Advantages and limitations of river-sea shipping, taking as example the West-European mediterranean (Egyptian) route

it 4* JAI,

gkispaskavj unde

ARCHIEE

Tec*le.

Delft

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF RIVER-SEA

SHIPPING, TAKING AS EXAMPLE THE WESTEUROPEAN

-MEDITERRANEAN (EGYPTIAN) ROUTE

1

Less investment leads to less production, followed by less savings, which again leads to less investments and so on, a vicious circle. To go out of it, the Egyptian economy has to be injected with a strong dose of production, particularly for export.

2

Minimizing consumption and more care of the public money besides encouraging saving mentality would help Egypt more than only receiving financial support.

3

Developing countries need revolutionary ideas to deal with their accumulated problems, while the traditional ideas might help, but can not solve the chronic problems.

4

In countries where the longest river of the world is passing, millions of people are starving of hunger and thurst.

5

For Egypt, a flow-flow loading system of ships is not only a way to reduce the total cost per ton transported, but also a way for solving other important problems of infrastructure,

such as congestion of roads.

6

In spite of its known disadvantages, the Aswan dam prevented Egypt already from starvation.

7

Developing countries are looking anxiously at the traditional shipbuilding countries, like the Netherlands and expect further from them advanced "know-how" in marine technology.

8

or the developing countries it is not only sufficient to send 3tudents abroad, but it is also important to recruit high

9

The human factor is one of the most important reasons of the failure of projects in the developing countries. In practice the plan makers do not think too much about traditions and power implications in the places where the development has to take place. Besides that the people have not enough experience in the field.

About 15 % of the projects of the Worldbank in the developing countries are failing, specially because of this human factor.

10

Developing countries can develop themselves quicker and better in an economy system with a free market mechanism, than in a

strongly leaded and completely ruled economic plan. 11

Cairo is so crowded with cars, that if we imagine that all the oars driving in Holland, should be concentrated in Amsterdam, then we have the picture of the real Cairo.

Adel Mr Hamdy

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF RIVER-SEA

SHIPPING, TAKING AS EXAMPLE THE WESTEUROPEAN

-MEDITERRANEAN (EGYPTIAN) ROUTE

PROEFSCHRIFT

TER VERKRIJGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE TECHNISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN AAN DE TECHNISCHE HOGESCHOOL DELFT, OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS, PROF.DR. J.M. DIRKEN, IN HET OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN TEN OVERSTAAN VAN NET COLLEGE

VAN DEKANEN OP DINSDAG 12 NOVEMBER 1985 TE 14.00 uur

DOOR

ADEL MOHAMED HAMDY HASSAN

SCHEEPSBOUWKUNDIG INGENIEUR GEBOREN TE ASSIOET, EGYPTE

Prof.Dring. C. Gallin

to my family

"Advantages and limitations of river-sea shipping, taking as example the West-European - Mediterranean (Egyptian) route".

List of contents

Historical development

Market for river-sea transport

Conventional transportation (Alt. Al) Alternatives of transportation A2, A3

Resistance and propulsion of the pushed Nile barges Pontoon Barge carrier (Alt. A2)

6.1. Preliminary design

6.2. Resistance and propulsion 6.3. Stability

6.4. Sea keeping 6.5. Economics

Ship Barge carrier (Alt. A3) 7.1. Preliminary design 7.2. Stability

7.3. Resistance and propulsion 7.4. Sea keeping

7.5. Economics

Final economical evaluation Conclusions

Chapter

Table of contents

page

I. Historical development Introduction

The seagoing river ships

1.1, 1.2.

1.2. Barge carrier vessels and carried barges 1.9.

1.2.1. LASH concept 1.9.

1.2.2. SeaBee concept 1.9.

1.2.3. Bacat concept 1.10.

1.2.4. Valmet concept 1.10.

1.2.5. Trimariner or Ocean lift concept 1.11.

1.2.6. Capricorn concept 1.2.7. Thyssen concept 1.12. II Literature 1,23. 1.1. 1.1. 1.11.

Introduction

The river Nile has a great importance in the daily life of Egypt. This river is the longest in the world, it is 6700 km. The Egyptian water ways are about 4400 km, while the railways

are about 4450 km and the paved roads are about 9525 km.

More than 80% from the cargo is transporting from and to upper Egypt by means of paved roads (for details see table 2.7.). The Egyptian water ways are still not exploited as it must be. The river Vile and its branches have to be developed to be

suitable for more modern shippings and this development is not only necessary for Egypt but also for all countries where the Nile passes through.

As for the inland water transportation in West Europe, so there is a long tradition in western Europe of transporting goods by inland water ways, especially in West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and to a lesser degree also in France, The inland water ways of Europe are an extensive system of

interconnected rivers and canals of varying sizes.

There is an international system of classifications, the bases of which are the dimensions, especially the length and the width of different types of vessels:

classes T - III less than 1000 tonnes

class IV 1000 - 1499 tonnes class V 1500 tonnes or more.

The total length of the regularly used water ways in West -Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands is about 18000 km, 42% or 7600 km is navigable for vessels with a carrying

capacity of 1350 tonnes or more.

In West Germany 64% of its navigable waterways are accessible for vessels of 1350 tonnes or more. For the Netherlands this percentage amounts to 48%.

Until_around 1955 by far the largest part of the fleet,

operating on the riverRhine and its tributaries consisted of manned barges towed by tug boats with limited horse power. By

1.2.

increasingly clear. The system was very labour intensive. A convoy (more than 700 m long) consisting of one tug boat and four barges, carrying 9000 tonnes required a crew of 17 people (5 on the tug boat and 3 on each barge). Navigation during the night was impossible. Sociale conditions (hard work, family living on board causing problems with education

of the children) made it more and more difficult to attract qualified personnel.

As a consequence the old system was gradually replaced by two categories of vessels:

- self propelled motor vessels - push boats with push barges.

1.1. The sea-going river ships

Most rivers are navigable for ordinary sea-going vessels to a certain distance from their mouths. These ships require no

particular arrangements apart from, on some rivers, such fitting as collapsible masts and funnel; stern-anchor with hawse and windlass if there is no room for the ship to swing round, bottom stiffening if she lies aground during loading

and discharging.

However, to go far upstream while carrying a considerable quantity of cargo, a ship of special type is needed viz, the sea-going river ship, standing between the sea-going vessel and the river cargo boat, just as the coaster stands between the sea-going vessel and the inland vessel for deep waters. Table 1 shows the difference between these five types; it gives rough figures only.

It is essential for sea-river trade to have: large carrying capacity at shallow draft;

adequate sea-worthiness, speed and scantlings for sea voyages;

sufficient power for the most difficult stretch of the river;

good manoeuverability under all circumstances; generally small clearance height.

In designing this type of vessel difficulties as follows

-torily:

the Lid ratio must be high for large carrying capacity at shallow draft; the result is that the propellor readily emerges when the ship is pitching in a sea way and the ship loses speed. A high-speed twin-screw installation would diminish this defect, but does not remove the difficulty.

the B/d, too, must be high, which however, causes excessive initial stability end heavy rolling in rough weather at sea.

the proper choice of D is a problem in itself, if, for obtaining D, the free board prescribed by the regulations is added to the required draft, the LID ratio becomes so

high that sufficient longitudinal strength for safe navigation on the high seas cannot be obtained. Accordingly D is so

much increased as is necessary for strength, yielding a value of LID within the limits 15 and 17, as given in table Increasing D has three disadvantages. In the first place it is contrary to the desire to keep down the hull-weight.

Secondly, it increases the emerging lateral area of the ship in proportion to the submerged area, so that navigation on the river with side-wind may become difficult. Thirdly, it increases the gross and net tonnages. For these reasons D is not further increased than strictly necessary and in some

cases special means of obtaining the required longitudinal strength, without unduly increasing D and the ship's weight, are adopted.

for obtaining large capacity at shallow draft, a full flat-bottomed hull of light construction and without double bottom is preferable. This form, however, is detrimental the steering-qualities on rivers, regulations and main-taining speed at sea in rough weather.

