................................................................................ 27 Truck prices on the Black Sea route................................................................................................. 28
2.2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4 4.1

4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3
Forecast of the flow of goods (IR) .................................................................................... 29 INLAND Navigation CONCEPT ....................................................................................... 32 Definition of the Liner Service Concept............................................................................... 36 Hindrances to Danube navigation ....................................................................................... 36 Inland port charges.............................................................................................................. 38 Fees for Black Sea Canal ................................................................................................... 39 Travel times and operating costs of ships (base scenario)................................................. 40 Transit times and operating costs of ships (optimised scenario) ........................................ 43 TARGET GROUP OCEAN CARRIERS ............................................................................ 48 Overall view of the supply chain length of time and rates................................................ 49
Transit time....................................................................................................................................... 49 Costs (Status Quo) ........................................................................................................................... 51 Costs (convergence of ocean freight rates)...................................................................................... 53
4.2 4.3
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3
Environmental balance........................................................................................................ 54 Result of the talks in Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade........................................................ 55

Results of talks in Austria ................................................................................................................. 55 Result of talks in Hungary (Budapest) .............................................................................................. 57 Result of the talks in Serbia (Belgrade) ............................................................................................ 58
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION............................................ 60
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 ships 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 ships costs per container (optimised scenario) ............................................ 47
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
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 Europes 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, Rhne, 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 (IR) 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
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.
1
1.1
STARTING SITUATION
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
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 Hafenengpsse Keine schnelle Lsung 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 9 of 64
Since 2005, the worlds 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 worldwide (in million TEU)
Containerports Singapore Hong Kong Shanghai Shenzen Busan Kaohsiung Rotterdam Hamburg Constanta
2001 15.6 17.8 6.3 5.1 8.1 7.5 6.1 4.7 0.12
2004 21.3 22.0 14.6 13.7 11.4 9.7 8.3 7.0 0.39
2005 23.2 22.5 18.1 16.2 11.8 9.5 9.3 8.1 0.77
Growth rate 2001-2004 + 37 % + 24 % + 130 % + 169 % + 42 % + 29 % + 36 % + 49 % + 224 %
Growth rate 2004-2005 +9% +2% + 24 % + 18 % +4% -2% + 12 % + 16 % + 97 %
Source: Websites of the port authorities and the publication Port Statistics 2005, Rotterdam Port
1.2
Modal split in hinterland transport and success stories of inland navigation The most crucial issue for Europes 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, Container (2005)
Truck Rotterdam Antwerpen Hamburg

Source: IR, 2006
Rail 7% 8% 25 %
Inland navigation 23 % 26 % 1%
Feeder vessel 27 % 16 % 22 %
43 % 50 % 52 %
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 (socalled 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 %.
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
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 Rhne 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
450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 TEU 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
Source: POINT PRESSE, Voies navigables de France, April 2006
19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05
Along the transport route Rhne-Sane, 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, Mcon 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
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 Flemish inland ports
500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 TEU 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year
Source: Promotie Binnenvaart Vlaanderen, 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 IR, 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 section of the Danube
14 Transport volumes in mn tons 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Domestic Import Export Transit Total
Source: Statistik Austria, in-house calculations, 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 Austrias 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 Austrian section of the Danube
12
Containers transported in 1,000 (20 ft, 30 ft and 40 ft)
10
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
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.
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
Constanta
2,000 1,800 1,600
Varna Burgas Odessa/ Ilychevsk Odessa Ilychevsk Novorossiysk Poti

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1,000 TEUs
1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
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.
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
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.
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
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 photo)
Source: NASA Earth Observatory, 16 April 2004
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 (sterreichisches Institut fr Raumplanung, IR) 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
!
2.1.1 Austria
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.
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
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 Austrias 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
Austria's transit traffic in tons (2005)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Rotterdam Koper Hamburg Antwerpen Bremen Ports Constanta Rijeka Ports Lower Sax. Trieste
Export 733,718 788,946 1,385,617 745,808 1,017,439 40,609 175,490 n.a. n.a. 4,887,627
Import 3,778,645 2,738,415 938,265 951,538 106,282 354,708 27,221 n.a. n.a. 8,895,074
Total 4,512,363 3,527,361 2,323,882 1,697,346 1,123,721 395,317 202,711 116,185 n.a. 13,898,886
2004 Container* Total in TEU 4,301,586 80,000 2,969,430 10,000 2,167,494 220,000 1,690,046 10,000 1,179,433 70,000 420,645 0 195,111 0 190,437 0 n.a. 10,000 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
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.
Table 4: Railway rate matrix Austria (selected routes)
Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling Vienna Freudenau CCT Hamburg Waltershof Vienna NW CCT Rotterdam Maasvlakte Krems port CCT - Rotterdam Maasvlakte Linz Stadthafen CCT Hamburg Sd/Waltershof / Bremerhaven Wels Vbf CCT Rotterdam Maasvlakte
Source: in-house estimates in 1HY 2006
20 ft
8-16.5 t
40 ft
22-34 t
325 328 340 308 254
618 612 670 587 531
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
etc.
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
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 Hamburg Koper Bremerhaven Rotterdam TOTAL
Export
Import 68,000 32,000 19,000 8,000 127,000
Total 105,000 50,000 31,000 14,500 200,500
37,000 18,000 12,000 6,500 73,500
Source: Rotterdam Port Representative Budapest, Mrz 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-Gyr, Rotterdam-Budapest, Trieste-Budapest, KoperBudapest). 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
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 routes)
Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling Budapest BILK Koper Luka KT Budapest BILK Rijeka Luka Gyr LCH Terminal Rotterdam Pernis
20 ft
8-16.5 t
40 ft
22-34 t
226 261 368
445 489 649
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.
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 routes)
Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling Bratislava SPAP Hamburg Eurokai (via Prague) Bratislava SPAP Rotterdam RSC (via Prague) Bratislava Koper / Rijeka Zilina Koper / Rijeka Kosice Rijeka
20 ft 8-16.5 t 413 605 295 340 363
40 ft 22-34 t 715 1,000 554 650 654
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 1,100 Constanta 1,600

