Activity 1 Seaports - River ports systems interoperability Document Version: 2.1
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
This B2MoS report is intended for project partners’, stakeholders and directly involved persons use only.
DISCLAIMER
"The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein."
AUTHORS
Birgit Kreiensiek, dbh Logistics IT AG (dbh) Britta Schreiber and Stefn Breitenbach - Hafen Hamburg Marketing (HHM)
CONTRIBUTORS
Manuel Kamphues, dbh Logistics IT AG (dbh) Dr. Werner Knoll, Stefan Kunze and Ingo Egloff - Hafen Hamburg Marketing (HHM) Dirk Gladiator and Daniel Blanken - DAKOSY Datenkommunikationssystem AG (DAKOSY)
VERSION HISTORY
Date Document Version Document Revision Document History Author/Reviser
12 Feb 2014 1.1 First Draft (vs 1) Birgit Kreiensiek 24 Feb 2014 1.2 Second Draft Britta Schreiber 25 Feb 2014 1.3 Third Draft Stefan Breitenbach 27 Feb 2014 2.0 Final (vs 2) Birgit Kreiensiek 02 Oct 2014 2.1 Final Sean Deehan
Activity 1 Page 2
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
APPROVALS
Date Document Version Document Approved by
05 Mar 2014 vs 2 Stefan Henke, dbh (content approved)
06 Mar 2014 vs 2 Gunter Klein, dbh (formal approved)
13 October 2014 vs 2.1 Project Board
Activity 1 Page 3
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... ¡ERROR! MARCADOR NO DEFINIDO.
DISCLAIMER ...... 2
AUTHORS ...... 2
CONTRIBUTORS ...... 2
VERSION HISTORY ...... 2
APPROVALS ...... 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 4
INDEX OF GRAPHS AND FIGURES ...... 7
INDEX OF TABLES ...... 8
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 8
GLOSSARY OF TERMS...... 12
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 13
1.1 Definitions ...... 13
1.2 Overview ...... 14
2 INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION ...... 15
2.1 General Overview Germany ...... 15
2.2 Environmental Facts of Inland Water Transports ...... 22
2.3 Hamburg ...... 23
2.3.1 Geographical Location and General Overview ...... 23
2.3.2 Superstructure ...... 25
2.3.3 Infrastructure ...... 27
2.3.4 Inland Waterway Transportation ...... 28
2.3.5 Bottlenecks ...... 30
Activity 1 Page 4
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
2.4 Bremen...... 31
2.4.1 Geographical Location and General Overview ...... 31
2.4.2 Superstructure - Bremerhaven...... 34
2.4.3 Infrastructure - Bremerhaven ...... 35
2.4.4 Inland Waterway Transportation ...... 35
2.4.5 Bottlenecks ...... 38
3 METHODOLOGY ...... 39
3.1 Interviews ...... 39
3.1.1 Selection of Stakeholders in the Hinterland Transport Chain ...... 39
3.1.2 Development of Questionnaire ...... 41
3.1.3 Selection of Interview Partners and Realization of Interviews ...... 41
3.1.4 Project Meetings for Coordination of Activities (Technical Meetings Germany) ...... 41
3.2 Process Analyses ...... 41
4 REALISATION ...... 42
4.1 Process Analyses ...... 42
5 DERIVED PROPOSALS FOR DEMONSTRATORS ...... 43
6 FURTHER PROCEDURE ...... 47
6.1 Interviews ...... 48
7 ROADMAP ...... 49
7.1 Motivation and approach of dbh ...... 49
7.2 Motivation and approach of hhm ...... 50
7.3 Motivation and approach of dakosy ...... 53
7.3.1 Current process between Barge / River transport and Seaport terminal ...... 53
7.3.2 Possible improvement steps / priorities ...... 53
Activity 1 Page 5
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
7.3.3 Presentation of results / Demonstrator ...... 54
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ...... 57
Activity 1 Page 6
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
INDEX OF GRAPHS AND FIGURES
Figure 1. Inland waterway areas (definition of the statistical department in Germany). Modified design by HHM. Source: Wasser und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes, in http://www.wsv.de/service/karten/bundeseinheitlich/pdf/w162o.pdf , Stand: 25.02.2014 17 Figure 2. Federal Inland Waterway System. Source: Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes, in: http://www.wsa-duisburg-meiderich. wsv.de/wasser/Strassennetz/index.html, Date: 24.02.2014 ...... 18 Figure 3. Transported by inland waterway sections and the 10 biggest inland ports 2012 in 1,000 tons. Source: Own illustration based on DESTATIS, Fachserie 8, Reihe 4, 4.1. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden 2013 ...... 19 Figure 4. Inland Ports connected to the German North Sea Ports. Source: HHM, 2013 ...... 20 Figure 5. Energy consumption per ton-km . Source: Economical and Ecological Comparison of Transport Modes: Road, Railways, Inland Waterways, http://www.ebu- uenf.org/fileupload/SummaryStudy_engl.pdf ...... 22 Figure 6. Summary external costs inland transport modes (Container cargo). Source: Economical and Ecological Comparison of Transport Modes: Road, Railways, Inland Waterways, http://www.ebu-uenf.org/fileupload/SummaryStudy_engl.pdf ...... 23 Figure 7. Port of Hamburg – Main Cargo and Logistic Operators. Source: Hamburg Port Authority AöR ...... 25 Figure 8. Barge traffic Port of Hamburg, 2001-2012 in million of tons. Source: HHM, 2013 .. 28 Figure 9. Overview of all ports located in the upper Elbe area. Source: Hamburg Port Authority AöR, ISL-Baltic Consults GmbH ...... 29 Figure 10. Bottlenecks at Inland Waterways related to the Port of Hamburg. Source: Hamburg Port Authority AöR, ISL Baltic Consult GmbH ...... 31 Figure 11. Industriehafen and Neustaeder Hafen at the Port of Bremen. Source: bremenports GmbH & Co.KG, in: Ports Handbook 2009, page 14 f...... 32 Figure 12. Layout Port of Bremerhaven. Source: EUROGATE GmbH & Co. KGaA, KG ...... 34 Figure 13 - Barge traffic in Bremen and Bremerhaven, 1990-2012 in 1,000 tons. Source: bremenports, in: http://www.bremenports.de/en/location/statistics/barge-traffic, date: 24.02.2013 ...... 36 Figure 14. Share of transport modes in hinterland traffic with Bremerhaven in 1000 TEU and per cent. Source: bremenports, in: http://www.bremenports.de/en/location/statistics/barge- traffic, date: 24.02.2013 ...... 36
Activity 1 Page 7
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 15. PCS of port of Bremen. Source: dbh Logistics IT AG, Feb. 2014 ...... 44 Figure 16. Possible interface improvements between stakeholders within the hinterland transport chain. Source: HHM, 2014 ...... 46
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1. Relevant ports for container transport by barge ...... 21 Table 2. Inland waterway connections via the Port of Hamburg (container lines). Source: HHM, 2014 ...... 30 Table 3. Share of transport modes in hinterland traffic with Bremerhaven in 1,000 TEU and %. Source: bremenports, in: http://www.bremenports.de/en/location/statistics/barge-traffic, date: 24.02.2013 ...... 37 Table 4. Regular barge service ...... 37 Table 5. Potential stakeholders for interviews ...... 39 Table 6. Interviewed stakeholders / partners ...... 48
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
AC Advantage Customs: part of the PCS of provider dbh in Bremen
ADM Archer Daniels Midland
AIS Automatic Identification System
ALPO Advantage Local Port Order: part of the PCS of provider dbh in Bremen
APV Autoridad Portuaria de Valencia (Port Authority of Valencia)
ASP Application Service Provider mode
ASR Action Status Report
ATLAS Automatisiertes Tarif- und Lokales Zollabwicklungssystem
BHT Bremer Hafentelematik
BIP Business Integration Plattform: part of the PCS of provider dbh in Bremen ; automated interface for import handling of cargo to
Activity 1 Page 8
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
accelerate processes and to conform processes according to customs law
BIT Business Integration Truck: Part of the PCS of provider dbh in Bremen; container information, customs information and transport announcement
BLG BLG LOGISTICS GROUP AG & Co. KG
BREPOS3 Bremen Port Operating System: Part of the PCS of provider dbh in Bremen; used by the port authority for traffic control and monitoring of dangerous goods
cm Centimeter
CODIS Central Organising, Dispatching and Information System: besteht gegenwärtig aus den Modulen Auftragsmanagement / Transportmanagement und Disposition. Es wird von allen Operateuren und Verkaufsgesellschaften in den Häfen genutzt.
