Developing Alternatives to the North Range Ports Systematic Use of Hinterland Connections Stefan Pohnert Senior Consultant TransCare AG Innovative Logistics Consultancy Solutions for Your Success
Content 1. North Range Ports - Examples 2. Mediterranean Ports - Examples 3. Comparison of Hinterland Network 4. Conclusions TransCare AG 2
Main European Container Ports* Hamburg Rott. Brem. <500 2.000-4.000 500-1.000 4.000-8.000 Le Havre Antw. 1.000-2.000 *In 1.000 TEU >8.000 Gijon Bilbao Barcelona Marseille Genova Trieste Venice Koper La Spezia Livorno Odessa Ilyichewsk Constanza Novorossiysk Algeciras Valencia Naples Thessaloniki Istanbul Gioia Tauro Piraeus Izmir Significant dominance of North Range ports in container volumes TransCare AG 3
Main European Container Ports* Hamburg Rott. Brem. Share Hinterland <30% Le Havre Antw. 30% - 70% >70% Gijon Bilbao Barcelona Marseille Genova Trieste Venice Koper La Spezia Livorno Odessa Ilyichewsk Constanza Novorossiysk Algeciras Valencia Naples Thessaloniki Istanbul Gioia Tauro Piraeus Izmir Clear separation betweeen feeder ports and final destination ports TransCare AG 4
Port of Hamburg - Growth Factor Hinterland Connectivity Bremen/Hamburg port operators started in early 1990 s with private rail operations Open access to all railway companies leads to early competition with German state t railway and as consequence increased service Quality Drastic reduction of rail prices 12.000.000 is one consequence Transport flows strictly concentrated on a few number of Hubs in the Hinterland Strong improvement of rail competitiveness compared to road [TEU] 10.000.000 8.000.000 6.000.000 4.000.000 2.000.000 0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Rotterdam Antwerpen Hamburg One key factor for the successful development of the Port of Hamburg in the last 15 years is the attractive railway hinterland connection. TransCare AG 5
Port of Hamburg - Volume Development The Development is driven by development of container traffic While container volume doubled, rail volume grew 4 times! Trains per Day 400 Scandinavia 300 200 Port Hamburg 100 0 Germany Eastern Europe + 186 Trains + 90 % 296 122 86 98 Trains 2005 Trains 2015 Conventional Container Italy Consequent management of rail activities grew the business TransCare AG 6
Port of Hamburg - Structure of Hinterland volumes on rail Gründung 1969 Gründung 1969 Gründung 2000 Gründung 1999 Gründung 2002 TFG 1999 TFG 2008 BoxXpress 2008 TX Logistics 2008 NeCoSS SBB NTT EVU/Ziel Volume increase by AUGSBURG Augsburg Augsburg Oberhause 2 Bamberg 1 additional destinations BASEL BAD. Basel Basel Basel 3 Berlin/Großbeeren Berlin 2 Bremen/BremerhavBremen/BremerhavenBremerhaven Bremen/BremerhavBremen/Breme Bremen 6 Burghausen 1 Volume increase by DORTMUND Dortmund 1 DUISBURG -- Duisburg Duisburg 2 aggressive marketing of Dresden/Riesa 1 Emden 1 Erfurt 1 private intermodal FRANKFURT Frankfurt 1 Freiburg 1 Gmünden/Kassel 1 operators by competition Glauchau 1 Hannover 1 Hof 1 Volume increase by Karlsruhe 1 higher frequencies (to all terminals within the port) Passau 1 Volume increase leads to more (separate) container terminals within the port KOELN-NIEHL NIEHL Köln Köln 2 Kufstein 1 Leipzig 1 Ludwigshafen 1 MAINZ HAFEN -- 0 MANNHEIM Mannheim Mannheim Mannheim 3 MUENCHEN München München-Riem München 3 NEU ULM Ulm Ulm 2 NUERNBERG Nürnberg Nürnberg-Hafen Nürnberg Nürnberg 4 OFFENBURG -- 0 Passau 1 REGENSBURG Regensburg Regensburg/Dingolfing 2 Saarbrücken 1 SCHWEINFURT -- Schweinfurt 1 KORNWESTH. Kornwestheim Kornwestheim Stuttgart Stuttgart 4 Weil 1 WOERTH Wörth 1 Worms 1 Zürich 1 Salzburg 1 Linz 1 Wien 1 Verona 1 Mailand 1 16 21 7 16 6 12 1 1,50 Source: TransCare 4 driving factors avoiding the increase of pure block trains TransCare AG 7