Source:
Budapest Vienna
Budapest 1,400 Vienna 1,800

Road
Constanta Constantza
Hungarian
Haulier,
July
2006
2.2
Forecast of the flow of goods (IR)
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 Danube countries for the year 2003 of 180,000 to 280,000 TEU. As early as in 2010, an increase is expected to 650,000 - 1.15mn TEU and by 2020 of 1.3 to 2.4mn TEU. 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 wellfounded to argue a containerisation potential. The calculation includes continental shipments in the Danube region as well as shortsea (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 (sterreichische Institut fr Raumplanung, IR) 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 gerhard.gussmagg@via-donau.org.
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 almost 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.
Table 9: COLD Potential, forecasting method foreign trade
Inland navigation potential

1,000 TEU Exports from to Imports from to Total from to
COLD potential (5 %)
Exports from to Imports from to Total from to
Austria
Status 2003 Forecast 2007 Forecast 2010 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2020 27 57 80 119 157 85 206 298 450 602 50 103 142 208 274 74 213 317 491 664 77 160 223 327 432 158 419 615 941 1.267 1 3 4 6 8 4 10 15 22 30 3 5 7 10 14 4 11 16 25 33 4 8 11 16 22 8 21 31 47 63
Hungary
Status 2003 Forecast 2007 Forecast 2010 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2020 30 86 128 198 268 32 104 158 248 338 42 121 180 279 378 50 150 224 349 473 72 207 308 477 646 82 253 382 596 811 1 4 6 10 13 2 5 8 12 17 2 6 9 14 19 3 7 11 17 24 4 10 15 24 32 4 13 19 30 41
Slovakia
Status 2003 Forecast 2007 Forecast 2010 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2020 17 50 75 116 158 19 61 93 145 198 10 30 45 70 94 14 38 56 87 117 28 81 120 186 252 33 99 149 232 315 1 3 4 6 8 1 3 5 7 10 1 2 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 6 1 4 6 9 13 2 5 7 12 16
Total
Status 2003 Forecast 2007 Forecast 2010 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2020
Source: IR, 2006
74 194 284 433 583
144 377 552 843 1,135
102 254 367 557 746
139 401 598 926
176 448 651 990
282 778 1,150 1,769
4 10 14 22 29
7 19 28 42 57
5 13 18 28 37
7 20 30 46 63
9 22 33 50 66
14 39 57 88 119
1,254 1,329 2,389
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 Europe to the Black Sea
Source: Manual on Danube Navigation, via donau, 2005
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 KNZ 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 Donauhafen Krems
Source: Mierka Donauhafen Krems www.mierka.com
The distance between Krems and Constanta is 1,763 river kilometres and there are eight locks (Altenwrth, 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
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 Services 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).
The following rough structure applies to the costs:

Table 10: Rough structure of the costs of inland navigation
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 navigation are only 3 to 4 days per year.
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 vessels capacity. Restrictions due to low waters occur frequently, but should not cause any disadvantages 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, Pirus, Malta, Damiette, etc. for shippment on a direct line to Asia.
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
Operator Contact landside empty landside full waterside empty waterside full Linz AG 23.00 23.00 33.20 40.40 plus 23 for indirect handling
Enns
EHG 23.00 23.00 27.00 33.00
Krems
WienCont 23.00 23.00 24.00 32.70
Vienna
WienCont 23.00 23.00 24.00 32.70
Budapest
MAHART Container Center 25.00 34.00 25.00 34.00
Belgrade
Port of Belgrade 25 / 33 25 / 33 30 / 40 45 / 66 different tariffs for 20 ft/40 ft
For empty containers, an additional handling fee is charged, because they are transferred from storage to the quai or v.v.
Storage fee
full containers: up to 3 workdays free, full containers: next 4-7 days 1.00 up to 3 workdays free, /TEU/day, afterwards 1.00 as of day 8 2.00 /TEU/day /TEU/day empty containers: empty containers: up to 7 workdays free, up to 7 workdays free, afterwards 0.87 /TEU and day afterwards 0.87 /TEU/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/day 40 ft 1.00/day
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 ships operating costs per container.
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 Source: www.acn.ro
Agigea lock
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 implementation of scheduled services (fixed passage fee per container, discounts for empty containers, etc.).
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 selfpropelled 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
Source: via donau
60 TEU
Total 120 TEU
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). Ships deck is not reinforced (greatest weight at the four corner fittings of the containers).
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 (base scenario)

Fr Day Convoy I Convoy II Convoy III 1 1 3 7 2 2 X 8 3 3 4 9 4 4 5 10 5 5 6 K R 6 X B 1 Su 7 6 C O 2 8 7 1 3 9 8 2 X 10 9 3 4 11 10 4 5 Fr 12 K R 5 6 13 1 X B Su 14 2 6 C O 15 3 7 1 16 X 8 2 17 4 9 3 18 5 10 4 Fr 19 6 K R 5 20 B 1 X Su 21 C O 2 6 22 1 3 7 23 2 X 8 24 3 4 9 25 4 5 10 Fr 26 5 6 K R 27 X B 1 Su 28 6 C O 2
CO KR
Konstanza Krems Upstream Downstream
B X
Buffer 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 trip of the convoy must be estimated at least at 70,000 (inclusive of fees for passage of the Black Sea Canal).
This results in the following costs for the round-trip Krems Constanta Krems:
Figure 20: Calculation of ships costs per container (base scenario)
Relation: Typ of vessel: Capacity of convoy round-trip time Lump sum cost per round-trip Utilisation TEU per round-trip Vessel cost per TEU incl. canal fees Waterside handling fee per container Pierage per TEU Basic cost 20' Basic cost 40'
Krems - Constanta MCV + PL, capacity per 60 TEU 120 TEU 21 Days 70,000 100% 240 291.67 90% 216 324.07 75% 180 388.89 50% 120 583.33
35.00 5.00 331.67 628.33
35.00 5.00 364.07 693.15
35.00 5.00 428.89 822.78
35.00 5.00 623.33 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 are transported on every round trip. Taking the transhipment costs and port fees into account, the basic costs are 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 at 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 transport. 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 such a service at any time, as there are ships and (interested operators) in the Danube region.
3.6
Transit times and operating costs of ships (optimised 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) (Steinklasse4) 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, Drnstein, 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. Drnstein has an extendable wheel house.
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 (optimised scenario)
Krems Constanta WL = 5 m ~ AWL Downstream Upstream 91.6 161.4 253.0