CRM Customer-Relationship-Management
CT Container Terminal
CTA Container Terminal Altenwerder
CTB (HHLA) Container Terminal Burchardkai (HHLA) CTB
CTB Container Terminal Bremerhaven
CTH Container Terminal Hamburg
CTT Container Terminal Tollerort
DACOM Dangerous Cargo Online Management: Part of the PCS of provider dbh in Bremen; handling of dangerous goods in the port of Bremen
DAKOSY DAKOSY Datenkommunikationssystem AG, Hamburg
dbh dbh Logistics IT AG, Bremen
DBR Deutsche Binnenreederei AG
EC European Commision
EDI Electronic Data Interchange
Activity 1 Page 9
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
EDIFACT Electronic Data Interchange For Administration, Commerce and Transport
e.g. for example
EORI Economic Operators’ Registration and Identification number
ERP Enterprise-Resource-Planning
ETA Estimated Time of Arrival
etc. et cetera
ETD Estimated Time of Departure
EU European Union
FLZ Feeder Logistik Zentrale
GMS Großmotorgüterschiff (large motor vessel)
HHLA Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG
HHM Hafen Hamburg Marketing
HPA Hamburg Port Authority AöR (public-law institution)
ISL Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik
km Kilometer
KTG K+S Transport GmbH
m Meter
MIELE Multimodal Interoperability E-services for Logistics and Environment sustainability
mil Million
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company Germany GmbH
NTB North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven
NWL Norddeutsche Wasserweg Logistik GmbH
p.a. per annum
PCS Port Community System
Activity 1 Page 10
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
PDF Portable Document Format
RIS River Information System
SIS Ship Information System/ Schiffsinformationssystem: Part of the PCS of dbh in Bremen; management of im- and export voyages and distribution to port authority and other stakeholder
TEU Twenty foot Equivalent Unit
TENT-T Trans-European Transport Network
TOS Terminal Operating System
ÜGMS Übergroßes-Großmotorgüterschiff (extra large motor vessel)
VAT Value added tax
VTS Vessel Tracking System
WADIS WADIS 2.0: communication hub to DB-Schenker
WSD Wasser- und Schifffahrtsdirektion (Department of Waterways and Shipping)
WSV Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung (Administration of Waterways and Shipping)
Activity 1 Page 11
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
B2MoS “Business to Motorways of the Sea” Action
Action “Business to Motorways of the Sea” Action (B2MoS)
Coordinator Party that has to coordinate the predeployment of the Action (B2MoS) in accordance with the Description of the Action in the TEN-T Funding Decision with a view to achieving the objectives laid down therein
Commission Commission of the European Communities
Deliverables Deliverables required under the TEN-T Funding Decision and the B2MoS Consortium Agreement (including, but not limited to, the reports and cost statements that have to be delivered to the coordinator and/or the Commission)
TEN-T Funding EU Decision for the Action Decision
Activity 1 Page 12
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
1 Introduction
This sub-activity will analyse interoperability issues of seaports and river ports’ systems, intending to improve communications, decrease errors in exchanged documents and increase the efficiency of handling operations at seaports and river ports. The partners involved in this sub-activity are: dbh, dbh Logistics IT AG (leader) HHM, Hafen Hamburg Marketing DAKOSY
1.1 Definitions
The objective of this document was the result of the analysis of “The Interoperability of Seaports and River ports” in Germany. What does Interoperability mean? Definition of interoperability: based on inter or between and opera = work. It describes the ability of independent or heterogeneous systems or organisations to work together in an efficient way and to exchange information using defined standards. Interoperability of seaports and river ports systems: To attain interoperability, the electronic exchange of information between those different organizations (seaports and inland waterway ports), which have a wide range of different systems running, should be established and done electronically. Within this package the realisation of interoperability within organisations (among different departments of the same organisation), horizontal (with different organisations interacting among them), vertical (within different levels of the same organisation) and cross-border (among different countries) will be assessed both in the public and private sector. Why Interoperability? European goal: According to the Commission the interrelation of inland waterway ports and seaports have to be improved (NAIADES II (SWD82012) 168 final). Current inefficiencies: Paper documents, phone calls and no communication at all means poor planning due to information shortcoming extra time, staff costs within terminal and barge operator.
Activity 1 Page 13
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
High potential of Reuse: Reuse of data in e.g. ship declaration, berth planning, load planning and schedule planning should be possible. Harmonization: Harmonization of reporting formalities shall reduce administrative burdens for barge operators. Benefits of Interoperability: Much more efficient processes: Due defined and harmonised communication for the benefit of all stakeholders. Better planning: Due to early and reliable information flow e.g. increase the efficiency of handling operations. Less errors: The e-interfaces and data reuse will require less manual typing and hence less errors.
Multimodal enhancement: Better integration of river transport into the logistic chain.
Logistic Chain: Multimodal logistic chain will consolidate freight volumes.
1.2 Overview The interoperability issues of seaports and river port systems will be analyzed in this task. According to the Commission Staff Working Document: Towards “NAIADES II” – Promoting, Greening and Integrating Inland Waterway Transport in the Single EU Transport Area (SWD(2012) 168 final) the interrelation of inland waterway ports and seaports should be improved in order to support river transport integration into the multimodal logistic chain and to help consolidate freight volumes. The Commission services envisage supporting this process through guidance for the integration of inland navigation and ports into the TEN-T multimodal corridors. Seaport dues, terminal related transshipment costs and pre/post haulage notably contribute to the total costs of the inland waterway-based multimodal chains and the role of seaports in the success of river transport is significant. Studies on potential solutions to improve the communications between the ports of Bremerhaven and Hamburg and inland waterways ports will be carried out and interoperability issues of their systems will be analysed. There are many constraints that will be taken into account when dealing with interoperability issues at the EU level. Many of these constraints have already been identified and are being dealt by the European Commission (EC). The interoperability work undertaken in this activity will use and apply the results of the initiatives driven by the EC. Among the most relevant aspects to take into account are:
Activity 1 Page 14
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
The EORI number has proved its usefulness for recognizing economic operators in the entire EU. However, the VAT number is also required in many declarations and transactions. Unfortunately, this number is not recognized, nor equal in the entire EU. Another important constraint appears in the use of Digital User ID and Public Certificates of recognized Certification Authorities (X.509 Public key infrastructure) in Member States. The problem is not in using a Digital User ID and a Public Certificate, as these cryptographic techniques and the use of digital signatures are standard and worldwide consolidated for securing electronic transactions. The problem presents itself in the recognition of certificates that are generated by different European Certification Authorities. For example, at present, there isn’t a mutual recognition of Certification Authorities among EU Member States that are accepted by Customs and Tax Authorities. This represents an important obstacle for achieving interoperability in Europe as it is affecting its Internal Market. “1
2 Inland Waterway Navigation
2.1 General Overview Germany
Germany has a very complex inland waterway network. It is approximately 7,350 km in length and crucial to Germany’s economic success. Figure the inland waterways offer a great north- south connection as well as the east-west connection. Next to the natural inland waterways such as the Rhine, Donau, Elbe or Weser, the network was extended to create some artificial channels, which are particulary important for some industry clusters. In general it can be stated that all the waterways, which are used for commercial purposes are owned and maintained by the federal government. The Federal Waterways and Navigation Administration of the federal republic (WSV) is in charge of the administration of the federal inland waterways as well as the shipping traffic within this system. The WSV is divided into seven Waterways and Navigation Directorates (WSD), who are in charge of the individual defined areas of the federal inland waterway network.2 The statistical department of the federal republic of Germany divides the inland waterway network in nine areas, which differ from the seven sub-divisions of the WSV. In the following, the definition of the areas of the statistical departments is taken into consideration. Due to this,
1 Source B2MoS - Application Form Part B2 vs 25, page 35 2 Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes, in: http://www.wsv.de/Wir_ueber_uns/index.html, Stand: 10.02.2009.
Activity 1 Page 15
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
the data of goods flows from the statistical departments is more comprehensible to the areas. The areas are called: 1. Elbegebiet 2. Wesergebiet 3. Mittellandkanalgebiet 4. Westdeutsches Kanalgebiet 5. Rheingebiet 6. Donaugebiet 7. Gebiet Berlin 8. Gebiet Brandenburg Binnengebiet Mecklenburg Vorpommern 9. Küstengebiet Mecklenburg-Vorpommern The corresponding inland waterways related to the nine above mentioned areas of the statistical departments can be found in Figure 1. Inland waterway areas (definition of the statistical department in Germany).3
3 Statistisches Bundesamt, Verkehr – Güterverkehrsstatistik der Binnenschifffahrt 2007, Fachserie 8 Reihe 4, 2008, p.64 ff.
Activity 1 Page 16
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 1. Inland waterway areas (definition of the statistical department in Germany). Modified design by HHM. Source: Wasser und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes, in http://www.wsv.de/service/karten/bundeseinheitlich/pdf/w162o.pdf , Stand: 25.02.2014
Activity 1 Page 17
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Within the inland waterways, there is also a different classification. The best-developed waterway is the Rhine (complete), Weser (partly), Kiel Channel and Elbe (partly). These waterways allow vessels up to a length of 3.9m and a width of 15m non- constrained shipping possibilities. It can be observed that the waterways in the western part of Germany are offering better conditions for shipping than the network in the east, which is related to the former division of Germany.