It will be clear, from all these facts that, from a technical and nautical point of view, the sea-going river ship is a

compromise with many defects. This compromise will turn out

somewhat different, depending on whether the sea or river route is of greater importance, but there will always remain

difficulties, which cannot be avoided, owing to the conflicting

1.4.

requirements of sea and river navigation. Also from the economical point of view the sea-going river ship may or may be not be a good proposition. So much is certain that

the cost of transport per ton/km on the river is consider-ably higher than that for a river cargo boat and that at sea higher than that for a sea-going vessel.

Table 1.1. shows that the sea-going river ship has, of all types of cargo vessels, the smallest dw/LBD ratio. The value of dw. may be considered to be indicated of the freight

carried. The value LED is a rough indication of the weight of the empty fully equipped vessel and the cost of building; of her displacement, horse power and fuel consumption for a given speed; for her registered tonnage and the amount of the costs bases on tonnage.

In the above ratio dire. represents the full carrying capacity. When the water level of the river is so low, that the vessel

cannot take a full cargo, the ratio falls and the river transport becomes still less economical. In such a case it will be advisable to load the vessel down to her free board-, mark at the last river-port.

On the other hand, the use of the sea-going river vessel gives more care to the cargo due to the avoidance of the

tranship-ments and saves the cost and the time of the transhipment of the cargo. Whether the low economy of transport is compensated for by these savings will depend on circumstances. The permiss-ible draft in the rivers Rhine and Nile is of great importance. It is necessary to add that the situation is not the same

for the river Nile, because of the limited draft of the Nile (d = 1,5 m). Yost of the self-propelled motor vessels, sailing on the Nile, are of load capacity between 300 and 500 tonnes. This means that a sea-going river vessel is very large to be navigated on the river Nile and is very small to be navi-gated in the open sea.

Consequently the sea-going river vessel for the Egyptian-West European route, can only be discussed as a shipping system between the Rhine inland ports and the sea ports of Egypt.

Table 1.2. shows particulars of some old sea-going Rhine vessels. Table 1.3. shows particulars of some modern German sea-going

Table 1.4. shows the development of the transported goods through the Rhine-sea traffic.

Table 1.1. Different types of motor cargo vessels.

(1) inland vessel for deep waters, having free board mark at deck-level.

L is length between perpendiculars, d is maximum permissible draft.

(Source: Rooda, Small sea-going crafts and vessels for inland navigation

1957.)

river boat with 0,3 m free board sea-going river ship small vessel

coaster inland vessel' for deep waters

1 2 3 4 5 dw.in tons 600 900-1600 2000 500 300 LID 23 15-T7

12.5-13.5

13.5

17

d/B

.275

.27-.32

.43 -.47

.38-.40

.33

Lid 27.4

17-25

15

15.5

17 dw/LxBxD

.47

.28-.42

.49 .47

.59

Ibble'1.23

Particulars Of eome oid'sea-goincRhine vessels

type L

t

1,61dma;LID Lid dmax/B dw at d' dw at d dw at diapl. bhp or Cb at

w. of empty Iv of hull hold cap.

dw/LBIJ hull Sea-going dear cl: d3, at :Imam ihp dmax Vessel Ca. without in ft a) at at w/i Rhino-yeses is mace,ca, (grain) aMai (12 d7 ca 11 4 3 4 5 '6 T 5 9 10 4i) 1 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 fO rains 73,50 10,13 4,35 3.30 16,95 22:2 0305 1380 2,80 ca 1040 1,80 325 2271 213001hp/03840 891 '760 77006 0,400 0,300 0.995 0,225. Iris 7000 10,5 4,68 4,19 15,00 16,7 0.398 1600 2,60 pa e30 1rta, : _el 2x500bhp -,, =, vs =-0:465 0,241 t-Jisburi 70.00 106 4.25 320 1850 21,9 0.302 1300 2,80 ea 1060 w+ s=s_ 2055' 22400bbli 0,840 755 C635 == 0,413 0.337 0202 Pho,berg 75,25 11,6 4:93 3:65 1530 200 0,314 1450 2,80 ci 650 .7.T : ,ra-cr. 217006hp lc= EP 48 A. 0036 0.197 Ts'

-koticef - Displacement slid deadweight are given in salt metal.

-Ei r . t :,: t *

f

Dimensions are given,

in m.Displ.. dw and weights are given in :Metric

tone: M +.4: (0 J Ij, 31 dmax

is mean moulded draught on alas, freeboard.

1 I a 4 a g i 4 it', U.? .9 c.a 2 i--tp F 1

fI.

p -. 1 k ) t 4

L.

a 1 I I" 41 tr) i I N 0 -HI a! 0

r .0

!

"O

v A 4. .-.7. I 04 IXI en A ! u

,i i

la -Q 1 T a tit

t

4

F.- A _ IC >41 ,e Sw

r'

0 !!! 04. tr I 13 ....I.. max

'Table 1.3,

Particulars

of Bode Gordian seazgoing'river vessels

Sources 1RhinerVaaa,und See4Schiffahrte'

office DutePurg-41ermany

Main

BRT

NET

loading cap.

main deck nec.deck

speed height height engine power-claws , ship type "name particu= of lhra Lad Lpp. /13 T vessel in in in ;M! ,E im ;iz' 1C0 !hp 1 2

Rheinhold KrUsAmark 56,47'50,60 Chrietei Thielehdn 66,47 59,96

3 4 10100 3,16 9,32. 3,26 '5 499,16 380,00 4' 345,77 266,00 4 875; ₁₀₅₀ ii, _{3,20 5,40} ,9, -fl _3,30 10 _10, 10,5 11 Dedtz V.W.E. .12 13 660 01.00044E 550 GL410044KE 14 river-sea canal-isea .Reint 50,12 45,30 9,00 2,86 210,92 131,64 588 5.10 2,89 918 bout! 435 0I*100A4KE river-seek' Jan 47,77 43,50 Adele 47,19 43,00 Stephan 62,46 55,54 7315 2,54 8,40 2,75 9,80.3,32 299.00 298,60 299,00 16700 mg 185.00 435 564, 868 I 200 3,10 5,60 MA 1410

80

_{16 10} !Attic EaE M,Wsh. 400 01.4100A4ICEI 300 u+100k4 560 Gi+1004,4KE1 river.aes, Eiyerasea, Echo 71,88. 6700 10120 3,31 482,49 292;04 1228 : 5,50 305 110 YiW.M. 1000 0/410044E2 ridAracahal-eba Herb KieD4 75,00 70,10 10,20 3,30 499,00 320,00 1266 - 550 3,25 110 M.W.V. 1200 GLAA4E1+10741 rivermaek Anjola 74,00 71,00 11,80 3,23 499,00 350,00 1625 5,25 1,03 10 Deutz 990 GL4-100A4FE440

Table 1.4. The development of the transported goods through the Rhine-sea traffic, in 1000 tons.

(Source: Rhein-See=Vetkehr, Duisburg, May D960.) Year Total Up stream Down stream

1 2 3 4 1913 515 225 290 1936 1386 561 825 1950 188 65 103 1951 286 120 166 1955 610 324 486 1 1960 1005 416 589 1961 1129 501 628 u 1962 926 415 511 1163 _{1075 477} 598 A 1964 870 397 474 s' 1965 1227 491 736 C 1966 1967 1219, 1404 490 522 729 882 t 14: 1968 1970 1724 2049 714 942 1010, 1107 1971 1190 499 691 :-1972 938 501 437. 1973 1194 652 542542 1974 1187 534 653. 1975 1507 690 817 1976 670 306 364 1977 1449 643 806 1978 1678 784 894 1979 1762 865 897

1.8.

1.2. Barge carrier vessels and carried barges

BCY's, as the name implies, are infect merely vehicles for transporting the barges on one leg of the total journey. Thus they are only one link in the total through mevement

of goods by barge from their original point of loading to final point of discharge. This means that this system of transportation is infect a multi-sectoral marine

trans-portation system.

There are several different types of barges and BCVs that presently in operation, each of which gave different

physical characteristics and handling techniques. These are LASH, SeaBee, Bacat, the USSRconcept (commonly referred to the Valmet system) and the Thyssen concept (fig. 1.1.-Table 1.5. gives the main particulars of different BCVs; table 1.6. gives the main particulars of the shipborne barges (in service);

table 1.7. gives the main particulars of the river barges proposed for transport by barge carrier vessels.