WL AWL LNWL Water Level Average Water Level Low Navigable Water Level
Transit time in hours WL = 3.5 resp. 4 m ~ LNWL 109.9 153.4 263.4
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: Altenwrth, Greifenstein, ViennaFreudenau, 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.
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 Transit time only Locks Border crossing Krems: Handling + buffer Constanta: Handling + buffer downstream 91.58 11.25 13.00 18.00 24.00 157.83 6.6 upstream 161.39 11.25 13.00 18.00 24.00 227.64 9.5 round-trip 252.98 22.50 26.00 36.00 48.00 385.48 16.1
Necessary days with 24-hrsoperation
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 total capacity per year would be 20,000 TEU.
(See detailed calculation of travel times in Annex F)
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
TEU / Payload in round-trip Standby costs (MCV + PL) Daily costs 1,954.- x 16 days round-trip 70,000 l Gas oil at full capacity 46 per 100 l, incl. Lubricants
100%
444 / 6,216 31,261
75%
333 / 4,662 31,261
50%
222 / 3,108 31,261
Operating costs round-trip (MCV)
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.
Figure 24: Calculation of ships costs per container (optimised scenario)
Relation: Typ of vessel: Capacity of convoy round-trip time Utilisation Cost per round-trip TEU per round-trip Vessel cost per TEU Canal fee per TEU Waterside handling fee per container Pierage per TEU Basic cost 20' Basic cost 40'
Krems - Constanta MCV + PL, capacity 90/132 TEU 222 TEU 16 Days 100%* 63,794 444 143.68 8.54 35.00 5.00 192.22 349.44 75% 59,727 333 179.36 11.39 35.00 5.00 230.75 426.50 50% 55,661 222 250.72 17.08 35.00 5.00 307.80 580.61
* 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 value for the railway route Krems-Rotterdam ( 340 / TEU or 670 / 40 ft.). The triple stack loading creates the significant cost
advantages in inland navigation and thus an attractive supply chain variant in combination with overseas navigation.
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 1. Carrier A.P. Moeller Maersk (Maersk Line, P&O Nedlloyd, Safmarine) MSC - Mediterranean Shipping Company CMA CGM Evergreen Group Hapag-Lloyd China Shipping (CSCL) APL Hanjin / Senator COSCO Container Line NYK Mitsui O.S.K. Line (MOL) OOCL CSAV Group K Line ZIM Headquarters Copenhagen, Demark Genf, Switzerland Marseille, France Taiwan Germany China Singapore Korea/Germany. China Japan Japan Hong Kong Chile Japan Israel No. of ships 549 Capacity of ships (TEU) 1,723,170
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
299 256 153 n.a. 111 99 n.a. 118 105 n.a. n.a. 83 n.a. 93
893,503 507,954 477,911 412,344 346,493 331,437 328,794 322,326 302,213 241,282 234,141 234,002 227,872 201,432
Source: BRS-Alphaliner, wikipedia.org
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 port of Constanta in 2005
Number of vessels 1. MSC 2. CSAV Norasia 3. CMA CGM 4. ZIM 5. Maersk Line 6. China Shipping C.L.
Source: Port of Constanta
TEU 215,286 177,752 108,453 96,363 41,327 40,756
147 165 161 136 60 84
4.1
Overall view of the supply chain length of time 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
(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 chains (in days)
IMPORT Shanghai -> Krems Hamburg Constanta + + Rail IWT
Duration in days PORT of KREMS
EXPORT Krems -> Shanghai Hamburg Constanta + + Rail IWT
1.7 1.0 27.0 29.7

100%
8.5 1.0 23.0 32.5

109%
Hinterland connection
(transport time rail resp. IWT incl. handling in inland terminals)
2.2 1.0 27.0 30.2

100%
5.5 1.0 23.0 29.5

98%
Seaport-time
(Hamburg resp. Constanta)
Deep sea voyage

(Direct service)
PORT SHANGHAI
Overall, the variant via Hamburg and subsequent rail 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 is even slightly shorter. Therefore, with respect to the travel time there is no major disadvantage.
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 vessel schedule with the deep sea vessels schedule. 4.1.2 Costs (Status Quo) During the period investigated (1st quarter 2006), the basic ocean freight rates5 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 Constanta 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)
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)
IMPORT Shanghai -> Krems Hamburg + Railway Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40'] Constanta + IWT Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40'] PORT KREMS
EXPORT Krems -> Shanghai Hamburg + Railway Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40'] Constanta + IWT Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40]
340, 153, 825,-
670, 153,-
231, 72,-
426, 104,-
Hinterland connection (Railway and IWT incl. manipulation in Railway or IWT-Terminals) THC
340, 153, 242,-
670, 153, 442,-
231, 72, 348,-
426, 104, 569,-
1,649,- 1,020,- 2,039,-
Ocean freight rate in Euro

(incl. all additionals)
PORT SHANGHAI
1,318,- 2,472,- 1,322,- 2,570,100% 100% 100% 104%
735,- 1,265,100% 100%
650,88%
1,099,87%
During the period reviewed 1Q 2006, the supply chain costs were slightly higher in imports in the variant via Constanta and the Danube. In exports, the cost advantage of inland navigation is already fully developed and the savings achieved are up to 13 %.
4.1.3
Costs (convergence of ocean freight rates) A convergence of the Far East ocean freight rates between North Sea ports and Constanta is very likely in the opinion of the project 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 Shanghai (convergence of freight rates)
IMPORT Shanghai -> Krems Hamburg + Railway Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40'] Constanta + IWT Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40'] PORT KREMS EXPORT Krems -> Shanghai Hamburg + Railway Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40'] Constanta + IWT Tariff [/TEU] Tariff [/40]
340, 153, 900,-
670, 153, 1,800,-
231, 72, 900,-
426, 104, 1,800,-
Hinterland connection (Railway and IWT incl. manipulation in Railway or IWT-Terminals) THC
340, 153, 325,-
670, 153, 610,-
231, 72, 325,-
426, 104, 610,-
Ocean freight rate in Euro