Figure 2. Federal Inland Waterway System. Source: Wasser- und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes, in: http://www.wsa-duisburg-meiderich. wsv.de/wasser/Strassennetz/index.html, Date: 24.02.2014
Activity 1 Page 18
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
The most important waterway in terms of the volume of goods being transported is the river Rhine. Originating in Switzerland, this river connects important industry clusters within western Germany and transports about 65% of all inland waterway cargo. Furthermore, seven of the ten largest inland ports are located along this river area. The second largest area is the channel network within the “Ruhrgebiet”, with about 12% of the total inland cargo transported. The third most important area is the Elbe network, where the third largest inland port (Hamburg) is situated. In 2012, almost 10 million tons was handled in Hamburg and transferred via the inland waterway to further destinations.
Figure 3. Transported by inland waterway sections and the 10 biggest inland ports 2012 in 1,000 tons. Source: Own illustration based on DESTATIS, Fachserie 8, Reihe 4, 4.1. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden 2013
One of the leading barge operators in northern Germany “Deutsche Binnenreederei” (DBR) organises container transport in pushing units, consisting of one push boat and at least one lighter. By making adjustments in marine technology, DBR can operate transports to a water depth of 1.1 meter. The special pushing boats have only a depth of 90 cm and the barges were widened to 9.50m, so that three containers can be loaded side by side. Per unit (two different sizes exists: one for 54 and one for 24 TEU), the capacity has increased 50%. Upstream, the pushing units consist of up to six lighters that can hold in total 156 TEU in two tiers per departure.
Activity 1 Page 19
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Through the system of lighters, the resolution of the pushing units and individual locks of lighters could bypass the length restrictions in locks and hydraulic elevators. For a “three container stacked” transportation, a minimum bridges height of 7.00m is required. In the two- layer transport on the other hand, a minimum bridges height of 5.25m is sufficient. A one-tier transport would still be shorter, but isn´t cost-effective for shipping companies. In summary, the following minimum requirements for a transport by a lighter could be made: Minimum bridge´s height: 7.00 – 5.25m Minimum depth of navigation channel: 1.10m Maximum width of the barge: 9.5m The next Figure shows the locations of main inland ports, which are connected to German North Sea ports.
Figure 4. Inland Ports connected to the German North Sea Ports. Source: HHM, 2013
The source of the River Elbe originates from in the Czech Republic and flows into the North Sea. From the North Sea, vessels have direct access to the harbor in Hamburg. From the Port of Hamburg, barges can follow the River Elbe and haves direct access to other German inland areas. To identify the relevant areas within Hamburg, an analysis of the seaport ‘Hinterland’ transport was carried out by means of the barge.
Activity 1 Page 20
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
According to this, Hamburg sends and receives mainly from the regions of Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. The limited catchment area of Hamburg is based on the geographical location of its competing ports; Bremen/Bremerhaven, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp (ARA-Range). The federal states North Rhine-Westphalia, Rheinland Pfalz, Hesse and Baden Württemberg all have direct access to the Rhine, and were served directly by the ARA-Range ports. The ports of Bremen share a part of the inlet and outlet of Niedersachsen with Hamburg and it serves mainly the local market in Bremen. Regarding separately the container hinterland traffic by barge, federal states like North Rhine- Westphalia and Saxony should also be considered. It should be noted that a large proportion of the containers that travel to North Rhine-Westphalia are changed at the port of Minden, which is located directly on the border to Lower Saxony. Other ports that have to be noted in this context in container hinterland transport areas are shown in next table. Table 1. Relevant ports for container transport by barge
Inland Region Port Waterway Area Braunschweig Midland Lower Saxony Hannover Canal area Cuxhaven Elbe area North Rhine- Midland Minden Westphalia Canal area Magdeburg Lower Saxony Haldensleben Aken Elbe area Schleswig-Holstein Brunsbüttel Saxony Riesa/Dresden
Importantly, all relevant ports in the hinterland container traffic are in the Elbe, Weser and the Mittellandkanal region and relevant to the Port of Hamburg and the Ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven.
Activity 1 Page 21
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
2.2 Environmental Facts of Inland Water Transports By considering the environmental friendliness of all possible inland transport modes, inland shipping is the least harmful mode of transport. The energy used per ton-kilometer was compared to road and rail transports and ranked the lowest, thus making inland shipping the most environmental friendly transport mode (next figure).
Figure 5. Energy consumption per ton-km . Source: Economical and Ecological Comparison of Transport Modes: Road, Railways, Inland Waterways, http://www.ebu- uenf.org/fileupload/SummaryStudy_engl.pdf
Additionally, the external impacts, such as noise, pollution or area dissection are the lowest for inland shipping which makes it, in terms of inland transports, the environmental friendliest mode in terms of external costs.
Activity 1 Page 22
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 6. Summary external costs inland transport modes (Container cargo). Source: Economical and Ecological Comparison of Transport Modes: Road, Railways, Inland Waterways, http://www.ebu-uenf.org/fileupload/SummaryStudy_engl.pdf
On container freight routes, the external costs of inland shipping are on average 78% lower than road transport and 68% for railway transport, which makes this mode not only economically cheaper but also more environmentally friendly.
2.3 Hamburg
2.3.1 Geographical Location and General Overview
The federal state of Hamburg is situated at the river Elbe in the north of Germany. The Port of Hamburg is located in the heart of the city and represents Germany's biggest seaport. In 2012, a total of 8.9 million TEU was handled in the Port of Hamburg, strengthening its position as Europe’s 2rd and World’s 14th largest container port. The nautical access through the traffic separation zones in the German Bight is controlled by a modern traffic management system. After some 60 nautical miles of the Elbe estuary, past Cuxhaven, Brunsbüttel, Glückstadt and Stade, Hamburg's port boundary is crossed at Wedel. The high tide vessels can enter the port of Hamburg with a maximum draught of 15.1m and can leave it with a maximum draught of 13.8m without a tidal influence, the maximum allowable draught is restricted to 12.8m. The port infrastructure is managed by the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA). Besides providing infrastructure facilities, the HPA secures, develops and enhances the strategic competitive
Activity 1 Page 23
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
position of the port on the basis of market and competitor analyses by offering attractive customer services. This is done by establishing long-term customer relations, imposing adequate usage fees and by representing Hamburg’s interests in dealings with the EU, among others. The HPA was established in October 2005 in the course of the merger of the port-related competencies of various Hamburg authorities. Two privately owned container terminal operators, Hamburger Hafen & Logistik AG (HHLA) and Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg GmbH (Eurogate), manage four container terminals in the Port of Hamburg providing a total quay wall of 7.3km. The port infrastructures and all four-container terminals allow the handling of the last generation of container vessels. As described above, the nautical access of the port is restricted. As a result, a further deepening and widening of the River Elbe is necessary in order to allow these vessels to call the port of Hamburg. The River Elbe is the connection between the port of Hamburg and the North Sea and the latest generation of container vessels requires a deeper draught, which is currently restricted to 12.8m. In addition to its natural hinterland in Germany, the port of Hamburg serves a wider European area. Millions of consumers living in the hinterland and Baltic Region are dependent on the activities of the port of Hamburg. Its geographical location is ideal for being a hub for container transshipment relating to traffic destined to and from the entire Baltic region. There are as many as 146 departures of feeder container vessels per week, of which 128 go to the Baltic Region; indicating the port’s extensive and competitive network. Two thirds (four out of six) of the port’s most important trade partners are in the Baltic Region. These are Russia, Finland, Sweden and Poland. The Baltic Region accounts for more than one third of Europe’s export volumes and 16% of world exports making it one of the most dynamic markets in Europe. As the Port of Hamburg is the most eastern seaport in the North Sea, it is the natural gateway for serving these markets. It is also known as their “Port of Entry”.
Activity 1 Page 24
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
2.3.2 Superstructure
The Port of Hamburg provides approximately 40km of quay walls with about 320 ocean-going vessel-berths of which 38 are large vessel berths. Although container handling is the most rapidly growing business, Hamburg is a multi-purpose port with break bulk and conventional cargo being an important part of its business. Figure 7. Port of Hamburg – Main Cargo and Logistic Operators, gives an overview of the main cargo and logistic operators in the Port of Hamburg.