North Range Ports - Modal Split Rail Bremerhaven: 40 % 1) Hamburg: 30 % 1) Amsterdam: 12 % 2) Antwerpen: 10 % 1) Rotterdam: 9 % 3) Best practice for modal split rail in hinterland transportation is 30% - 40%, if the railway operation is very efficient if the railway infrastructure is modern and provides a sufficient capacity if the hinterland network provides excellent conditions TransCare AG 1) source Bremen Keyports Marketing 2) source BAG Marktbeobachtung 8 3) port authority of Rotterdam
Content 1. North Range Ports - Examples 2. Mediterranean Ports - Examples 3. Comparison of Hinterland Network 4. Conclusions TransCare AG 9
Service Providers Competitiveness - Example link to India Hamburg APL Evergreen( Mediterranean Hapag LL CMA-CGM Maersk EVG) (MSC) (HLL) (MSL) Cosco Bremerhaven Rotterdam Antwerp Le Havre Southhampton Caligari Gioia Tauro Port Said Jebl Ali Karachi Mundra Columbo JNPT/NSICT max. time in days 26 25 23 25 22 20 27 List Price /FEU* - not negotiated - 1.298 1.646 1.646 1.123 1.266 1.250 1.190 The available connections influence feasibility for each transport case TransCare AG *base 2008 10 Port of Calls Transshipment
Port of Koper - Example of Sea Transport Alternatives Transit (Days) Costs ( /FEU) Option 1 North Germany Consolidation, Hamburg Hamburg Port (HHLA) JNPT Port, Mumbai 26 2.064 South Germany Option 2 North Germany Consolidation, Rotterdam Rotterdam Port JNPT Port, Mumbai 24 2.038 South Germany Option 3 North Germany Consolidation, Bremerhaven Bremerhaven Port JNPT Port, Mumbai 24 1.927 South Germany Option 4 North Germany Plant South Koper Giaio Tauro, JNPT Port, Germany Port Italy Mumbai 29.5 2.104 Alternative via Bremerhaven was in this case the most cost efficient supply chain to India TransCare AG 11
Content 1. North Range Ports - Examples 2. Mediterranean Ports - Examples 3. Comparison of Hinterland Network 4. Conclusions TransCare AG 12
European Intermodal Network Alternatives to North Range Ports by systematic Hinterland connections Dominant role of Volumes in North/South direction Almost no rail activities of south European ports on rail Except of the Betuwe Line all corridors use existing rail infrastructure Inland Terminals Sea Ports Madrid Source: UIR, Kombiconsult Efficient i commercialization i of rail hinterland transportation is the key to attract ports - not the infrastructure TransCare AG 13
Hinterland Coverage Alternatives to North Range Ports by systematic Hinterland connections The hinterland coverage of the Northern Range Ports is due to historically grown corridors but not because of transport distances TransCare AG 14
Content 1. North Range Ports - Examples 2. Mediterranean Ports - Examples 3. Comparison of Hinterland Network 4. Conclusions TransCare AG 15
Conclusions Alternatives to North Range Ports by systematic Hinterland connections A successful hinterland supply chain is highly linked with modal split of railway transportation. A hinterland railway network will never consist only out of block trains. It will stay fragmented due to a growing number of final destinations and competition between intermodal operators. To achieve a sustainable modal split on rail the following requirements have to be fulfilled: Direct integration of railway into port processes, A qualitative hinterland railway network, High frequency to main hinterland destinations (at least daily), Achievement of critical mass for the minimum transport volume on rail, Smooth rail procedures within the port itself. Even if potential is big Mediterranean Ports have not yet created enough block train solutions to hinterland. TransCare AG 16
Prize Winner in Market Consultation Port of Hamburg Dr. Norbert Bensel Partner Ralf Jahncke Chairman of Executive Board Dieter Bock Partner Thank you for your attention! ti TransCare AG 17