(incl. additionals)
PORT SHANGHAI
1,393,- 2,623,- 1,203,- 2,330,100% 100% 86% 89%
818,- 1,433,- 628,- 1,140,100% 100% 77% 80%
When ocean freight rates converge in the future, the alternative of Constanta will
become very attractive. In imports, a cost reduction 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 acceptable if the cost benefit is so attractive.
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 CO2emission 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 CO2 per container in exports, 10% less in imports, and on the round trip 15 % less.
4.3
Result of the talks in Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade 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.
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 Merchants 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.
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.
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 for 2005)
FIRM HUB Dunav Maersk MSC CMA-CGM Jugoagent TOTAL
Import
3,000 TEU 1,000 TEU 4,500 TEU 2,000 TEU 4,000 TEU
Export
1,000 TEU 800 TEU 500 TEU 500 TEU 2,500 TEU
Total
4,000 TEU 1,800 TEU 5,000 TEU 2,500 TEU 6,500 TEU
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).
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.
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 Austrias 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.
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 shippers (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 Rhne 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
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)

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.
For further information and contacts:

For inquiries regarding the project: For inquiries regarding the port of Constanta and inland navigation: Alexandru Capatu Managing Director Navromsa AG, Vienna branch
Gerhard Gussmagg Team Manager Transport Development via donau - sterreichische WasserstraenGesellschaft mbH A-1220 Wien, Donau-City-Strae 1 tel +43 (0) 50 4321-1617 fax +43 (0) 50 4321-1050 cell +43 (0) 676 613 99 99 gerhard.gussmagg@via-donau.org www.via-donau.org www.donauschifffahrt.info
A-1020 Wien, Freudenauerhafenstr. 8 tel +43 (1) 729 67 00 fax +43 (1) 729 67 01 cell +43 (0) 664 302 58 74 navromsa_ag@utanet.at
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
COLD I Annex August 2006
ANNEX
A B C D E F G H I J List of interview partners (in alphabetic order)........................................................................... 4 Calculation of necessary fairway depth (optimised scenario) .................................................. 6 Calculation of necessary vertical clearance (optimised scenario) ........................................... 7 Form of convoy (optimised scenario)........................................................................................ 10 Engine power (optimised scenario) ........................................................................................... 10 Transit time calculation inland waterway Constanta - Krems (optimised scenario) ............ 11 Calculation of standby costs (optimised scenario).................................................................. 13 Calculation of operating- and total costs (optimised scenario).............................................. 14 Calculation of supply chain Krems - Shanghai......................................................................... 15 Calculation of environmental balance ....................................................................................... 17
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, Tams (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, Andrs (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, WK Department of finance and trade policy, Vienna) 14. Hofmann, Johannes (CargoCompass Schifffahrtsagentur GesmbH, Vienna) 15. Hutter, Ing. Andre (Insurance broker, Vienna) 16. Jnovszki, Lszl (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, Mrta (General Manager, ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd., Budapest)
22. Klepatsch, Wolfgang K. (Director ocean freight Central Europe, Khne + 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. Plten) 32. Ruzic, Dragana (Director, CMA CGM The French Line, Belgrade Repres. Office) 33. Schmid, Gerhard (National Sales Manager, Maersk sterreich GmbH, Vienna) 34. Skundric, Bilijana (General Manager Assistant, Port Belgrade) 35. Somlvari, Lszl (CEO, Budapesti Szabadkikt 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, Khne + 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)
CALCULATION OF NECESSARY FAIRWAY DEPTH (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 100 % utilisation of loading capacity Container (TEU) Payload (t) 90 1.260 132 1.848
14 t / TEU
MCV PL
Assumption: 14 t / TEU
Fuel + Supply 80
Total 1.340 1.848
Draught 2,1 2,6
Average Draught* 2,35
necessary fairway depth 2,65
Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 75 % utilisation of loading capacity Container (TEU) Payload (t) 68 945 99 1.386
14 t / TEU
MCV PL
Fuel + Supply 80
Total 1.025 1.386
Draught 1,79 2,13
Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 50 % utilisation of loading capacity Container (TEU) Payload (t) 51 709 74 1.040
14 t / TEU
MCV PL
Fuel + Supply 80
Total 789 1.040
Draught 1,56 1,77
MCV...Motor Cargo Vessel PLPushed Lighter * reached by balanced loading between MCV and PL (e.g. heavy container on MCV)
CALCULATION OF NECESSARY VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
Calculation of necessary air clearance (optimised scenario)

2 Layer Container type Height add. double bottom add. safety distance minus draught necessary air clearance
8'6" 9'6" 8'6"
3 Layer
2 x 8'6" and 1 x 9'6" 1 x 8'6" and 2 x 9'6"
9'6"
5.18 0.60 0.30 6.08 1.40 4.68
5.79 0.60 0.30 6.69 1.40 5.29
7.77 0.60 0.30 8.67 2.00 6.67
8.08 0.60 0.30 8.98 2.00 6.98
8.39 0.60 0.30 9.29 2.00 7.29
8.69 0.60 0.30 9.59 2.00 7.59
Draught results from payload resp. ballast tank (proportion of empty containers) Container type: External dimensions of container = 86 = 2.591 mm (Standard ISO Container) External dimensions of container = 96 = 2.896 mm (High Cube Container)
List of Danube Bridges (as of August 2006)