Figure 7. Port of Hamburg – Main Cargo and Logistic Operators. Source: Hamburg Port Authority AöR
The container handling is focused on four large Container Terminals: Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg (CTH): approximately 2,000m of quay wall that includes six berths for large container vessels. With 21container gantry cranes, Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg can handle about 4 million TEU p.a. The Eurokombi Terminal for intermodal operation is also located there. Eleven Railway tracks that are covered by gantry cranes allow a shift of up to 700,000 loading units on freight trains p.a. In the near future, the Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg will be
Activity 1 Page 25
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
extended (“westward extension”), increasing the total handling capacity to approximately six million TEU p.a. HHLA Container Terminal Altenwerder (CTA): is one of the world’s most modern container terminals. Four berths for large container vessels are located on 1,400m of quay wall with 15 container gantry cranes. The terminal is characterized by a very high level of automation. The quay cranes operate semi-automatically and driverless automated-guided-vehicles move the containers between the quay and the automated stacking-area. CTA has a handling capacity of around 3 million TEU p.a. CTA also accommodates an intermodal terminal with seven railway tracks and four gantry cranes. HHLA Container Terminal Burchardkai (CTB): the largest container handling facility with 2,850m of quay wall, eight berths and 26 container gantry cranes. With its total quay length of 1,470min the Waltershof harbour basin the terminal will be able to handle four large container vessels simultaneously, with Post Panamax container gantry cranes installed on it. Feeder vessels are dispatched in the northern part of the terminal, directly at the River Elbe. By 2012, after the terminal expansion has been completed, its total handling capacity will be around 5.2 million TEU. The CTB intermodal terminal includes 8 railway tracks with 4 container gantry cranes. HHLA Container Terminal Tollerort (CTT): this terminal facility has four large container vessel berths located on a 1,000m long quay wall with eight container gantry cranes. CTT includes a new intermodal terminal with five railway tracks and three gantry cranes. Apart from the container terminals, there are various break bulk and multi-purpose terminals. Some of the most important terminals are: Iron Ore and Coal: Hansaport terminal handles iron ore and coal at four for even the largest bulk carriers. The terminal can discharge 100,000 metric tons per day. For an efficient hinterland transport, Hansaport has 15 railway tracks for block trains. They handle trains up to 6,500 gross tons to supply the steel industry with raw materials. Construction Material, Scrap and others are handled in the Rhenus Midgard and the Buss Ross Terminal. Fertilizers: KTG Terminal handles fertilizers such as potash and magnesium products on the 500 m long Kalikai. Agriculture Products: are handled e.g. at the ADM Terminal, the Silo P. Kruse Terminal and GTH Getreide Terminal Hamburg. Liquid Bulk is handled by the Vopac Terminal and the Oiltanking Terminal. Multi-Purpose Terminal: The Buss Hansa Terminal and the C. Steinweg Süd-West Terminal offer very flexible handling facilities e.g. for rolling cargo, heavy lifts and
Activity 1 Page 26
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
project cargo. Wallmann Terminal with two 140 ton mobile cranes is specialized on industrial project cargo and heavy lifts. Rolling Cargo: The BLG Auto Terminal Hamburg handles more than 5 million vehicles p. a. The Rhenus Midgard Terminal and the Unikai Terminal offer services for rolling cargo and general cargo as well. In addition to the already mentioned terminals, there are a lot of other terminals and logistic facilities that cover the whole range of specialized and multipurpose handling, storage and value added services.
2.3.3 Infrastructure
Based on the “one face to the customer” principle, the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) is the central contact partner for all enquiries arising with regard to infrastructure, navigational and operational safety and port security, property management and economic conditions in the port. The further development of the port’s infrastructure and the activities and duties of the HPA are mainly based on the Port Development Plan that is published by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. Apart from the railway, lorries also offer an important mode of transport in the port. With the exception of the motorway network, the HPA is completely in charge for managing all facilities: The HPA ensures that all road infrastructures, including bridges, are fully operational. It further reviews and evaluates the need and investment for maintenance and repair measures and develops new areas by building new roads as required. The liabilities of the HPA with regards to infrastructure are: maintenance and repair, refurbishment & enhancement, expansion, new construction. 177 bridges, 132km of roads, 55km of wharves and more than 300km of railway tracks must be safe and easily accessible.
Activity 1 Page 27
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
2.3.4 Inland Waterway Transportation
Along with feeder, truck and rail connections, inland waterways provide an attractive alternative for transporting bulk and dangerous cargo, and more increasingly, containers. Furthermore, barges play an increasingly important role in transporting cargo within the Port of Hamburg itself. Hamburg is Germany’s third largest inland port, outbid by Duisburg and Cologne only. In 2012 a total of 9.94 million tons of cargo shipped through the Port of Hamburg by barge.
Figure 8. Barge traffic Port of Hamburg, 2001-2012 in million of tons. Source: HHM, 2013
The port is linked to the German inland waterway network via the Middle Elbe, which in turn links Hamburg up to the ports of the Elbe catchment area as well as to the ports of the Ruhr area – Germany’s largest industrial center - and the River Rhine. At present however, freight flows to and from Hamburg are predominantly transported on the Elbe-Seiten-Kanal; only about 20% of the cargo is moved on the Middle Elbe. Cross-border transport is currently playing a less significant role in inland waterway shipping, with 93% of the transports being transacted in Germany.
Activity 1 Page 28
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 9. Overview of all ports located in the upper Elbe area. Source: Hamburg Port Authority AöR, ISL-Baltic Consults GmbH
The modal split share (without feeder traffic) of container barge traffic amounts to 2%. Measured in tons, container transports account for about 9% of Hamburg’s total inland waterway handling volumes. Barges carry around one fourth of all bulk goods moved through the Port of Hamburg. Regions with key manufacturing industries are mainly located in the area of the Mittellandkanal (Northern Germany). The ports with the highest cargo throughput rates in the area of the Mittellandkanal - Braunschweig and Hanover - are already served by regular barge liner services which link them to the seaports of Hamburg and Bremerhaven. In the area of the Middle Elbe and Upper Elbe, Magdeburg is of special importance for container transportation. However, other ports in that region are not insignificant either. In many aspects, the town of Aken and Saxony’s Upper Elbe inland ports have successfully specialised in handling certain goods.
Activity 1 Page 29
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Table 2. Inland waterway connections via the Port of Hamburg (container lines). Source: HHM, 2014
SERVICE PARTNER FREQUENCY CARGO PORTS
DBR Containerverkehr Deutsche 5/week Container, Braunschweig shipping route Binnenreederei Heavy Lifts
Mittellandkanal AG
DBR Containerverkehr Deutsche 3/week Container, Hannover, Minden shipping route Binnenreederei Heavy Lifts
Mittellandkanal AG
DBR Containerverkehr Deutsche 2/week Container, Magdeburg, Aken, shipping route Elbe Binnenreederei Heavy Lifts Riesa, Dresden,
AG Decin, Lovosice
Börde Container Feeder Börde Container 2/week Container, Haldensleben,
Feeder GmbH Heavy Lifts Magdeburg, Braunschweig
Elbe-Container-Dienst Lexzau, Scharbau 3/week Container, Glückstadt,
GmbH & Co. KG Heavy Lifts Brunsbüttel, Cuxhaven
2.3.5 Bottlenecks
Among other modes of transportation, barges play a limited role in transportation because inland waterways can be used efficiently only to a limited extent because of insufficient channel depths, bridges that are too low for vessels to pass underneath or lock chambers that are too small. Mobility is also restricted by the respective waterway’s expansion status and it is therefore often necessary to shift freight from barges to trucks for onward transport to the final place of destination. Between Hamburg and Magdeburg, the shipping route from Hitzacker to Dömitz is a bottleneck due to shallow passages caused by moving sandbars (shoals). Other bottlenecks are the rocky stretch at Magdeburg and the stretch exposed to erosion at Coswig. Hydrological particularities along the entire course of the Middle Elbe and Upper Elbe restrict mobility, depending on weather conditions. Apart from that, the river engineering measures required to be carried out in the Middle Elbe and Upper Elbe that have long been called for have yet to be implemented. In particular, the required Elbe channel maintenance measures: the target is to maintain the fairway at a depth
Activity 1 Page 30
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
of least 1.6m and keep it open on 345 days a year from 2010 onwards. This is crucial to ensure that inland waterway shipping remains a competitive alternative. Measures going beyond the ones mentioned above concern the River Information System Elbe (RIS), a traffic telematics system that acts as an intelligent transportation system to manage shipping traffic on inland waters. However, all these measures will only be successful and economically viable if they go hand in hand with the expansion of other technical infrastructure (locks, ship lifts). In particular, they will have to include the economic potential of the port and industrial areas on the banks of the Elbe-Seiten-Kanal and Mittellandkanal. Another weak point is the handling of barges in the seaport. Barge berth capacities are insufficient which complicates accurate planning. Hamburg can help to promote inland waterway transportation by investing in barge transshipment sites and barge waiting areas close to the big container terminals. However that only makes sense, if the terminal operators get actively involved and the solution is integrated in the operational concepts of the terminals.