1.2.1. LASH concept

In this concept, barges are hoisted over the stern of the BCV by means of gantry crane, which then traverses along the upper deck to place the barge in the required stowage. The barge carrying capacities of the different classes of LASH vessel are 74, 83 and 89 respectively. Several of these also carry a part load of containers which reduces the

barge capacity accordingly.

1.2.2. SeaBee concept

This concept is based on a larger barge than the LASH, and the barges are hoisted and stowed on the BCV by means

of a platform lift at the stern and then traversing them into their stowage positions. The vessels have a carrying

capacity of 38 barges and can, if required, carry part load of containers in lieu of some barges, or containers can be carried in some of the barges. It can also be

fairly readily adapted to act as a ro/ro vessel if the need should arise.

1.10.

1.2.3. Bacat concept

This system was conceived in Denmark and is based on the

Bacat barge which is a smaller barge than the LASH. The BCV is a catamaran or twin-hulled vessel, closed at the bow but opened at the stern. Bacat 1 barges or LASH barges are hoisted by a platform arrangement at the stern to the upper

deck and then traversed on rollers to their stowed position. The tunnel between the twin hulls accommodates three LASH

type barges, which are floated in and then hydraulically locked in position. Thus they form the continuation of the hull formation between the BCV's own twin hulls.

The larger version of the original Bacat 1 concept is

Bacat 2. It is designed around the module of the LASH barge and can carry six of these units in the'tunnel' between the twin hulls and ten on the deck.

A new Bacat 2 barge has been designed, which is a half module of the LASH barge and with a slight modification, the BCV can carry 20 of these barges on deck in lieu of LASH barges. The overall concept also incorporates the fitting of a container crane and the adaption of the upper deck to carry up to 312 TEU's if required in lieu of barges. This vessel, like the Bacat 1, is designed for operation on coastwise, short sea and inter-island services and also to provide feeder services for the long haul deep sea

carriers.

1.2.4. Valmet concept

Two BCVs of this concept had been constructed for the USSR at the Valmet yards in Finland. The concept is based on

the SeaBee design, ie, the BCVs will hoist and stow the barges by means of a platform lift at the stern and then traversing them into their stowage position. The barges on which this concept is based, however, are larger than the

SeaBee barges and have a dead weight capacity nearly three times greater than the LASH barge. They are identical with the Danube Sea barge, which is half a module of the stan-dard Europe II barge. The BCV is designed to carry 26 of these barges and can also carry containers in lieu thereof.

-1.2.6. Capricorn concept

1.2.5. Trimariner or Ocean lift concept

The BCV is designed to handle very large barges for long haul deep sea voyages. The vessel is designed on the

float-dock principle and is in effect a refinement of the Landing Ship Dock (LSD) concept. The open dock area is 185 m long by 25 m wide with a 5 m draft when the ship is flooded

down to its maximum loading draft of 14 m. The vessel's normal sea-going deep draft is 7 m. There are no over-head obstructions over the dock area of the vessel, except at the fore end and therefore there is no height restriction

on cargoes other than that imposed by stability requirements. The basic design is for carrying three barges, each 61 m long by 24 m beam, but obviously it readily lends itself to carrying, in a single tier, a greater number of smaller size barges. The Trimariner design also has the versatility in that it can readily be adapted or converted from a pure barge carrier to other uses such as for ro/ro operations or for the carriage of dry bulk cargoes.

The Capricorn carrier has been designed to be a combination of ro/ro and barge carrier vessel. Barges are handled by a float-in/float-out (flo/flo) system through vertically hinged bow doors and are carried in a single tier in the hold. The barges are pushed into position in the hold by the vessel's own small tug boat and after the bow doors are closed the hold is pumped dry and the barges secured in position resting on the tank tops. Ro/Ro cargoes, either vehicles or containers are handled over

stern ramps and

stowed on the upper deck. Depending on the vessel size, a varying number of barges of different sizes can be carried in the hold. It can be readily adapted to handle Bacat 2, LASH, SeaBee or Valmet size barges as well as standard Yississippi and Danube Sea barges.

In the larger versions a 'tweendeckt to provide additional ro/ro capacity has been added. All versions of the

Capricorn can be fitted with a deck crane as an alternative means of handling containers and other upper deck and

1.12.

tweendeck cargoes. The larger versions of the Capricorn are designed for deep sea operations.

Thyssen concept

The German firm Thyssen Nordseewerke GmbH evolved a concept for a 'closed dock' BCV to carry 24 LASH barges. The barge handling method is somewhat similar to that described for the Capricorn carrier, ie,barges are floated into the hold of the BCV through vertically hinged bow doors, but in this case two tiers of barges can be carried. When the top tier has been floated and positioned inside the hold by a small tug boat, the bow water tight door is closed and the hold further flooded with water from ballast tanks until the lifting posts of the LASH barges lock into fittings on the deck-head. After the barges have been secured in this suspended position by special locking devices, the hold is pumped down to outside water level again and the bow gates are opened to permit the floating in and positioning of the second tier of barges. Once this have been positioned the bow gates are closed again, the hold is then pumped dry and the barges are sucured in position, resting on the tank tops.

The same firm has built two barge carriers, each carries 12 BACO barges below deck in the floodable dock, while 500 20-ft containers can be varried on the upper deck.

A 40-tonne gantry crane enables containers to be off loaded into lighters. The BACO has only one tier of barges. (For more details see 3.3.).

Table 1.5. Main particulars of different

Wire

main Lo.a. B Tloaded d.w. no. of no. of gantry elevator system particu-barges

containers crane cap.

of BCV lars m m in ton TEU ton 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lash 261,40 32,50 12,10 43000 83 to 89 510 Lash container 272,30 30,50 11,60 41000 49 to 78 74 to 288 510

Lykes Sea Bee

266,90 32,30 11,93 39026 38 Bacat 1 103,76 20,70 5,41 2510 3 Lash-i-10 Bacat Bacat 2 146,50 22,30 6,10 5400 16 Lash Capricorn 145,00 25,00 5,75/ 12 Lash Carrier-Lasher 12 / 4,25 Capricorn 146,00 25,00 4,60 9200 12 Lash 192 Ro/Ro Barge

carrier

taco

Linar 1 & 2 204,10 28,50 6,67 / 18900/ 12 Baco barges 500 40 /7,50 /21800 Valmet 266,44 35,00 24400/ 26 D-M barges 1552

11/37/00

(theoreti.)

Table 1.6. Shipborne barges (in service) type diepl. dwt capacity dimensions transfer service bale system to ship 5 6 LO/LO Inland Vies/Rhine/Sacra. stern

etc. Rivers-Gulf-Red

Sea-crane

Yedit., World wide Inland U.S.A.-Indonesia

stern crane LO/LO

Inland U.S.A.-Europe/

stern

reedit. Ocean U.S.A.-Europe/

stern

!'edit.

elev. LO/LO

Inland U.K.-Rhine

midship elev. LO/LO

Inland Black Sea/edit./

stern

Europe/U.S.A. World wide

elev. FL/F0

Ocean/Inland World wide

stern gate FI/F0

Ocean/Europe/Vedit./ bow door Gulf/Red Sea/Indonesia/ FI/F0 Feeder service bow door

Inland Europe/U.S.A. Gulf/Red Sea Inland Europe/Yedit./ Gulf/Red Sea/Indonesia/

pi/p

World wide West Europe/West Africa

*

Banat BCVe

also carry LASH barges between catamaran hulls.

al Trimariner & Capricorn BCVs may also carry LASH, SeaRee and

River barges,

etc., that will fit into their barge hold.