Vertical clearance upstream / downstream in m # 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 River Kilometre 2414.25 2412.72 2,410.10 2,400.42 2,400.24 2,387.60 2,386.71 2,385.68 2,381.11 2,380.17 2,379.56 2,378.39 2,376.82 2,376.32 2,369.65 2,358.27 2,353.33 2,327.52 2,325.70 2,316.98 2,311.28 2,308.40 2,290.12 2,285.87 2,285.50 2,284.60 2,282.50 2,266.22 2,249.16 2,234.26 2,230.43 2,230.28 2,230.10 2,226.98 2,225.75 2,223.29 2,203.31 2,194.10 2,162.92 2,162.94 2,159.97 2,146.73 2,135.10 2,133.83 2,133.46 2,127.73 2,127.68 2,127.16 2,119.45 2,111.05 2,094.50 2,080.82 2,060.42 2,043.60 2,038.12 2,034.43 2,003.53 2,001.51 1,999.77 1,980.90 Bridge Name Road Bridge Kelheim - Maximiliansbrcke Roadbridge - Europabrcke Roadbridge Saal Railway brigde Poikam Brigde Bad Abbach Motorway bridge Sinzing Railway bridge Sinzing Railway bridge Mariaort Motorway bridge Pfaffenstein Oberpfalzbrcke (Regensburg) Protzenweiherbrcke (Regensburg) Nibelungenbrcke (Regensburg) Railway bridge Schwabelweis Road bridge Regensburg-Schwabelweis Road bridge Donaustauf Motorway bridge Wrth Road bridge Pfatter Road bridge Lock Straubing Agnes Bernauer Bridge Road bridge Reibersdorf Railway bridge Bogen Road bridge Bogen Motorway bridge Metten Railway bridge Deggendorf Motorway bridge Fischerdorf Road bridge Deggendorf - Maximiliansbrcke Motorway bridge Deggenau Donau Wald Bridge Road bridge Vilshofen Motorway bridge Schalding RMD Lock bridge Kachlet Railway bridge Steinbach Franz Josef Strau Brigde Schanzlbrcke (Passau) Luitpoldbrcke (Passau) Railway bridge Krutelstein Lock bridge Jochenstein Road bridge Niederanna Lock Aschach - Pedestrian bridge Lock Aschach - Service bridge Road bridge Aschach Lock Ottensheim-Wilhering Road brigde Linz Nibelungenbr. Road and Rail bridge Linz Roadbr. Linz (Voest Brcke) Road brigde Steyregg Rail bridge Steyregg Voest-Werkshafen Lock Abwinden-Asten Bridge Mauthausen (Road & Rail) Lock Bridge Wallsee Road Bridge Grein Lock Bridge Persenbeug Road Bridge Pchlarn Bridge Melk (Lock) Road Bridge Melk Road Bridge Stein - Mautern Railway bridge Krems Motorway bridge Krems Lock bridge at AWL 7.52 8.93 8.88 7.10 6.43 41.77 11.25 9.22 6.71 6.63 8.43 8.82 8.12 10.55 9.40 8.25 10.62 10.72 11.05 11.33 7.22 10.77 10.83 6.89 10.78 10.68 11.88 11.01 9.27 35.85 12.01 8.91 14.03 10.57 7.89 12.04 7.75 9.59 11.66 9.95 9.30 9.33 8.66 10.71 8.59 / 9.01 8.87 / 8.88 7.11 10.90 9.21 13.20 10.71 7.96 8.57 / 9.16 10.26 12.95 8.96 8.83 / 8.69 9.06 11.46 HNWL 5.19 6.78 7.00 6.98 6.24 40.90 10.51 8.72 6.63 6.40 5.94 6.28 6.07 8.71 8.83 7.74 8.10 7.93 8.20 8.10 4.60 8.30 8.63 4.40 8.30 7.00 9.00 9.80 7.80 35.00 9.40 6.50 11.50 8.30 5.60 9.30 7.75 8.13 8.23 10.96 8.76 9.00 7.77 7.42 9.57 8.11 / 8.53 8.39 / 8.40 6.65 10.67 8.08 9.96 8.86 7.66 8.31 / 8.9 9.96 9.62 7.64 31601.00 8.58 11.16 AWL = Average Water Level, period 1961-1990 HNWL = Highest Navigable Water Level Comment 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.
Lateral Clearance in m (width) 17.0 31.00 64.00 29.00 48.00 50.00 48.00 32.00 39.00 67.00 12.00 50.00 31.00 115.00 102.00 140.00 85.00 25.00 100.00 70.00 44.00 75.00 70.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 87.00 62.00 90.00 100.00 27.00 59.00 68.00 102.00 80.00 73.00 24.00 101.00 24.00 24.00 125.00 24.00 90.00 78.00 153.00 70.00 71.00 60.00 24.00 72.00 24.00 100.00 24.00 80.00 24.00 132.00 79.00 77 / 76 111.00 24.00
Source for HNWL-levels for Austrian Danube: KWD 1996, WSD, Vienna
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
1,965.00 1,963.15 1,949.23 1,932.62 1,932.57 1,931.71 1,931.20 1,931.17 1,930.45 1,928.90 1,925.99 1,925.76 1,924.96 1,921.05 1,920.87 1,917.70 1,914.35 1,886.25 1,871.35 1,869.10 1,868.14 1,867.30 1,866.40 8,30* 1,806.35 1,770.40 1,767.80 1,718.80 1,654.50 1,651.40 1,648.75 1,647.00 1,646.00 1,645.30 1,644.30 1,643.25 1,632.81 1,571.70 1,560.55 1,498.50 1,480.22 1,424.47 1,366.73 1,366.50 1,297.06 1,257.60 1,255.00 1,254.30 1,232.05 1,166.50 1,112.90 1,112.10 1,045.12 943.00 863.00 488.70 300.07 300.00 237.80
Rosenbrcke Tulln Old BridgeTulln Lock bridge (Greifenstein) Nordbrcke Vienna Nordsteg Floridsdorfer Brcke Nordbahnbrcke Subway Bridge Brigittenauerbrcke Reichsbrcke Road bridge Donaustadt Praterbrcke Ostbahnbrcke Lock Bridge Freudenau Bridge Freudenau Pipeline Brcke Mannswrth Barbarabrcke Pipe bridge Brcke Hainburg Lafranconibrcke B'lava Schrgseilbrcke B'lava Reichsbrcke Bratislava Apollo Road Bridge in B'lava New Bridge Bratislava Lock bridge Gabcikovo Brcke Medvedov Railway bridge Komarom Road Bridge Komarom Road Bridge Esztergom Uijpester Brcke Arpadbrcke Margarethenbrcke Szechenyi Kettenbrcke Elisabethbrcke Szabadsagbrcke Petfibrcke Sdbrcke Motorway bridge Budapest Motorway Bridge M8 Bridge Dunafldvar Road Bridge Szekszand Bridge Baja Brcke Bezdan-Batina Road Bridge Erdut-Bogojevo Railway bridge Bogojevo Illok - Backa Palanka Road Bridge "Sloboda" NoviSad Varadanski Bridge "Temporary Railway bridge" Beska Bridge Belgrade - Pancevo Bridge Smederevo Pipeline Bridge Smederevo Road Bridge Road Bridge Moldova Lock bridge Iron Gate 1 Lock Bridge Iron Gate 2 Road Bridge Giurgiu - Rousse New Bridge Cernavoda Old Bridge Cernavoda Vadu Oii - Giurgeni
10.36 8.17 / 8.28 9.86 8.51 / 8.76 8.76 / 9.07 8.52 8.32 / 8.29 8.51 / 8.47 8.66 7.99 / 7.93 8.32 7.99 8.11 / 8.07 9.84 12.05 14.42 14.04 16.42
9.77 7.9 / 8.01 9.56 8.16 / 8.41 8.5 / 8.81 8.32 8.15 / 8.12 8.35 / 8.31 8.53 7.94 / 7.88 8.24 7.91 8.03 / 7.99 9.74 8.52 11.16 10.98 13.35 15.88 11.46 7.59 8.38 11.06 8.99 8.77 8.65 8.35 9.91 7.66 7.82 9.95 - 5.00 7.36 7.42 9.54 8.30 9.15 10.00 23.69 8.73 9.50 8.09 9.50 9.00 8.15 9.70 21.29 9.50 6.82 42.90 9.15 13.20 10.00 18.15 10.00 13.87 13.13 24.99 30.96 15.20
151.00 83.00 24.00 58.00 58.00 57.00 65.00 65.00 64.00 59.00 94.00 65.00 65.00 24.00 59.00 126.00 113.60 114.40 120.00 180.00 67.00 170.00 34.00 76.00 90.00 80.00 103.58 70.00 70.00 60.00 130.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 60.00 100.00 50.00 74.00 100.00 60.00 120.00 120.00 97.70 150.00 100.00 124.00 91.30 180.00 150.00 140.00 120.00 130.00 34.00 34.00 150.00 170.00 182.00 148.00
* Navigable canal Gabcikovo; Starting at km 1.853
Arch bridge higher in mid 8.20 at 80 m width 8.72 at 80 m width
For further information on Serbian bridges see: www.plovput.co.yu
Source:
ECDIS Maps WESKA 2003 - European Navigation- and Port Calender
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
ENGINE POWER (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
MCV Aggstein, Built 1974 Main engine: 2 x MWM TBD 440.06 Power: 2 x 607 kW at 900 rpm Power at engine 10 % Loss of power in gearbox Power at propeller
1 Kilowatt equals
kW 1,214 121 1,093