Figure 10. Bottlenecks at Inland Waterways related to the Port of Hamburg. Source: Hamburg Port Authority AöR, ISL Baltic Consult GmbH
2.4 Bremen
2.4.1 Geographical Location and General Overview
There are two cities in the federal state of Bremen: Bremen and Bremerhaven. The City of Bremen, an enclave in Lower Saxony in northwest Germany, is situated on the banks of the
Activity 1 Page 31
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
River Weser about 70 km inland from the North Sea. The City of Bremerhaven is located at the mouth of the River Weser with about 32 nautical miles from the North Sea. In City Ports of Bremen, the terminals of the city ports of Bremen, which lie about 72 nautical miles from the open sea, concentrate mainly on general and heavy-lift cargo and on handling bulk commodities. The city ports of Bremen are structured into several parts, of which the two most important ones are the “Industriehafen” and the “Neustaedter Hafen” (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Industriehafen and Neustaeder Hafen at the Port of Bremen. Source: bremenports GmbH & Co.KG, in: Ports Handbook 2009, page 14 f.
In recent years, the city of Bremen has also become a ‘back office’ for the container terminal in Bremerhaven. A powerful and efficient network of logistic service providers have been established in Bremen that offers comprehensive value-added services in all aspects of general cargo and container logistics.4
4 Source: bremenports GmbH & Co.KG, in: Ports Handbook 2009
Activity 1 Page 32
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
With the development of the modern container transport, in particular the growth of the dimensions of container vessels, a division of labour between the two twin ports was established. With its modern facilities, its short access to the open sea and the required water depth, Bremerhaven primarily focuses on container and automobile handling. The port in the city of Bremen, on the other hand, has its main focus on bulk and conventional general cargo. Nevertheless, facilities for container handling are also available in Bremen. But the focus in this segment for the time being is concentrated towards container barges rather than large container vessels. In Bremerhaven Seaport, the river fairway is lit and buoyed, with a water depth of 14.50m near the container terminals. Due to that, there are hardly any nautical restrictions for vessels. Further improvements concerning draft limitations are expected in the near future. The port infrastructure is managed by bremenports GmbH & Co. KG. bremenports has overtaken this task on behalf of the City of Bremen since 2002. bremenports is responsible for operation and maintenance of the infrastructure of the Port of Bremerhaven and Bremen that includes 33.9 km quays, 186 km of port rail tracks, 56 bridges, 5 locks, and over 9 km of docks.
Activity 1 Page 33
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
2.4.2 Superstructure - Bremerhaven
In Bremerhaven, there are three container terminals, all located next to each other with a total quay length of almost 5 km (from South to North): MSC GATE, EUROGATE Container Terminal Bremerhaven (CTB) and North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven (NTB).
Figure 12. Layout Port of Bremerhaven. Source: EUROGATE GmbH & Co. KGaA, KG
In September 2008, the container terminal 4 (CT4) was taken into operation at the northern end of the terminal complex. This was likely the last container terminal project in Bremerhaven as there is no more space available for further expansions due to the adjacent natural reserve areas. Amongst other reasons and due to these restricted expansion possibilities in Bremerhaven, the federal state of Bremen has joined the consortium for the planning and building of the JadeWeserPort in Wilhelmshaven. All three container terminals operate with a straddle carrier system. Concerning hinterland transportation, all three modes of transport can be handled on the terminals. For the time being, barges are berthing at the common quay wall next to the container vessels. Loading and unloading is carried out with the standard container gantry cranes. Trucks access the container terminals via dedicated gates where the main checks and data exchanges are done. Depending on the position of the vessel or the container in the yard, the trucks are guided to different areas on the container terminals where containers are loaded and unloaded with straddle carriers. Moreover, there are three container railway-handling facilities. On the southern part and on the terminal in the middle railway, handling again is done with straddle carriers. The rail tracks are
Activity 1 Page 34
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
located just in the middle of the yard. This suboptimal system is due to the stepwise growth of the port. In order to minimize driving distances of the straddle carriers between the quay and container stacks in the back of the terminal, the trains are divided into six parts of about 100m in length. In the new container terminal facility CT 4 where operation started in 2009, train handling was optimized from the beginning. Adjacent to the container terminal, a new handling facility for trains was built. Because of the situation regarding the container terminal, no interference between waterside and landside operation occurs. The rail terminal offers state- of-the-art technology with six rail tracks each 700m long and four rail mounted gantries.
2.4.3 Infrastructure - Bremerhaven
For the ports of Bremen, Bremerhaven, Nordenham and Brake, the inland waterway Weser is of particular importance. Via the Mittelweser (the part of the river Weser between Bremen and Minden) and the Mittellandkanal these ports are connected to the surrounding economic regions and also to the European inland waterway network.
2.4.4 Inland Waterway Transportation
The dimensions of the barges are determined by the locks and bridges along the River Weser and the Mittellandkanal. The current status of the locks in Dörverden and Minden only allows the usage of 85m long Europa-class barges (max. dimensions: 85m length, 9.50m width and draft of max. 3.00m) with a maximum draft of 2.20m and a maximum stacking height of two containers. This results in a maximum transport capacity of 54 TEU per barge. After extension of the Mittelweser (2012) it will be navigable for so called Großmotorgüterschiffe (GMS) and so called Übergroße-Großmotorgüterschiffe (ÜGMS) which will lead to an increase in transport capacity of up to 104 TEU and 136 TEU respectively. Important locations for container transportation via barge systems are Bremen and Bremerhaven as well as the hinterland ports of Hanover, Minden, Braunschweig and Magdeburg. At present, these locations are connected to each other via regular operating container barge shuttles. In hinterland container transportation, there are regular barge services in place between Bremerhaven-Bremen-Minden-Hanover and Bremerhaven-Dörpen- Rotterdam/Antwerp. With connection to this hinterland region there is an additional service to Minden from Hamburg via Braunschweig and Hanover. The volume of traffic handled by barges has ranged between 5.0 and 6.5 million tons since 1990. This volume makes Bremen/Bremerhaven one of the ten most important German barge ports. In 2012, barge cargo throughput amounted to more than 6.4 million tons, a year-on-year increase (from 2009) of 85,000 tons (Next Figure).
Activity 1 Page 35
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 13 - Barge traffic in Bremen and Bremerhaven, 1990-2012 in 1,000 tons. Source: bremenports, in: http://www.bremenports.de/en/location/statistics/barge-traffic, date: 24.02.2013
Figure 14. Share of transport modes in hinterland traffic with Bremerhaven in 1000 TEU and per cent. Source: bremenports, in: http://www.bremenports.de/en/location/statistics/barge-traffic, date: 24.02.2013
Activity 1 Page 36
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
The ports of Bremen are both seaports and inland waterway ports. At present, the most important transport modes within the ports of Bremen are rail and truck – followed by barge (Next Table). As a result, there are great opportunities for increasing the volume of traffic handled by barge.
Table 3. Share of transport modes in hinterland traffic with Bremerhaven in 1,000 TEU and %. Source: bremenports, in: http://www.bremenports.de/en/location/statistics/barge- traffic, date: 24.02.2013
YEAR INLAND ROAD RAIL TOTAL WATERWAY
2005 37 (2.6%) 857 (60.1%) 531 (37.3%) 1,425 (100%)
2006 45 (2.7%) 932 (56.0%) 688 (41.3%) 1,666 (100%)
2007 54 (2.8%) 1,028 (54.3%) 812 (42.9%) 1,894 (100%)
2008 56 (2.7%) 1,105 (54.5%) 867 (42.8%) 2,028 (100%)
2009 53 (3.0%) 934 (52.5%) 792 (44.5%) 1,778 (100%)
2010 85 (4.4%) 970 (50.6%) 863 (45.0%) 1,918 (100%)
2011 95 (4.3%) 1,066 (48.4%) 1,042 (47.3%) 2,203 (100%)
2012 95 (4.3%) 1,066 (48.4%) 1,042 (47.3%) 2,203 (100%)
The ports of Bremen are offering frequent barge services both up and down the River Weser. Table 4 shows the sailing list of NWL as an example of a local barge traffic operator.