tonnes tonnes 1 2 a? re 3 Lx8xIbcd m / ft 4 LASH 454 370 555 /19600 18,7x9.5x3.9x2.55/ break/bulk 61,5x31,2x13,018,4 LASH 454 302 62,3/ 2200 61,5x31,2'13,0x8,4 Yetroleum SeaBee 1030 847 1108/39140 29.7300,73(3,8x3,2/ break/bulk/ 16-40'-ISO 97,5x35,0x12,5300,6 container SeaBee 1016 758 deck area 34,3x10,713,4x2,8/ Heavy lift load 39 ton/m 112,5x35,0x11,0x9,25 Banat' 180

in

159.1/5618 16,8x4,6x2,75x2,58/ Banat I 55,1x15,1x9,1i8,5 DY 1300 1100 1200/42375 38,25x11,0x3,9x3,3/ (Darnabe-!lain) 125,5x36,1x12,8x10,8 Trimariner" Capricorn' 1130 1000 1421/50200 30,5x10,67x4.4x3.5/ Canri-100 H 100,35x14,4x11,4 Capricorn 2300 2000 2832/100000 60,96x10;67x4,4x3,45/ Capri-200 H 200x35x14,4101,31 Capricorn 850 720 1051/37000 30,5x10,67x3,0x2,75/ Capri-100 C 100x35x9,8x9,0 Waco BOO 1110/39195 24x9,5x4,06 LO/I0 elev. 1. 10-30'-/S0

Table 1.7. River barges

proposed for transport by barge

carrier vessels type displ. dwt capacity dimensions transfer service bale system to tonnes tonnes m3 ft3 LxBxDxd m / ft ship 4 5

58,5x10,67x3,8x2,7/

FO/FO

U.S.

stern or Europe bow door

70x9,5x3,2

FO/F0

Europe to U.S.

stern or bow door

76,5x11,4x3,5x3,2

FO/FO

Europe to U.S.

stern or bow door

76,5x11,0x3,9x3,3

FO/FO Black Sea/Medit. stern or Europe/USA bow door 1 2 3

Mississippi

1650

1360

1820/64200

River Rhine River

1950

1680

1680/59300

Europa I

84-TEU's

Rhine River

2580

2210

2200/77690

Europa II Danube River

2600

2250

2400/84750

192x35x12,5x9,0 105-TEU's

-Fig. 1.1. Longitudinal section and plan of the LASH system

I-I

I

I

II

LONGITUDINAL SECTION Length Beam Draught loaded Deadweight No. ot barges

PLAN

261.4 metres 32-5 metres 12-1 metres 43.000 tons

83 to 89

Pig. 1.2. Longitudinal section and plan of the LASH/CONTAINER system

THE LASH/CONTAINER SYSTEM

son NM -NM LONGITUDINAL SECTION PLAN

ow am as

WM Ilia

is

_

...

ma

minima

as maw

.

MI

we gas ass SWIM:

sumniiii

ma

Length 272-3 metres Deadweight 41,000 tons Beam 30-5 metres No. of barges 49 to 78 Draught loaded 11.6 metres No. of containers 74 to 288 1 1 at sum Nos 1 Ii 11 11

IF-1

I-1

Fig. 1.3. Longitudinal section and

plan of the. LYKES SEABEE

system

THE LYKES SEABEE

SYSTEM

LONGITUDINAL SECTION Length Beam Draught loaded Deadweight No. of barges

PLAN

266.9 metres 32.3 metres 11.93 metres 39,026 tons

38

Fig. 1.4. The BACAT 1

& 2 systems

THE BACAT 1 SYSTEM

THE BACAT 2 SYSTEM

Length Beam

22.3 metres

Draught loaded

6-1 metres

Deadweight No. of barges

Length Beam

_

20-70 metres

Draught loaded

541 metres

Deadweight _{!No, of barges 10 Bacat + 3 Lash}

146-5 _5,400

Fig. 1.5. The SEABEE and the VALMET systems

1

"SEABEE"

"VALMET"

Fig. 1.6. The CAPRICORN LASH carrier

'LASH' BARGE

SECURED BY LOCK SPUDS

PARTICULARS DISPLACEMENT 11,000 L.T. CAPACITY 12 LASH LIGHTERS

CAPRICORN

CARRIER LENGTH (LOA) 475 9" 145m BEAM

82 0

25m

DRAFT (BARGE HANDLING)

18' 10'

DRAFT (AT SEA)

13 11'

Fig. 1.7. The CAPRICORN ro-ro Barge/carrier

LASH. BARGE SECURED BY HOLD ." DOWN DEVICES

PARTICULARS I LENGTH (LOA) 479 d 146m 1 BEAM 82 d 25m 37' 94 11.5m DEPTH I DRAFT 15' 1s 46m ! DEADWEIGHT 9200 TONNES 'CAPACITIES LASH BARGES 12 CONTAINERS 192

CONTAINER STOWAGE (2DISO'S ON

DECK)

RO/R0 VEHICLE CARGO STOW SPACE

CAPRICORN

RO-RO BARGE/CARRIER

-

LITERATURE

Roods Small sea-going crafts and vessels for inland navigation,

1957.

D. Hilling Barge carrier systems, inventory and prospects.

Shipping world and ship builder. Barge conference 1977.

Barge conference 1980.

Gallin Ships and their propulsion systems.

Chapter 2. The market for river-sea transport

(BCV-system) 2.1.

2.1. The Barge carrier versus other alternative

technologies 2.1.

2.1.1. Commodity range 2.1.

2.1.2. Investment requirements 2.1.

2.1.3. Economic advantages 2.2.

2.1.4. The advantages of the simple handling cargo

technology 2.2.

2.2. The Egyptian - West European trade 2.4.

2.2.1. Commodity main groups 2.4.

2.2.1.1. The imports of Egypt from West Europe 2.4.

2.2.1.2. The exports of Egypt to West Europe 2.7.

2.3. Utilization of inland water ways 2.8.

2.3.1. The low energy consumption of the inland

water ways transportation 2.8.

2.3.2. The role of the inland water ways between

the other modes of transport 2.8.

2.3.2.1. The Egyptian water ways 2.8.

2.3.2.2. The West European water ways 2.9.

2.3.3. Actual transport flow in Aswan Cairo

-Alexandria corridor, 1979 2.10.

2.3.4. The problem of the fluctuating water levels

on the West European water ways 2.12. 2.4. The possibility of including other countries

into the market 2.18.

2.5. Conclusion 2.20.

2.1.

Chapter 2. The market for river-sea transport (BCV-system)

2.1. The barge carrier versus other alternative technologies

2.1.T. Commodity range

Barge carriers are physically capable of carrying almost all types of cargoes, from break-bulk liner cargo to bulk cargoes and heavy lifts, where three commodities (meat/meat

prepara-tions, dairy produce/eggs, vegetable oils/fats) cannot be carried because each of which requires specialised handling and stowage. The barge carrier is more suitable to carry some sorts of commodities which need more care in loading and

unloading operations, an example of these commodities is the printing papers.

The full utilization of the BCV system in penetrating the inland waterways between the original and the terminal destinations which decreases the total cost of the trans-ported goods plus the need sometimes to have more care and safety in loading and unloading special kind of goods, may give the acceptance and the right to pay higher freight rate

for special commodities transported by barge carriers, 2.1.2. Investment requirements

The actual cost of a barge carrier and its associated equipment is thus of a similar order of magnitude to that of a comparable container or ro/ro vessel, but the real basis for comparison should be the cost per equivalent

capacity unit. Since some barge carriers (for example LASH, SeeBee, Valmet concept) can physically be used as full container carrying vessels one possible criterion for combc parison is the cost of providing one TEU slot (the cost of 20-ft container's space requirements) on different vessels. Such an analysis has been undertaken by

Borkowski1

and the result was that the barge carrier, in relation to equivalent carrying capacity works out cheaper than container ships of all sizes.

Another study,has been undertaken by UNCTAD, gave support to the view that the cost of barge carriers in terms of carrying capacity is invariably less than that of other systems.

'

A third study has undertaken by Christians supported the same view and his result is given in table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Investment cost comparison

(Source: Christians, Bargecon 77)

2.T.3. Economic advantages

With any transportation system, it is always important to understand precisely where the competitive advantages lie. In'the case of the BCV, it should be no surprise to discover

that inland river-barge movements allow substantially lower costs

than

other alternative land movements by road or rail, linked by the same vessel.

The low cost of inland waterway transportation, coupled with the elimination of labour-intensive cargo handling operations, can give the barge carrier a significant cost advantage over the other ship technologies where riverside origins and

destinations are involved. It should be recognised that this advantage is immediately eliminated if the inland waterway

legs are not achieved. A commonly quoted alternative area of barge carrier advantage is port congestion.