1.36 HP
HP 1,651 165 1,486
TRANSIT TIME CALCULATION INLAND WATERWAY CONSTANTA - KREMS (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)
100 % utilisation of loading capacity (90 + 132 = 222 TEU per convoy) downstream
Section Port Krems - Lock Freudenau FFS East of Vienna Border AT-SK to lock Gabcikovo Canal Gabcikovo FFS to Budapest Csepel FFS East of Budapest
Estuary Save to end dyke section IG I (Belgrade)
WL = 5 m
Riverkm 1,998 1,921 1,873 Riverkm 1,921 1,873 1,851 Distance (km) 77 48 22 37 1,811 1,640 1,433 1,170 864 1,640 1,433 1,170 864 300 171 207 263 306 564 65 1,760 V River (km/h) 5.0 10.0 8.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 V Vessel (km/h) 19.1 20.0 20.0 12.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 12.0 18.3 Transit time (h) 4.0 2.4 1.1 3.1 8.6 10.4 13.2 15.3 28.2 5.4 91.6 Prop. Engine (kW) (kW) 1,100 350 650 200 1,050 850 850 1,050 850 350 1,210 385 715 220 1,155 935 935 1,155 935 385
WL = 3,5 resp. 4 m
V River V Vessel (km/h) (km/h) 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 16.1 16.0 16.1 12.0 14.5 16.0 17.0 17.1 16.5 12.0 15.3 Transit time (h) 4.8 3.0 1.4 3.1 11.8 12.9 15.5 17.9 34.2 5.4 109.9 Prop. Engine (kW) (kW) 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 700 770
kWh 4,878 924 787 678 9,875 9,677 12,295 17,672 26,367 2,085 85,239
kWh 5,787 3,630 1,653 2,374 14,270 15,654 18,719 21,653 41,360 2,085 127,186
1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 350 385
Dyke section to IG II FFS to Cernavoda Danube Black Sea Canal
Remarks: Speed limit in canal Gabcikovo and Danube Black Sea Canal 12 km/h Maximum speed upstream 20 km/h due to nautical conditions FFS = Free Flowing Section
100 % utilisation of loading capacity (90 + 132 = 222 TEU per convoy)
upstream
Riverkm Riverkm Distance (km) 65 300 864 1,170 1,433 864 1,170 1,433 1,640 1,811 564 306 263 207 171 37 1,851 1,873 1,921 1,873 1,921 1,998 22 48 77 1,760
Remarks: Speed limit in Gabcikovo canal and Danube Black Sea Canal 12 km/h FFS = Free Flowing Section
WL = 5 m
V River (km/h) 0.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 8.0 10.0 5.0 V Vessel (km/h) 12.0 11.1 12.1 11.1 11.1 10.1 12.0 8.1 6.1 11.1 10.5 Transit time (h) 5.4 50.8 25.3 23.7 18.6 16.9 3.1 2.7 7.9 6.9 161.4 Prop. Engine (kW) (kW) 350 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,050 1,100 1,100 1,100 385 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,155 1,210 1,210 1,210
WL = 3,5 resp. 4 m
V River V Vessel (km/h) (km/h) 0.0 2.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 12.0 11.5 15.1 11.0 10.0 9.5 12.0 14.1 8.0 14.1 11.7 Transit time (h) 5.4 49.0 20.3 23.9 20.7 18.0 3.1 1.6 6.0 5.5 153.4 Prop. Engine (kW) (kW) 350 385
Section Danube Black Sea Canal FFS Cernavoda to IG II IG II to end dyke IG I End dyke IG I to estuary Save FFS to Budapest Csepel
kWh 2,085 61,481 30,600 28,669 22,565 20,486 3,561 3,286 9,521 8,394 190,650 275,888
kWh 2,085 59,343 24,521 28,930 25,047 21,780 2,374 1,888 7,260 6,608 179,835 307,021
1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 700 770
FFS to lock Gabcikovo 1,640 Canal lock Gabcikovo Lock Gabcikovo to border AT-SK FFS East of Vienna Lock Freudenau - Port Krems
1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210 1,100 1,210
CALCULATION OF STANDBY COSTS (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)