Table 4. Regular barge service
REGULAR BARGE SERVICES
TRIMODAL: daily barge service Bremerhaven <> Bremen connecting the terminals in Bremerhaven (Eurogate / NTB / MSC Gate / optional BLG) with all terminals in Bremen (Neustädter Hafen, Holz- und Fabrikenhafen and Industriehafen)
WMCS: 2 x weekly barge service connecting Bremerhaven, Bremen and the inland ports of Minden, Hannover and optional Braunschweig and Ladbergen
Activity 1 Page 37
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
NWL: 3–4 x weekly barge services connecting Bremerhaven, Bremen, Amtwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam <> Dörpen, NL-Delfzijl, NL- Eemshaven, several Rhine ports
2.4.5 Bottlenecks
The capability of the inland waterway network within the hinterland transportation chain of the German seaports is limited. This is due to fluvial restrictions as well as the amount and heights of bridges along the Mittelweser and Mittellandkanal. Therefore, it is only possible to have a maximum stacking height of two containers on board the barges in the hinterland of Bremerhaven. Moreover, the length and width of the barges are restricted. Consequently, the overall capacity of the barges are much less than the ones deployed in the Rhine Area. Due to this, economies of scale cannot be actualised. Therefore, barge transportation still has only a marginal share of about 3% in the modal split of the hinterland transportation in Bremerhaven (road: about 52% and rail: about 45%). An improvement of the general condition would be the implementation of measures for the 3- high container transport on the Mittelweser, e.g. adjustment of bridges. It has been recommended to analyse and evaluate the possibilities for heightening the bridges.
Activity 1 Page 38
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
3 Methodology
3.1 Interviews
3.1.1 Selection of Stakeholders in the Hinterland Transport Chain
To analyse the interoperability of seaport and river port systems, different types of stakeholders at the seaport/river port have to be taken into account along with other stakeholders along the transport chain. These mainly include inland shipping companies, who are responsible for transporting goods between seaport terminals and river port terminals. The operators are in direct exchange with both the seaport and river port and are a critical point in the information chain as all information is transferred by them. The participants (DAKOSY, dbh and HHM) divided responsibilities within the northern region of Germany: the PCS provider dbh identified stakeholders along the River Weser and Mittellandkanal whereas HHM and DAKOSY were responsible for the River Elbe, partly Mittellandkanal and Elbe-Seiten-Kanal. The focus was on actors dealing with containerized goods along the hinterland transport chain, like river ports, inland shipping companies and seaport terminal operators. The following actors were identified:
Table 5. Potential stakeholders for interviews
SEAPORT TERMINALS UNIKAI Lagerei & Speditionsgesellschaft HHLA Container Terminal Burchardkai mbH (CTB) Dessauer Straße 10, Burchardkai Bürogebäude 1, 20457 Hamburg 21129 Hamburg C. Steinweg (Süd-West Terminal) GmbH & Eurogate Container-Terminal Hamburg Co. KG GmbH Am Kamerunkai 5, Kurt-Eckelmann-Straße 1, 20457 Hamburg 21126 Hamburg HHLA Container Terminal Tollerort (CTT) HHLA Container Terminal Altenwerder Am Vulkanhafen 30, (CTA), Am Ballinkai 1, 20457 Hamburg 21129 Hamburg Eurogate Container Terminal Bremerhaven Buss Hansa Terminal BHT GmbH (CTB) Am Travehafen/Schuppen 81, Senator-Bortscheller-Straße 1, 20457 Hamburg 27568 Bremerhaven BLG Cargo Logistics GmbH & Co. KG
Activity 1 Page 39
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Neustaedter Hafen/ Terminal 21 Senator-Bortscheller-Straße 28197 Bremen INLAND SHIPPING COMPANIES Walter Lauk - Ewerführerei GmbH Deutsche Binnenreederei/OT Logistics Ellerholzdamm 22 Group 20457 Hamburg - Steinwerder Gotenstraße 12, 20097 Hamburg ACOS-Group Börde Container Feeder GmbH BCF Neuenlander Straße 35, Elerholzdamm 22, 28199 Bremen 20457 Hamburg Steinwerder CSPL a.s. Dettmer Bulk Reederei, Karla Capka 211/1, Tiefer 5, Decin, Czech Republik 28195 Bremen RIVER PORT TERMINALS Sächsische Binnenhäfen Oberelbe GmbH Sächsische Binnenhäfen Oberelbe GmbH Hafen Riesa Magdeburger Str. 58, Paul-Greifzu-Str. 8A, Gröba, 01067 Dresden 01591 Riesa Brunsbüttel Ports GmbH Magdeburger Hafen GmbH Elbehafen, Saalestraße 20, 25541 Brunsbüttel 39126 Magdeburg Hafenbetrieb Aken GmbH ElbePort Wittenberge GmbH Bismarckplatz 6a, Zur Hafenspitze 1, 06385 Aken 19322 Wittenberge Sächsische Binnenhäfen Oberelbe GmbH Hafenbetriebsgesellschaft Braunschweig Hafen Decin mbH Loubská 704/9, Hafenstraße 14, CZ-40501 Děčín 38112 Braunschweig Mindener Hafen GmbH Umschlags- und Handelsgesellschaft Simeonscarré 2, Haldensleben mbH 32423 Minden Dessauer Str. 39, 39340 Haldensleben Städtische Häfen Hannover HavelPort Berlin GmbH Hansastraße 38, Hafenstr. 12, 30419 Hannover 14641 Wustermark BEHALA - Berliner Hafen- und Lagerhausge- sellschaft mbH, Westhafen Berlin Westhafenstr.1, 13353 Berlin
Activity 1 Page 40
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
These contacts were used as a database for selecting actual stakeholders to be interviewed.
3.1.2 Development of Questionnaire For the interviews, the participants developed a template for a questionnaire. Firstly, the selected questions were aimed at gaining a general overview of the stakeholder’s business as well as the internal and external processes, communication structure and systems. Furthermore, interface problems between the stakeholders in the transport chain and expectations in the B2MoS project should be identified. This document was only handled as an interview guide. If it was necessary to improvise while interviewing the stakeholders the result could be added at the end of the document. You can find the questionaire attached (attachment_1) to this document.
3.1.3 Selection of Interview Partners and Realization of Interviews To get a clear picture of the perspectives and opinions of the whole hinterland transport chain, dbh interviewed a terminal operator at the port of Bremerhaven, a river port terminal operator at the River Weser and a medium-sized barge carrier. DAKOSY interviewed two container terminal operators at the Port of Hamburg and HHM conducted interviews with two river port terminals at the River Elbe/Mittellandkanal as well as with two inland shipping companies providing inland waterways vessel transports from and to the Port of Hamburg. With the main emphasis on containerised transports, all actors were selected accordingly.
3.1.4 Project Meetings for Coordination of Activities (Technical Meetings Germany) To organize and coordinate activities, four general meetings with the participants of Activity 1.5 (dbh, HHM, DAKOSY) were held in Bremen and Hamburg. Those meetings included the approach for Activity 1.5, distribution of work among the participants, development of questionnaire for interviews, presentation as well as comparison of evaluated processes and interview results and also the identification of potential interface solutions so far.
3.2 Process Analyses To gain a better understanding of processes and possible challenges with interfaces in the hinterland transport chain, several process diagrams were developed. These covered transport procedures, communication and information flows within the seaports and the hinterland. Therefore, existing information and documents are used together with experts’ statements to generate detailed process overviews. The dbh project team resorted to process analysis on existing analyses and results that have been created within the framework of the TEN-T project MIELE.
Activity 1 Page 41
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
4 Realisation
4.1 Process Analyses
Process diagram Port of Bremen/Port of Hamburg The process description for the container business in the seaports of Bremen and Bremerhaven can be found in the attached document (Attachment_12_Graphic port Process Analysis). The description is transferable to the business processes in the port of Hamburg. It differs only in IT system names and handling of Customs processes, which will not have any impact on the objectives of the B2MoS project. Process diagrams hinterland transport chain with focus on inland navigation For the hinterland transport chain, two diagrams were developed with focus on inland navigation. These diagrams describe the communication and information flow between the stakeholders involved, as well as the freight flow. In addition, used communication media and file formats are demonstrated. The first diagram shows the detailed import process from seaport terminal to importer (Attachment_10_Process diagram inland ports_Import). In a second diagram, the export process from consignor to seaport terminal is illustrated (Attachment_11_Process diagram inland ports_Export).
Activity 1 Page 42
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
5 Derived Proposals for Demonstrators
Results of interviews conducted by dbh: Based on the conducted interviews, it can be stated that the level of communication between seaports and liners/carriers is quite high. The majority of terminal operators and liners are using automatic transfer of standard messages (EDI). However, the communication between river ports and barge operators is mainly based on email, telephone and fax. Currently, the business processes of the seaports and the river ports are not interlinked to each other because there are no operational needs and legal requirements nor contractual agreements between seaports and river ports and also between seaports and barge operators. In most of the cases, the terminal operator has only a contract with the liner. Therefore, hardly any technical interfaces are in place to enable direct communication between seaports and river ports or corresponding parties. As a consequence, not all involved parties are linked to the seaport port community systems. The problem here is the difference between levels of automatic data exchange. The seaports Bremen / Bremerhaven and Hamburg are using fully automated data exchange and are supported by a comprehensive and integrated port community system (PCS). The overall port system is a very complex business; in particular by running high cargo volumes with millions of tons or TEU. The handling of such volumes can only be managed with the support of state of the art terminal operating systems and a professional port community system. This then enables the management of information between all involved parties and stakeholders of the overall port community (e.g. Customs, carrier, port authority etc.). Consequently, in order to manage a seaport, it is essential that all data processing related to cargo handling and clearance is harmonised and standardised according to international agreed standards like UN/EDIFACT. According to barge cargo handling, in combination of the praxis between seaports and stakeholder of barge business there could no standardised process been identified. The barge operators are doing their business either by means of their own developed IT systems or manually (e.g. fax, phone, and email). They are not interlinked to the existing PCS of Bremen and Hamburg. The aforementioned situation is shown in figure 15. There is no system integrated within the PCS of e.g. Bremen, which is aligned to the requirements of barge business and barge container handling.