Back logs or a scale as have recently been common in the Middle East, especially Alexandria can alter the comparative

advantages in favour of barge carriers. See table 2.2. ?.1.4. The advantage of the simple handling cargo

technology

An important factor in the competition between the different vessels technologies and also between the different barge carriers technologies is the simple handling cargo technology with minimum permissible draught.

vessel

initial capital costs (104 $)

investment cost per slot (103

$).

83 barge LASH vessel 51.5 28.6

(,..1,800 TEU ) 1,300 TEU container vessel 38.0 29.2 1,200 TEU 36.0-41.0 30.0-34.0 Ro/Ro vessel

2.3.

Table 2.2. Goods movement in the Egyptian ports,

(Source: Bulletin of A.R.Egypt National transport study) The minimum permissible draught is necessary because with maximum draught less than 10 meters the vessel can go to the

port of Dekheila, from where barges can be pushed to the

Nobaria canal. Also the vessel can come nearer to the entrance of Yaryot lake in Alexandria port, from where barges can be pushed directly through the lock of Maryot lake standing between Maryot lake and Alexandria sea port. Consequently, the vessel will not be affected by the conges-tion in Alexandria sea port and a minimum time of unloading

(floating off), the barges can be achieved. port quantity in 1000 t imports exports Alexandria 10,370 879 Port SaId 2,520 263 Safaga 1,030 75 Suez 520 , 122 total 14,440 1,339

1978

2.2. The Exyptian-West European trade

The Egyptian-West European trade is an example of the un-balanced trade between developed and developing countries. Table 2.3. The total value of all commodities between Egypt

and West Europe

(Source: Commodity trade statistics

1980 -

United Nations) 2.2.1. Commodity main groups

2.2.1.1. The imports of Egypt from West Europe are mainly: - cereals and preparations, the main exporter is France;

sugar, the main exporters are Belgium and France; chemicals, the main exporters are Germany, France and United Kingdom;

basic manufactures, the main exporters are Germany, United Kingdom and France;

machines, transport equipments, the main exporters are Germany, United Kingdom and France;

- misc, manufactured goods, the main exporters are Germany, United Kingdom and France;

mineral fuel (coal coke), the main exporters are Germany and Netherlands.

Table

2.4.

gives the main imports of Egypt CIF from West

Europe in 1980.

Table

2.5.

gives the main exports of Egypt FoB to West

Europe in 1980.

countries imports of Egypt in 1000 $ exports of Egypt in 1000 $ Belgium' France

496964

52774

Germany Ireland 9187 1119 Netherlands United Kingdom

296575

96749

Switzerland

85409

133017

total

1561219

556036

106108 468035 98941

Table 2.4. rain imports of Egypt CiF January-December 1980 cereals sugar mineral fuel chemicals basic. manufactures machines (cool coke)

(Sources: International year book of trade statistics 1980 United Nations;

Commodity' trade statistics 1980, United Nations).

quantity value quantity value quantity value quantity value quantity value metric ton 1000 S metric ton 1000 S

metric ton 1000 $ metric ton 1000 t metric ton 1000

S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 quantity value metric ton 1000 $ 11 12 Belgium 34571 26821 19643 11435 22540 13629 1748 9680 France 1027345 211205 10203 8431 49000 57676 65867 56619 22937 93338 Germany 39296 3097 60506 93898 134032 90476 37106 216937 Netherlands 38411 1076 11152 22098 5863 5984 3962 18951 United Kingdom 25157 49929 93747 70084 14087 105854 Switzerland 9195 28399 20812 12633 3338 25552 total 1027345 211205 44774 35252 77707 4173 174653 263435 342861 249425 83178 470312

Table 2.5. Vain exports of Egypt FOB January-December 1980 food crude matls. chemicals basic manufactures excl. fuel

(Sources: International year book of trade statistics 1980 United Nations;

Commodity trade statistics 1980 United Nations).

quantity

value

quantity

metric ton 1000 $ metric ton

1 2 3 value quantity value 1000 $ metric ton 1000 $ 4 5 6 quantity metric ton 7 value 1000 Belgium 4441 6928 4639 885 8028 France 2156 904 7383 17922 5795 1396 2943 12735 Germany 2920 2287 19746 44414 7303 1333 16515 26562 Netherlands 37315 7420 35927 47596 10147 19049 United Kingdom 108304 30315 3536 8868 22 382 3478 7976 Switzerland 10500 3383 9297 21870 26 108 88 total 161195 44309 80330 147598 17785 4104 41199 76874

-69

2.2.1.2, The exports of Egypt to West Europe are .Mainly:

ia 'food. (potatoes, sugar and honey), the main importers

are United Kingdom and Netherlands;

crude materials excl. fuels, the main importers are Netherlands and Germany;

chemicals, the main importers are Germany end France; - basic manufactures, the main importers are Germany

and Netherlands;

It will be clear from tables 2'.4. & 2.5. that ships hating regular line between West Europe and Egypt will always not be

fully loaded during their return-route to West Europe.

The competition between different ship technologies for such trade. is illustrated in table 2.6.

cable

2.6,

Competition between different Ship technologies

(Source: Prof. Ir. N. Dijkshoorn, Evaluation of large scale unit load transport systems, Bargecon 180)

' (4) &eluding petroleum and products.

--_

ship technolo ies :---Commodity ,tanker barge

carrier multi purpose bulk carrier container 1 2 3 4 oil minerals grain agrarian products industz half products r industz products

,high value goods.

xxx

r

1 I X xx xx XXX XX xxx tx r, xx XXX 1 JCXX XX xx xx xx II x 2.7. -5

2.3. Utilization of inland waterways

One of the most important factors for successful BCV's

system is the avoiding of the transhipments in ports by trans-porting the goods directly from its original to its terminal destinations. This means that a full utilisation of the in-land waterways has to take place.

2.3.1. The low energy consumption of the inland water-ways transport

By comparison with other modes inland waterways transport undoubtedly is energy efficient and there is increasing research and evidence to support this view.

In a study ("Energieverbrauch im Guterfernverkehr") with regard to energy consumption in the transport sector Prof. Dr. Ing. H.H. Heuser, Duisburg (Germany) showed that energy consumption, in terms of primary energy, of the inland water-way transport system is the least in comparison with rail and road transport. The study in question came up with the follow-ing comparable figures:

Vodes of transport Index of primary energy consumption per ton/km

Inland waterway 100

Rail 121

Road 270

Of the total consumption of primary energy only 20 % is used by transport in general and only 3 % by inland waterway trans-port. This implies that inland waterway transport is

in

relative and an absolute sense the transport mode with the least energy consumption.

2.3.2. The role of the inland waterways between the other modes of transport

The Egyptian waterways

The waterways in Egypt are playing a small role between the other modes of transportation, see table 2.7.

2.9.

Table 2.7. Tonnage and tonnage kilometers of different modes of transport

in Egypt,1979

(Source: World Bank, Railway transport study-Cairo

1981J

One of the most important reasons of the small role taken by the inland waterways is the time lost in waiting for opening the locks (locks can be opened only in special hours per day). In present time more attention is payed to this problem and the lost time is expected to be decreased sharply.

2.3.2.2. The West European waterways

The northwestern part of the European continent has been endowed with a good number of natural waterways like Rhine, Schelde, Meuse, Elbe, Moselle, rain, Neckar, etc.

The process of improvement is still going on to allow bigger units of passing the rivers and to have more access to both mineral and industrial regions. The bottle-neck in the river Rhine at Bingen was improved to allow for convoys of fonr.::

barges to pass; in Rotterdam the Hertel Canal got an open connection with the Rhine river; in Germany the Saar river is being canalized to improve the ore supply of the regional iron and steel industry.

The important share of the West European waterways between the total inland transportation is shown in table

2.8.

In

1974,

128 million tons of goods were carried by ships

across the German-Dutch border at checkpoint Emmerich, while in 1980 it was 129,1 million tons and in 1981 it became

122,616 million tons of goods.

Source: 1.Statistics of the international inland water transport 1981;

2.Symposium ship transport Rotterdam September

1982.

Tons Tons.kilometers Average

distance (king) 1106 _% X107 % 1 2 3 4 5 Road

73.3

82.1 10.8 70.6 147 Pipe lines

6.7

7.5

1.1

7.2

164 Railways 5.0 5.6 1.8 11.8 360 Waterways

4.3

4.8

1.6

10.4

377

total

89.3

100.0

15.3

100.0

171

Table 2.8. Share of West European waterways between the total inland transportation,

1974

(Source: Bulletin of European inland waterway transportation, Rotterdam, August

1977.)