Standby costs and daily rate Type of vessel Operating mode Current value Operator tdwat Days in use/year Cost in /year Crew Repairs Insurance Miscellaneous Amortisation/Depreciation 1) Interest 2) Overhead shipping company (30 %) 3) Total costs Daily costs
1) assumed remaining period 12,5 years 2) 6 % of 50 % of the current value 3) including agent fee of about 10 EUR / TEU
MCV C (24h/d) 1,150,000 Company 2000 t / 1.650 HP 320 184,000 32,500 23,000 11,000 92,000 34,500 113,000 490,000 1,531
PL C (24h/d) 290,000 Company 1950 t 320
11,250 9,125 29,000 10,875 18,125 78,375 245
Daily cost for convoy Profit margin (+10 %) Daily cost for convoy Time for round trip Standby cost round trip
1,776 178 1,954 16 Days 31,261
CALCULATION OF OPERATING- AND TOTAL COSTS (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)

Operating costs Fuel consumption Conversion factor l/kg Fuel price 0.21 kg/kWh 1.1765 0.46 /l WL = 5 m 275,888 57,936 68,161 31,354 WL = 3,5 m 307,021 64,475 75,852 34,892 Average* 286,266 60,116 70,725 32,533
Necessary kWh Fuel consumption in kg Fuel consumption in l Fuel costs
*Assumption: 2/3 per year WL = 5 m, 1/3 WL = 3,5 m Operating costs round-trip Operating costs round-trip Operating costs round-trip 32,533 at 100 % capacity 28,467 at 75 % capacity** 24,400 at 50 % capacity**
**Approximation: 25 % less payload equal 12,5 % less fuel consumption, 50 % results in 25 % less fuel consumption
Utilisation ratio
TEU / Payload in round-trip Standby costs (MCV + PL) Daily costs 1,954.- x 16 days round-trip 70.000 l Gas oil at capacity 46 per 100 l, incl. lubricant
100%
444 / 6,216 31,261
75%
333 / 4,662 31,261
50%
222 / 3,108 31,261
Operating costs round-trip (MCV)
32,533
28,467
24,400
TOTAL VESSEL COSTS

Transit fee Danube Black Sea Canal tdwat convoy Fee per ton of deadweight capacity Fee per passage Fee per round-trip TOTAL COSTS ROUND-TRIP
63,794
59,727
55,661
3,950 0.48 1,896 3,792 67,586
3,950 0.48 1,896 3,792 63,519
3,950 0.48 1,896 3,792 59,453
CALCULATION OF SUPPLY CHAIN KREMS - SHANGHAI

st
1) As of 1 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'GP Europe-Asia Loop 3 Shanghai - Hamburg Asia-Black-Sea-Service Shanghai - Constanta Extra costs Constanta $740 IMPORT Rate 40'GP $1,480 EXPORT Rate 40'GP $50
Rate 40'HC $1,680
Rate 20'GP $50
Rate 40'HC $50
$900 $160
$1,800 $320
$2,000 $320
$175 $125
$200 $150
$200 $150
Rates excl. CAF, BAF and other additionals Ocean freight rate incl. additionals in US $ Rate 20'GP Europe-Asia Loop 3 Shanghai - Hamburg Asia-Black-Sea-Service Shanghai - Constanta Extra costs Constanta $1,031
IMPORT Rate 40'GP $2,061
Rate 40'HC $2,272
Rate 20'GP $303
EXPORT Rate 40'GP $553
Rate 40'HC $553
$1,275 $244 CAF
$2,549 $488 5.50%
$2,760 $488
$435 $132
$711 $158
$711 $158 250.00 USD/TEU 75.00 USD/TEU
BAF Bosphorus-Add
Ocean freight rate incl. additionals in EURO (1=1,25USD) Rate 20'GP Europe-Asia Loop 3 Shanghai - Hamburg Asia-Black-Sea-Service Shanghai - Constanta Extra costs Constanta 825
IMPORT Rate 40'GP 1,649
Rate 40'HC 1,818
Rate 20'GP 242
EXPORT Rate 40'GP 442
Rate 40'HC 442
1,020 195
2,039 390
2,208 390
348 106
569 127
569 127
In the 1st quater of 2006 Constanta was faced with higher costs in export of 100 Euro per 20' and 130 Euro per 40' container and in import "thanks" to Bosporus additionals even with about 200 respectively 390 Euro.
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'GP Europe-Asia Loop 3 Shanghai - Hamburg Asia-Black-Sea-Service Shanghai - Constanta $750 IMPORT Rate 40'GP $1,500 EXPORT Rate 40'GP $150
Rate 40'HC
Rate 20'GP $100
Rate 40'HC
$750
$1,500
$100
$150
Ocean freight rate incl. additionals in US $ Rate 20'GP Europe-Asia Loop 3 Shanghai - Hamburg Asia-Black-Sea-Service Shanghai - Constanta $1,110
IMPORT Rate 40'GP $2,220
Rate 40'HC
Rate 20'GP $408
EXPORT Rate 40'GP $762
Rate 40'HC
$1,110 CAF
$2,220 8.00%
$408
$762 300.00 USD/TEU 0.00 USD/TEU
BAF Bosphorus-Add
Ocean freight rate incl. additionals in EURO (1=1,25USD) Rate 20'GP Europe-Asia Loop 3 Shanghai - Hamburg Asia-Black-Sea-Service Shanghai - Constanta 888
IMPORT Rate 40'GP 1,776
Rate 40'HC
Rate 20'GP 326
EXPORT Rate 40'GP 610
Rate 40'HC
888
1,776
326
610
888 Euro for import Shanghai-Krems, 326 Euro for export.
CALCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE

4000 TEU Vessel Constanta 4,000 8K90MC-C/ME-C 36,560 32,904 171 20 944 47.2 265.57 66.4 3.2 212.5 29% 8000 TEU Vessel Hamburg 8,000 12K98MC Mk6 68,640 61,776 171 20 3,527 176.35 1,862.91 232.9 3.2 745.2 100%
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSEL (ex.SUEZ) Number of 20' containers Engine (MAN-BW) Engine power [kW] Required engine power (Engine power*0,9)[kW] Specific fuel consumption [g/kWh] Speed [kn] Distance [nM] ex Suez-canal (Port Said) Time consumption (Distance/Speed) [h] Fuel consumption [t] Fuel consumption per container [kg] Kg CO2/kg fuel CO2 emissions per container [kg] Relative CO2 emissions [%]
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSEL (Port Said - Shanghai) Number of 20' containers Engine (MAN-BW) Engine power [kW] Required engine power (Engine power*0,9)[kW] Specific fuel consumption [g/kWh] Speed [kn] Distance [nM] Port Said - Shanghai Time consumption (Distance/Speed) [h] Fuel consumption [t] Fuel consumption per container [kg] Kg CO2/kg fuel CO2 emissions per container [kg] Relative CO2 emissions [%]
4000 TEU Vessel Constanta 4,000 8K90MC-C/ME-C 36,560 32,904 171 20 7,247 362.35 2,038.79 509.7 3.2 1,631 107%
8000 TEU Vessel Hamburg 8,000 12K98MC Mk6 68,640 61,776 171 20 7,247 362.35 3,827.76 478.5 3.2 1,531 100%
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSEL TOTAL Shanghai - Port Said Port Said - Constanta resp. Hamburg CO2 emissions per container [kg] Relative CO2 emissions [%]
4000 TEU Vessel Constanta 1,631 212 1,843 81%
8000 TEU Vessel Hamburg 1,531 745 2,276 100%
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE HINTERLAND Max. capacity in TEU Payload [t] Distance [km] Ton-kilometres Required kWh Fuel consumption [kg/kWh] Fuel consumption [kg] kg CO2/ 1000 tkm kg CO2/kg Fuel CO2 emission [kg] CO2 emissons per container [kg] Relative CO2 emissions [%]
Blocktrain Hamburg-Krems (applies v.v.) 75 1,050 1,100 1,155,000
IWT ConstantaKrems (upstream) 222 3,108 1,760 5,470,080 190,650 0.21 40,036 3.2
IWT KremsConstanta (downstream) 222 3,108 1,760 5,470,080 85,239 0.21 17,900 3.2 57,280 258 60%
Blocktrain Hamburg-Krems ROUND TRIP
IWT ConstantaKrems ROUND TRIP
27.75 * 32,051 427 100% 128,116 577 135%
64,103 855 100%
185,397 835 98%
Max. capacity railway 75 TEU / Blocktrain Max. capacity IWT: MCV (90 TEU) + PL (132 TEU) = 222 TEU/Convoy * 40 % proportion of caloric power stations
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE CO2 emissions per container [kg] Export Krems->Shanghai Hinterland Deep Sea Vessel HAM+Rail 427 2,276 2,704 100% CON+IWT 258 1,843 2,102 78% Import Shanghai->Krems Hinterland Deep Sea Vessel HAM+Rail 427 2,276 2,704 100% CON+IWT 577 1,843 2,421 90% Total Krems->Shanghai->Krems Hinterland Deep Sea Vessel HAM+Rail 855 4,553 5,407 100% CON+IWT 835 3,687 4,522 84%
22% less CO2 per container!
in cooperation with:
For further information and contacts:

For inquiries regarding the project: For inquiries regarding the port of Constanta and inland navigation: Alexandru Capatu
Managing Director Navromsa AG, Vienna branch
Gerhard Gussmagg
Team Manager Transport Development via donau - sterreichische WasserstraenGesellschaft mbH A-1220 Wien, Donau-City-Strae 1 tel +43 (0) 50 4321-1617 fax +43 (0) 50 4321-1050 cell +43 (0) 676 613 99 99 gerhard.gussmagg@via-donau.org www.via-donau.org www.donauschifffahrt.info
A-1020 Wien, Freudenauerhafenstr. 8 tel +43 (1) 729 67 00 fax +43 (1) 729 67 01 cell +43 (0) 664 302 58 74 navromsa_ag@utanet.at

Danube Shipping Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Danube Shipping Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLD

CONTAINER LINER SERVICE DANUBE

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 2 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

2.2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4 4.1

Environmental balance........................................................................................................ 54 Result of the talks in Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade........................................................ 55

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION............................................ 60

Version 1.0 | Page 3 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 4 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 5 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 6 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 7 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 1: Container flows worldwide

Source: Hulocon, 2005

Version 1.0 | Page 8 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 2: Global volume of container transhipment status quo and forecast

Source: ISL, Lemper/Stuchtey, 2004

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Growth rate 2001-2004 + 37 % + 24 % + 130 % + 169 % + 42 % + 29 % + 36 % + 49 % + 224 %

Growth rate 2004-2005 +9% +2% + 24 % + 18 % +4% -2% + 12 % + 16 % + 97 %

Version 1.0 | Page 10 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Table 2: Modal split in hinterland transport, Container (2005)

Truck Rotterdam Antwerpen Hamburg

Version 1.0 | Page 11 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Source: Manual on Danube Navigation, via donau, 2005

Version 1.0 | Page 12 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 4: Container shipments on French waterways

Source: POINT PRESSE, Voies navigables de France, April 2006

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 5: Inland navigation container ship Arc en Ciel on the Seine

Source: River Shuttle Containers, 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 14 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 6: Waterborne container transhipment at Flemish inland ports

Version 1.0 | Page 15 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 7: Transport volumes on the Austrian section of the Danube

Source: Statistik Austria, in-house calculations, 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 16 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 8: Container transport volumes on the Austrian section of the Danube

Containers transported in 1,000 (20 ft, 30 ft and 40 ft)

Source: Statistik Austria, 2006

Version 1.0 | Page 17 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 9: Container transhipment volumes on Black Sea ports, 1995 to 2005

Varna Burgas Odessa/ Ilychevsk Odessa Ilychevsk Novorossiysk Poti

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

Version 1.0 | Page 18 of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Figure 10: Constanta South Container Terminal

Source: Constanta port, 2006

COLD I Final Report August 2006