Activity 1 Page 43
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 15. PCS of port of Bremen. Source: dbh Logistics IT AG, Feb. 2014
Figure 15 provides an overview of the participating parties, stakeholders and systems. The overview shows no detailed data flow. The details and the actual process flow are presented in Attachment_12. One conclusion derived from the dbh-team of the previous analysis and process mapping is that the implementation of a module "Barge Operations" would be a useful addition to the existing system landscape (PCS).
Results of HHM and DAKOSY interviews: The results of the conducted interviews show that there is no direct communication between river port terminals and seaport terminals. An interface is not existent, but also not required, because information and data is exchanged via inland shipping companies who are responsible for the transport of containers between seaport and river port terminals. Furthermore, data and information exchange between the different stakeholders in the hinterland transport chain is mostly done via email, fax and phone. Electronic files used are mostly PDF, Word or in the best case Microsoft Excel files. Existing internal systems of the inland shipping companies and river port terminals provide data and information mostly for
Activity 1 Page 44
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
internal usage. A few customers are able to enter and receive data/information automatically via an interface but most of data and information have to be entered and sent manually. In particular, data exchange via PDF files in non-machine readable format could cause more investment in time, costs and errors. This is because data has to be entered manually by every stakeholder dealing with these data. Standard formats like EDIFACT are only used for data exchange with seaport forwarders and ocean shipping companies. From inland shipping companies’ and river port terminals’ point of view, inland waterway vessels do not have the same status as other transport carriers at the quay wall of seaport terminals, especially ocean-going vessels, which receive special treatment. From the seaport terminals’ point of view, inland waterway vessels provide insufficient information such as the loading/unloading data, ETA & ETD, stowage plans etc. All stakeholders prefer an improvement of this situation to push forward a better integration of the inland waterway vessel at seaport terminals. In general all interviewed stakeholders are willing to improve processes and participate in the B2MoS project. Decisive factors such as incurred costs, time investment and resulting benefits have to be taken into account.
Activity 1 Page 45
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Shipper / Customer Shipper / Customer
Web-based booking system (1) (2) River port terminal / Inland Carrier River port terminal Inland shipping company
shipping company* shipping
Int. IT-Sys. * ?)
Int. IT-Sys. *
both terminal/ Interface ? (3) Interface ? (3) ? (Who? Inland
Which internal system is used? port based
What is the difference between -
barge and road/rail? IT
river
/
planning company Inland shipping company River port terminal
Int. IT-Sys. Stowage Same data?
Same interface? (5) AIS
International + consistent interface for communication with each terminal (4)
instruments FLZ operational operational FLZ
Seaport terminal Seaport terminal Seaport terminal Int.-IT system Int.-IT system Int.-IT system
* Exception: Inland shipping company also operator of own river ports - Interface/options for B2MoS - Data flow
Figure 16. Possible interface improvements between stakeholders within the hinterland transport chain. Source: HHM, 2014
Activity 1 Page 46
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
From both interview series, the project-team derived demands of the interviewed stakeholders. Possible development options are shown below: 1. Sailing lists for barges analogous to the SIS system could be developed by dbh Bremen. Potential customers could be informed about routings of barges on inland waterways, Europe-wide. 2. Integrating barge operators IT systems and other ways of electronic communication into the existing PCS of Bremen/ Bremerhaven and Hamburg. In this case the provider dbh and DAKOSY could offer an interface solution to existing EDI-platforms to ensure the involvement of barge operators. 3. A demonstrator could be developed in which the barge operator can insert the information of loading lists, stowage plans and consignment notes. 4. A terminal operating system, which is run by an ASP-platform could be developed; terminal operators of river ports could use this ASP solution as clients. Each client has to be configured according to the needs of the particular river port. 5. Usage of AIS to obtain more precise positioning information for inland waterway vessels, resulting in more precise ETAs at seaport terminals.
6 Further Procedure
In the next step, the identified potential proposals for demonstrators have to be discussed with the participating stakeholders and all team members (HHM, dbh, DAKOSY) in order to decide which interface problems will be addressed. The team parties have to decide, which of the issues could be prototyped Definition of data requirements, information flow and data structure of the electronic message Data collection for the cost-benefit analysis Roadmap creation
Activity 1 Page 47
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
6.1 Interviews Within a period of ten weeks, the identified stakeholders along the River Elbe, the River Weser and the Mittellandkanal were interviewed with the assistance of the developed questionnaire. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. provides an overview about the conducted interviews including interviewee, interviewer and role in the transport chain.
Table 6. Interviewed stakeholders / partners
INTERVIEWED INTERVIEWED BUSINESS PART OF INTERVIEW RESULT YOU STAKEHOLDER BY (DBH, STAKEHOLDER CAN FIND IN HHM, WITHIN SUPPLY ATTACHMENT DAKOSY) CHAIN Meeting with DAKOSY Terminal operators Attachment_2 terminal operators of Hamburg Interview partner dbh Small river port Attachment_3 wants to stay anonymous Interview partner dbh Middle sized barge Attachment_4 wants to stay carrier anonymous Interview partner dbh Terminal operator Attachment_5 wants to stay anonymous Interview partner HHM River port terminal at Attachment_6 wants to stay Mittellandkanal anonymous Interview partner HHM River port terminal Attachment_7 wants to stay located at river Elbe anonymous Interview partner HHM Inland shipping Attachment_8 wants to stay company anonymous Interview partner HHM Inland shipping Attachment_9 wants to stay company anonymous
Activity 1 Page 48
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
7 Roadmap
7.1 Motivation and approach of dbh Based on the conducted interviews it can be stated that the level of communication between seaports and liners / carriers is quite high. The majority of terminal operator and liner are using automatic transfer of standard messages (EDI). However, the communication between river ports and barge operators is mainly based on email, telephone and fax.
Currently the business processes of the seaports and the river ports are not interlinked to each other – because there are neither operational needs and legal requirements nor contractual agreements between seaports and river ports and between seaports and barge operators. In most of the cases the terminal operator has only a contract with the liner (seagoing vessels).
Therefore, hardly any technical interfaces are in place to enable direct communication between seaports and river ports or corresponding parties. Consequently not all involved parties are linked to the seaport port community systems.
The problem is the big difference between the levels of automatic data exchange. The seaports Bremen / Bremerhaven and Hamburg are using fully automated data exchange and are supported by a comprehensive and integrated port community system (PCS).
The overall port system is a very complex business – in particular by running high cargo volumes with millions of tons or TEU. The handling of such volumes can only be managed with the support of state of the art terminal operating systems (TOS) and a professional port community system which enables the information management between all involved parties and stakeholders of the overall port community (e.g. customs, carrier, port authority etc.).
That means: in order to manage a seaport it is essential that all data processing related to cargo handling and clearance is harmonized and standardized according to international agreed standards like UN / EDIFACT; according to barge cargo handling in combination of the praxis between seaports and stakeholder of barge business no standardized process could be identified.
The barge operators are doing their business either by means of own developed IT systems or mainly manually (e.g. fax, phone, email). They are not interlinked withthe existing PCS of Bremen and Hamburg.
The above described situation is shown in the figure below. There is no system integrated within the PCS of e.g. Bremen which is aligned to the requirements of barge business and barge container handling.
Activity 1 Page 49
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 17: Port Community System of the Ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven.
The preceding figure provides an overview of the participating parties, stakeholders and systems. The overview shows no detailed data flow.
One conclusion of the dbh-team of the previous analysis and process mapping is that the implementation of a module "Barge Announcement" would be a useful addition to the existing system landscape (PCS).
7.2 Motivation and approach of hhm As mentioned above considered seaport terminals and river port terminals or corresponding parties especially inland shipping companies are not sufficiently connected to exchange data and information in an efficient way. Despite this inland shipping companies resp. inland waterway vessel operators are currently responsible for communication and data exchange with the Port of Hamburg. The figure below shows the communication for feederships in the port without FLZ coordination services. This communcation diagram is transferable to inland waterway navigation communication with slight changes e.g. no communication needed between inland waterway navigation and pilots.