2.3.3. Actual transport flow in Aswan - Cairo - Alexandria corridor,

1979

A total of 5,001,000 t was transported on the inland waters ways system in Egypt in

_1979,

,from it a little more than

1 million t was transported on the Yobaria canal. Table

2.9.

shows the total tonnage transported on the Egyptian inland waterways (1000 tons) in 1979.

From table 2.9.

a schematized transport flow between Aswan

and Alexandria is drawn in figure 2.1.

From table 2.9. and

fig.

2.1. the following conclusions can be obtained:

1. The Ismailia - Cairo corridor is not a sueeessful alter-native for the market of the sea-going river system due

to:

very low load factor and consequently higher cost of water transportation, there is no

tonnage

to be transported from Cairo to Ismailia, also the permissible draft in Ismailia canal is lower (T=140 cm) than in the Nile itself (T= 150 cm). So til now and because of these two reasons only,the load factor is less than 50 %.

short length of locks (35 m) and consequently shorter length of units passing them (30 m) which means low economical efficiency where Country Percentage of total tonnage Percentage

of

tonnage.kms 1 2 Belgium France Germany Netherlands 17 5.5 25 38 28 9.5 28 62 b.

larger units are more efficient than nailer ones.(see fig. 2.2.)

c. increased expenditures because of the addi=, tional distance to be passed through the Mediterranean and Suez canal and also the additional fees for passing it.

The Alexandria - Cairo - Aswan corridor is the only possible, successful inland water route for the market of the sea-going river system under the, following

reservations:

aft the total sailing time has to be decreased

sharply by eliminating the unnecessary waiting time for opening locks, the average actual Sailing time from Alexandria to Cairo is five days while it can be less than two days, see

table 2.11. The distance between Alexandria and Cairo is 220 km, see table 2.10.

The unnecessary Waiting time damages the high efficiency of any good transporting system.

b.

where traffic in the Nobaria canal is heavily

unbalanced: 1 million tan southwards and 50000 ton only northwards and the same also for Beheira

canal: 1,1 million ton southwards and 100000 ton northwards, the load factor has to be increased as much as possible by transporting more goods having water access to both original and termi-nal destinations from upper Egypt to Alexandria, the cement from Asyut cement smelter transported to Alexandria can be an example.

The load factor can be increased also

_by

design the suitable units to avoid the losses in cargo capacity, where a lot of units have designed draft of 180 cm while the permissible draft

is

only 150 cm.

The relation between the dost per ton end the sailing time and also the load factor _{can be}

2.11.

seen from the next formula: cost/ton - (P+S) x F + (Vxd)

Lf x C where:

is the total port times in days per single

trip;

S - is the total sailing time in days per single

trip;

F - is the fixed daily costs; - is the cost per km;

- is the distance per single trip in km;

IS

- is the load factor;

C - is the maximum cargo load capacity per single

trip.

2.3.4. The problem of the fluctuating water levels on the West European waterways

The problem of having high load factor is also considered for the river Rhine and its tributaries, where the water level is fluctuating permanently. This problem is only

considered

for

large barges. For example the Europe IIA barge with its maximum payload of 2750 tons has a depth of nearly 4 meters and with a depth of 3 meters this barge will be transporting only 1950 tons, which corresponds to a 29% reduction in

the payload.

In 1.976 the average payload of the Europe IIA barge on the stretch Rotterdam - Ruhr area was not more than 53% of its maximum, due to long periods of very low water levels.

In contrast 1981 showed an average payload of not less than

91%.

The problem of the fluctuating water levels is not much considered for such smaller barges like the barges on the Egyptian inland waterways, but ofcourse these smaller barges

have lower economical efficiency than the larger ones. Therefore it will become necessary to find the suitable barge system for the three links, viz the original and the terminal destinations and the barge carrier as the sea link.

14 15 6 1

0

OF

0

a

a

o

o

ao

o o o 0

0

0

0

o 2:13. Table 2.9.

Total goods on inland waterways'(1000 ions/year) =

1979

Baseyearmatrix semi-governorate zones.

m CAI GIZ QAL SKS SKN DKE DKR DAM PTS ISM SillMIF GHS GEN KAF

11 zdnel 1 2 3 4 5 6

7

8 9 10 IT 12 13 1

I

70 103

7

Cr--0

e

0

6

0

o Q 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

4 1 0

0

i1/2-1, 40 tO 1 _-NO, 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

4 ; 0

6

0

'19

0

0

0 ap o oe o

5 0

C

0 '0

000eeo60

33

0

0

a

0

11.. o ,o o 7

0

0

0

0

0

0

'ICL op000po

8 o o o

Goo oo

§ 0

0

0

0

0

0

o 0t 06 o

o

TO 0 0

0

0

0,

0

o

o

o

6

11 ../0 0 .0 0 0 O

6102

0 &0

12 2 0

0

0 0 0

0 OM 0

13' o

o

o

ea000

14

000000

Coo-

coo

15

00000

o

o

o oom

16 156 0 0 0 0

o

c

o

o

o

17

0 0

0

Or

0

o o

e

o

o

18 19 761 0 0 P 35 0 o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

O. 0

0

0

0,

0

0

0 0 0 0 20 0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0.

0

.0 $0 0 0 21

o

O -

o

e

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

0 0 22 o

0- D

0

o

oci

0

Ole

23 4011

0

CO 0 O.

oio

o

uoto

o 24 0

0

0

0

0

0

D00000001

25 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0000000

26 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 00000,00

27 3257'

0

00

0

0

O Or

6

0

0

o

C 28 225 149

0

0

0

0 ooao6o4

29

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

1896 477 145

0

0

0 0

'0101

0, 0 5 4 -0 2 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 8 0

0

0 2 0 0 0 0 6 3

THIS

16

Table 2.9.

icontinuation

_fl

FAY BES MYA ASY NEW SOH QEN ASW RED

20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

28

30

ZONAL PRODUCTN;

1

.1 BIM ALX ADS SIN

17

18

19

0

6 01 16 o

6

o

0

o 6

o

0'

0

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

0

20 195

101

0'Q'0

o 0

00

.000

Ut

0 00

o 10

'00

00

?

0

25

00.0

o

0

6

o '0

0

00

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

t00000

-0.00006

0QO

0.6

o

0

0

,O

o

oi 0 /0

0

0

0, 0

0

0

o

o

0

00000000

o 119 120 265

0 193 183

72 0 2

0

0

0

0

71 47 0 o o to o o o

0000 00640

01

0

0

0

0

0 '0 0 o o

0

o

o

Q

o

o o O o

o

6

0

o

0

0'

0, 00 0

o boo

.0000900

6 .

o

o

o

o o

0

a

6

0

0

0

0

Or 0

0

0

0

6000000

0

0 0

0

0

-0 10 0

0

010?

0 00 a

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

0 113

2

0

c

o

0

o

o

o

6

o

o 00 o

0

a

0 01

0

0

0

o

010.2

0

0

o

01'

6

0

0

0t0

'0 '0 2

2

00

.o

o

400000It*g0

o

o

0

6

02% 19

0

e

15 152

0

23

9185,,

000000.0000000

.00600000000_o4

0

0

07

0

04 o: oi '

0

o

0, .(2 0

0

01

0

6:

0, 01

0

6 0 0 OH 00

1438

t84

11 4.33

0

101 2

0

0 371 101

low

0

43..

14

18

517

770

5001

39

0 o o 0

0

.6111

6

o

o

Q 0 O 0 :9

100

20 345

0 D

0 122 145 457

0 239 622 314

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 6 0 0 0

0

Figure 2.1.