Activity 1 Page 50
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 18: Feeder Communication in the port without FLZ. Source: FLZ, March 2014 To simplify the situation for inland waterway navigation within the Port of Hamburg a test- integration in the services of FLZ is planned. The FLZ could act as a central communication and coordination platform for inland waterway vessels as shown for feederships in the figure above.
Activity 1 Page 51
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 19: FLZ as central communication platform. Source: FLZ, March 2014 The FLZ could organize the inland waterway vessels calls amongst the seaport terminals to advance the port handling of vessels which has beneficial effects on attractiveness for the use of inland waterway transport.
To achieve an efficient test-integration systems and procedures of FLZ have to be adapted to demands of inland waterway navigation from an operational point of view as well as for data and communication exchange.
For the organisation of feedership rotations within the seaport so called ship folders are currently used which contains the schedule for the respective vessel e.g. terminals, data for containers to be load and unload, planned loading and unloading timeframes etc. in paper form. In general the planned digitalized ship folders should offer the possiblity to import schedule data and display the rotation of vessels with the help of AIS data.
With the development of digitalized ship folders the rotation of inland waterway vessels as well as feederships could become more transparent and effective. In terms of changes (e.g. delay of ocean carriers / feederships, changes of containers to be load / unload) there is the possibility to intervene more quickly which could speed up the rotation of vessels between the terminals and leaving the port. In order to that the use of inland waterway vessels for hinterland transport as well as the use of short sea transports could become more attractive.
Activity 1 Page 52
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
7.3 Motivation and approach of dakosy
7.3.1 Current process between Barge / River transport and Seaport terminal
According to the project-plan, stakeholder interviews have been done, which resulted in descriptions of the “import” (Sea Port -> Barge) and “export” (Barge -> Sea Port) processes.
The following diagram shows the steps in the export process. The steps in the import process are in another sequence but comparable.
Customer of Barge Barge Shipping Barge Captain River Port Sea Port Terminal Sea Port Terminal Shipping Company Company Administrativ Operations
1: Booking
Usually there is a fixed sailing schedule. But, depending on the cargo booked, a 2: Planning decision on the vessel to use has to be made. Barge Captain and River Port might be involved in planning.
3: Stowage plan Unlike stowage plans for ocean vessels the stowage plan for river ships/barge gives a rough description of an individual container's position only, not an exact stowage location.
4: Stowage plan
5: Loading Information 6:
7: Loading Changes to the stowage plan can be made during loading if there are differences between the actual container weight and the weights reported in the customer's booking.
8: Stowage plan actual
9: Information about arriving barge - usually 24 - 48 hours before arrival
10: Berthing Information (position etc.)
11: Berthing Information (position etc.)
12: Discharge order - usually about 24 hours before arrival
13: Short-Term changes in schedule etc. (if applicable) Short-Term changes might occur if loading or discharging at a previous terminal take 14: Short-Term changes in schedule etc. (if applicable) longer than expected, for example. Information about these changes is 15: Short-Term changes in schedule etc. (if applicable) exchanged using several different means and ways of communication.
16: Discharge
17: Discharge Event Some terminals already submit this information electronically
Figure 20: diagram of export process
7.3.2 Possible improvement steps / priorities
The above mentioned current process offers different possibilities for the implementation of improvements.
Activity 1 Page 53
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
DAKOSY and the stakeholders (Sea Port Terminals, Barge/River Carriers) are planning to implement improvements in three stages, prioritized as listed below;
1) Load/discharge order will be transferred electronically (step 12. in the diagram)
2) DAKOSY and the stakeholders are planning to analyze, if and how the barge shipper could be enabled to send advance information to the sea port terminal to simplify and accelerate handling in the sea port. If the analysis proves that implementation of this function is feasible and beneficial to the stake holders, first steps towards this goal might be taken as a part of B2MoS.
3) DAKOSY and the stakeholders are going to analyze a possible connection of the barge carriers to an existing system for the berthing planning and information in the port of Hamburg. Note: Access to the system is going to be read-only for barge carriers, i.e. barge carriers will not be able to actively alter the terminal’s berth planning using the system.
7.3.3 Presentation of results / Demonstrator
Finally, it is important to know, that the steps mentioned above are about electronic communications between the participants only. So the solutions implemented as part of the B2Mos project will not require any web application or graphical user interface
Therefore, it will be difficult to present DAKOSYs result in form of a demonstrator application. Instead, DAKOSY intends to present its result using a number of presentation slides, describing which of the items listed above have been implemented and how they are used by the stakeholders.
Depending on the outcome of item 3 (connection to barge carriers to the berth planning system), it might be possible to show a live demo of this part of DAKOSYs results. Furthermore we will deliver the definition of the information exchange processes and the message implementation guides. 7.4 Project phases - introduction With respect to the conducted stakeholder interviews within the ports of Bremen / Bremerhaven and Hamburg it was discovered that different requirements for both facilities exist. To match the different requirements in an adequate manner and to improve the interoperability of seaports and river ports the necessity of developing three demonstrators was identified.
Activity 1 Page 54
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Further steps need to be done to develop a prototype and to implement a pilot. These steps are needed for every individual prototype / pilot of the three demonstrators.
Basically software development projects consist of different phases and tasks which are normally combined with some milestones - reflecting basic demands of project management which is essential to enable a successful realization and implementation of software or the planned demonstrators. The main project phases are the following:
Scoping Implementation Acceptance testing Go Live Review
7.5 Project phases – general description Amongst the above listed phase the overall project management covers all phases of a project and begins basically with the first milestone (start of project kick-off) and ends with the last milestone (end of project). The main tasks are project controlling and –steering, project documentation, reporting, communication as well as change management and risk management of the project. Generally there are different project management approaches and methodologies – which of them fits best it is up to the individual demands and kinds of projects.
With respect to the overall project approach the scoping phase is used to identify the requirements. The scoping phase basically consists of four main elements: kick-off workshop, requirement analysis, requirement specification and finalize scope. After identifying and verifying the requirements and gaps all cognitions will be documentated. Within the requirement specification an ongoing analysis on a more detailed level is executed and questions and uncertainties are discussed. A business review is followed by stakeholder experts – consisting of a rework specification and an approval specification. Consequently all requirements can be described in depth and documented in a proper way.
The before described analysis and requirement specification are preconditions for the design and the coding which are the main objectives of the implementation phase. The implementation phase basically consists of two main elements, the implementation development and the implementation delivery. Based on the specification a conceptional study and a technical concept for the demonstrators are elaborated which work as a design concept for the development. Another activity within the implementation phase is the definition of the design criterias, the technical specification and the hardware requirements as well as the definition of development approach, test strategy and QA approach. Above all the training is also part of the implementation phase. Training elements are the creation of a training concept, the preparation / elaboration of training plans and finally the training of the users.
Activity 1 Page 55
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
Figure 21: Exemplary plan of a work breakdown structure
The acceptance testing phase focuses mainly on the testing of the software / demonstrators. The testing follows in particular quality characteristics considering functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency and maintainability of the software. Apart from quality characteristics there are also time– and performance characteristics tested. Elements of the testing are also the elaboration of a test concept, the availability of test data and test cases, a definition of test procedures and the establishment of test documentation and reports.
After the training is finished and the software is accepted for go-live (milestone) the Go-Live phase can be started. Apart from the acceptance for go-live other preconditions must be considerated like decision on date and time and schedule for go-live as well as review and sign- off go-live check list (including hardware, network, devices, other equipment, software, integration, data conversion, etc.). Basically, after go-live the responsibility will be handed over from the project team to the maintenance and support organisation.
The review phase covers activities and elements as finalizing project documentation, project closure workshop and lessons learned workshop.
The figure “Exemplary plan of a work breakdown structure” indicates an exemplary plan of a work breakdown structure on a very high level for the implementation of a software (in this
Activity 1 Page 56
Seaports – River Ports Systems Interoperability
case demonstrator x). The detailed plans need to be coordinated with the respective involved participant in the project scoping phase.
This general description of project phases will be used as an exemplary guideline with slight changes for further approach within Activity 1.5 and following Activity 2.4 Initiative 12.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment_1_B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_final Attachment_2_NotesStakeholderInterview_13-01-2014_DAKOSY Attachment_3_B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_Final_DBH_2_07022014 Attachment_4_B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_final_DBH_1_07022014 Attachment_ 5_B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_DBH_3_26022014. Attachment_6_ B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_final_HHM1 Attachment_7_ B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_final_HHM2 Attachment_8_ B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_final_HHM3 Attachment_9_ B2MoS SA 1-5 Seaport river ports interoperability Questionnaire_final_HHM4 Attachment_10_Process diagram inland ports_Import Attachment_11_Process diagram inland ports_Export Attachment_12_Graphic port Process Analysis
Activity 1 Page 57