Schematized transport flow in the Aswan,- Cairo

-Alexandria corridor 1979, in 1000 t. 1002) 107i 1216 2 southbound 5 978 1096 1132 144 ,120 206 377 148 61 2.15 -Alexandria- ₄₉ 296 (Beheira-Alex.) -Delta-Qalyubia/ 98 airo 73 Giza - Beni Suef -120 - Minya -- 401 Asyut C1ena

Sohag8

Aswart----1076 604 675 690

7

152 42 -857 23 1043 northbound

r

15 4 708 50 19: 1002

fig 2.2.

seta

,4

-WATER WAY NETWORK

LOWER

EGYPT

LEGEND Ammo TAI(RIRY NETNORIT I NOT TO SCALE) CANAL ENTRANCE ILICK

--)7c7

liA111.1U14 vESSEL MOTH _{MAJOR CITIES}

o . us pou-t° nos 0 HAld an* DADA 0 SI os sups q PORT SAM AT PO UA KAFR EL S140104i sHousraluaT RATOule 0 0 DASSYOuN TAANALUL Ts CLustRA FA Et. MAT to TWIT k )1'4 7.1 le L NTT AT SHEA% CL ILAMATf EL GIZA 3 DENIM aux& 4A> at. itNatit, DELTA 0 OASTIJO El. 111AONASM1NO ZAGA2I&40,0 oloPiLA Ct. IC ALM MELVA% aa 'NITTA WA SAAR 0

IS MAIU A CSWAL WATERWAY CAIRO _ASWAN _{GEM ,SUEF}

EL MINYA TS 0 ;4.3YUT SONAG 0 vs DENA MA* scarapi Lu/Dvt MOM 0 CAIRO ISMAILIA

2.17

Table 2.10. Inland waterways distances (km)

Table 2.11. Average actual sailing time between main origin and destinations (days)

_

Code Governorate Code

18 16 3 1 2 22

23

24 26

27

28 18 Alexandria 0 16 South Beheira 125 0 3 Qalyubia (barrage)

200

75 0 1

Cairo

220 95 20 0 2 Giza (Helwan)

255

130

55 35 0 22 Beni Suet

385

260

185 165

130 0 23 Minya 500

375 300 280 245 115

0 24 Asyut

635

510 435

415

380

250 135 0 26 Sohag

735

610 535 515 480

350

235 100 0 27 Qena

890

765 690 670 635 505 390 255 155

0

28 _Aswan (Korn Ombo)

1130

1005

930 910 875 745

630

495 395

240 0

Code Governorate , Code 18 16 3 1

2 22 23 24

26

27 28

18 Alexandria 0 3 4 5 5 7

9 11

13 15 19 16 South Beheira 3 0 2 2 3 5 6

8 10

12 16 3 Qalyubia (barrage) 4 2

0

-

1 3 5 7

9 11 14

1

Cairo

4 2

-

0 1 3 4 6 8 10 14 2 Giza (Helwan) 5 2 1 1 0 2 4 6

7 10 13

22

Beni Suet 6 4 2 2 2 0 2 4 5

811

23

Yinya

8 5 4 3 3 1 0 2 4 6 10 24 Asyut 9 7 5 5 4 3 2 0 2 4 8 26

Sohag

10 8 6 6 6 4 3 1 0 2 6 27 Qena 12 10 8 8 7 6 5 3 2 0 4

2.4. The possibility of including other countries into the market

When to speak about the market of the Egyptian door, one cannot forget that Egypt can be the corridor to the Medi-terranean for some countries south of it. The most realistic example is Sudan. Especially now this is more easy and

realistic after the agreement of the economical integration between the two countries has been signed. Sudan has no ports on the Mediterranean and its ports on the Red Sea cannot solve its import - export transportation problems which affect seriously the plans of development. The trade of Sudan with West Europe (see table 2.12.) can be ported through Alexandria. The way to do this is to trans-port the goods by barges from Alexandria to Aswan passing

MO km, from where goods has to be carried on roads or

railways to the frontier behind the high dam and then to complete the transportation by the same way (roads or

railways) or to transport it again on the Nile (see fig.2.3.) depending upon the distance which has to be passed till

the terminal destinations and the access of these desti-nations to the inland waterways in Sudan and above all depending upon the economical relevance and the technical possibilities.

Few years ago the ex-president of Egypt decided to build a port for Sudan on the Mediterranean, near Alexandria but then to use the road transportation and not the water-ways, while it could be a good suggestion to make a canal

connection between the navigable ends of the river Nile in both countries.

,gfig. 2.3i

MiDITERRANE,4,17 Se.4

veil., I arrays

ez e h s

Sa-4

Anne" bar_. _Somata. -.1418 leielecil coif H ...14.ankga -.--..Esne Bar Ger Yrs, efkOh Dem /c-tycterei; Ic u ..

In

.2.19.,

THE NILE 4645/N"

Table

2.12.

The total value of all commodities between Sudan and West Europe

Source: Commodity trade statistics

1976 - 1978,

-United Nations-.

2.5. Conclusion

The sea-going river system (BCV) can be a useful alternative for the West European - Egyptian route, due to:

saving of the time of the vessel due to the reduction in the loading and unloading time (see 4.3.1.3.) and conse-quently more round trip voyages;

saving of the transhipment costs (see 4.3.2.).

cheaper costs of the inland water transportations than the

other modes of transportations, also cheaper costs of loading and unloading operations in the inland water ports than in the sea ports;

partial solution of the congestion of Alexandria sea port, where the vessel can be loaded and unloaded independent of the port facilities;

in some individual cases, the barges can be used as tempo-rary storages, which has not to be the final purpose of the system;

such system can also help in making the road traffic in Egypt more flexible and less crowded, where the capacity

of the existing roads is completely not suitable for such great numbers of vehicles, while the inland water ways are Countries

Imports CiF in 1000 $ Exports FoB in 1000 $

year year

76

77

1 78

76

77

78 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6

Belgium

46366

39309

48066

4969

7230

4621 France

32384

84414

57221

54727

37310

29631 Germany

78974

156471

92858

31387

48360

19563

Netherlands

28765

38767

49459

_ _ _ U. Kingdom

200179

145677

134094

16858

21180

15431 Switzerland

5127

5122

6853

2103

23/01/10

total

391795

469760

388551

112538

116390

70356

-2.21.

about empty;

such system can create a corridor for Sudan to the Mediterranean;

the future influence of the system of the economy of Egypt has to be considered, on the long range, while such system can help in accelerating the delivery of the equipments, needed for the fulfil of the plans of the development in time.

I. Christians N. Dijkshoorn S. Gilman United Nations United Nations UNCTAD J. Borkowski D. Hilling Sumposium of ship transport European waterway transports Ltd Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) H.H. Heuser LITERATURE

Barge carriers, a system in search of markets, Bargecon 77.

Evaluation of large scale unit load transport system, Bargecon 80.

Optimal shipping technologies for routes to developing countries. Journal of transport economics and policy, January

1977.

International year book of trade statistics 1980.

Commodity trade statistics

1976-1980.

Unitization of cargo, New York

1970.

LASH versus container ship slot

construction costs, LASH systems

Inc 1975.

Barge carrier systems, inventory and prospects.

Shipping world and ship builder. Barge-transport; some aspects of an inland transport system, Rotterdam,

6-10

September

1982.

A few data and considerations on push towing on the river Rhine, August

1977.

Statistics of the inland water trans-port, The Hague 1981.

Energieverbrauch im Giiterfernverkehr, VBD, West Germany.

1,

- 9.,

Chapter

3.

The conventional sea transportation between

Egypt and West Europe

3.1.

Introduction 3.1.

3.1.

Alternative (1) the conventional sea going vessels between Alexandria and Rotterdam sea

ports

3.1.

3.1.1. Existing vessels for the Egyptian - West

European route

Total cost per ton

3.2.

3.1.2.1.

Cost of hinterland transportation

3.2.

1 Cost of unloading from barges and loading

into the sea vessel

3.3.

3.1.2.3.

Cost of sea transportation

3.3.

3.1.2.3.1.

Round trip time

3.3.

3.1.2.3.1.1.

Sailing time

3.3.

3.1.2.3.1.2.

Ports time

3.3.

3.1.2.3.2.

Port expenses

3.5.

3.1.2.3.3.

Cost of fuel and lubricants consumption

3.5.

3.1.2.3.3.1.

Fuel consumption

3.5.

3.1.2.3.3.2.

The cost of lubricating oil consumption

3.6.

3.1.2.3.4.

Capital, insurance and wages cost

3.7.

3.1.2.3.5.

Overhead and miscellaneous cost

3.8.

3.1.2.3.6.

Waintainance and repair cost

3.8.

3.1.2.3.7.

Supplies and stores cost

3.8.

3.1.2.3.8.

The minimum required freight rate 3.9.

3.1.2.4. Cost of unloading from sea vessel in

Alexandria

3.9.

3.1.2.5.

Cost of hinterland transportation from

Alexandria to Cairo

3.9.

3.1.2.6.

Total cost per ton transported from Ruhr

area in Germany to Cairo in Egypt

3.9.

3.1.2.7.

Total cost of transhipment per round trip

and per year

3.10.

3.1.2.8.

Conclusion 3.10.

3.1.

Chapter 3. The conventional sea transportation between Egypt and West Europe

Introduction

In this chapter the conventional sea transportation between Egypt and West Europe, which is considered to be alt (1),

is going to be evaluated. This alternative will be compared later with the other two proposed alternatives, which are:

the possibility of having sea-going sublift pontoon as a link between the rivers Nile and Rhine, which is taken to be alt (2);

the three tiers flo/flo Barge carrier as a link between the rivers Nile and Rhine, which is taken to be alt (3). One measurement for judging the most profitable system can be the total cost of transportation per ton for the same distance, viz the cost from the shipper till the consignee, which consists of the next costs:

inland transportation from the shipper to the sea port of exportation;

unloading from the inland means of transportation and loading into the sea vessel;

sea transportation;

=unloading from the sea vessel and loading into the inland means of transportation in the sea port of importation;

inland transportation from the port of importation to the consignee.

Alternative (1) the conventional sea-going vessels between Alexandria and Rotterdam sea ports

3.1.1. Existing vessels for the Egyptian - West Europeen

route

Yost of ships having regular trips between Egypt and West Europe are of cargo load capacity ranging from 4000 ton to 12350 ton, table 3.1. shows the main particulars of three of these vessels, having different cargo load capacity. The cost per ton will be calculated for the IqV 15 WAY, where this ship was the most profitable one between the other given ships in table 3.1. The source of this informa-tion is the Egyptian navigainforma-tion company, Alexandria, which 1.

is the owner of these ships.

Table 3.1. Particulars of three vessels having regular line between U.exandria and Rotterdam

(Source: 1. Egyptian navigation co. Alexandria; 2. Slavenburg & Fuser b.v. Rotterdam).

These vessels are sailing fully loaded from West Europe (Rotterdam sea port) to Alexandria, but during their route from Egypt to Rotterdam they are sailing with an average of 17 % from their maximum cargo load. The reason is the imbalance between the Egyptian exports and imports.

The weight of the Egyptian exports to West Germany / the weight of the West German exports to Egypt, was about 17 %

in 1980. or details see tables 2.4. and 2.5.

3.1.2. Total cost per ton (1982 - 1985)

3.1.2.1. Cost of hinterland transportation

The freight rate for iron and steel products from Ruhr area to Rotterdam by barges is 6,55 Dfl per ton.

The freight rate for coal from Ruhr area to Rotterdam by barges is 3,00 Dfl per ton.

An average of the freight rate is taken to be 4,78 Dfl, which equals

4,78 : 1,13 = 4,23 DM

where one DIV is taken to be 1,13 Dfl.

Then the cost of the hinterland transportation is 7200 x 4,23 = 30456 DM

where 7200 is the net cargo weight of the full loaded ship 15 MAY in tons

Name of vessel L 3 T d.w engine power (mcr) trail speed m m m ton hp knots 1 2 _{3 4 5} 6 7 EL AMRIA 100,03 14,64 6,27 4267 3080 13 15 NAY 129,93 17,84 7,83 8230 5280 16 ALEXANDRIA 152,81 20,53 8,99 12800 9000 16 a.

3.3.

7.1.2.2. Cost of unloading from barges and loading into

the sea vessel

The cost of unloading from barges and loading into sea vessel in Rotterdam, is taken to be"i

from barge to ship rail 12 Dfl/ton from ship rail into holds 30 Dfl/ton

total 42 Dfl/ton.

This cost is applied only for Dutch suppliers. For foreign suppliers this cost amounts to 17 Dfl per ton = 15 DM/ton,(2"° then the loading cost is

7200 x 15 = 108000 Dr.

3.1.2.3. Cost of sea transportation 3.1.2.3.1. Round trip time

3.1.2.3.1.1. Sailing time

The distance between Alexandria and Rotterdam is 3190 miles, while the service speed of the ship is 14 knots,

then the sailing time is

2 x 3190 : (14x24) = 18,99 = 19 days.

3.1.2.3.1.2. Ports time

3.1.2.3.1.2.1. Time in port in Rotterdam

The rates of unloading and loading in Rotterdam are taken

to be(fl

1000 tons/day for unloading, 800 tons/day for loading. Then the port time in Rotterdam

is

unloading time

for 58,5 % loaded cargo

0,17 x 7200 : 1000 = 1,22 days

for 75 % loaded cargo

0,5 x 7200 : 1000 = 3,6 days

for 100 % loaded cargo 1 x 7200 : 1000 = 7,2 days

loading time = 7200 : 800 = 9

days

total port time

a. for 58,5 % loaded cargo

1,22 9 10,22 days

it chosen as an average of 100 % imports and 17 %exports (see table 2.3.) -a. c. +

for 75 loaded cargo

3,6 + 9 =

12,6 days

for 100 %.loaded cargo

7,2 + 9 = 16,2

days.

3.1.2.3.1.2.2.

Time in port in Alexandria

The rates of unloading and loading in Alexandria are taken to be

500

tons/day for unloading

400

tons/day for loading.

Then the port time in Alexandria is

unloading time =

7200

:

500

14,4

days loading time

for

58,5 %

loaded cargo

0,17 x 7200

:

400 = 3,06

days for

75 %

loaded cargo

0,5 x 7200 : 400 = 9 days

for 100 % loaded cargo

1

x 7200

: 400 = 18 days

5. total port time

9.. for

58,5 %

loaded cargo

14,4 + 3,06 = 17,46 = 17,5

days

b. for 75 % loaded cargo

14,4 + 9

23,4

days

C. for 100 % loaded cargo

14,4 + 18 = 32,4

days.

Then the round trip time is for

58,5 %

loaded cargo

19 + 10,25 + 17,5 = 46,75 = 47 days

for

75 %

loaded cargo

19 + 12,6 + 23,4 = 55

days

for 100 % loaded cargo

19 + 16,2 +

32,4 =

67,6

68 days.

Then the round trips per year (355 service days) are for

58,5 %

loaded cargo

355 :

47 = 7,55

round trips

for

75 %

loaded cargo

355 :

55 = 6,45

round trips %

e.

-= =

3.5.

c.for 100 % loaded cargo

355 :

67,6

5,25 round trips.

3.1.2.3.2.

Port expenses

C7)

It is estimated for port expenses in Rotterdam to be

_{1,5 DM}

per ton loading capacity and

3,0

DY per ton loading capacity in Alexandria.

Then the port expenses in Rotterdam are

7200 x 1,5 =

10800 DM

and the port expenses in Alexandria are

7200 x 3

21600 DY.

Then the total port expenses are

10800 + 21600 = 32400 DM.

3.1.2.3.3.

Cost of fuel and lubricants consumption.

Fuel consumption

Due to the daily registered data in the engine room journal of the M/V 15 MAY, registered by the mechanical engineer and signed by the chief engineer of the ship, the average fuel consumption is as follows:

the average fuel consumption at sea during the 100 % loaded condition is

18,5

ton/day (grade IF 180,

viscosity 1500 sec. Red wood I);

the average fuel consumption at sea during the

_{50 %}

loaded condition is

16,5

ton/day;

the average fuel consumption at sea during the _{17 %} loaded condition is 15 ton/day

the average fuel consumption for auxiliaries at ports (gas oil) is 1 ton/day.

Then the cost of the fuel consumption at sea is:

9,5 x 18,5 x 168 = 29526 $ = 91530

DM (with 100 % loaded cargo)

9,5 x 16,5 x 168 = 26334 $ = 81635

DM (with

_{50 %}

loaded cargo)

9,5 x 15 x 168 = 23940 $ = 74214

DM (with

_{17 %}

loaded cargo)

where

168 is

the cost per ton in Rotterdam on

6.6.1983

in dollars,

then the total cost of the fuel consumption at sea during

d.