<strong>WorldCargo</strong>newsFINLAND: TERMINAL OPERATIONS/PORT DEVELOPMENTFinnsteve looks to automationThe Port of Helsinki’s longmootedmove to Vuossariis subject to yet anotherdelay following the discovery oftoxins in the seabed from (the nowillegal) tin-based, anti-foulingpaint. The polluted spoil will probablybe disposed of inland in animpervious pit and capped - anexpensive solution but one whichwill minimise further disruptionto the construction project.Limited operations at Vuossarimay commence in 2006 but theport is not expected to be commissioneduntil the end of 2008.The Port of Helsinki plans tomove over a 2-3 week period withno disruption to service.Finnsteve, Finland’s main,common user, general cargo terminaloperator, is confident thatit can meet the challenge, eventhough, in the view of Hans Martin,the company’s managing director,it has never been attemptedbefore in northern Europe.Most ports simply expandedand, in the case where a “greenfield”site was developed, such asthe shift from Bremen to Bremerhaven,the move was gradual.It may be possible to switch rorotraffic (Sompassari) at a differenttime to the container traffic(West Harbour) as the terminalsare already physically separate, butFinnsteve would like to gain thebenefits of an integrated operationas soon as possible.Starting afreshIn any case, Finnsteve is able towork with a “blank sheet of paper”on what it wants for its newfacility and has come up with aninteresting scenario for its newcontainer terminal. Three landsidescenarios were looked at:● Straddle carrier (1 over 2) direct(ie no change). This is consideredthe worst option, given thenature of Finnsteve’s traffic (feederservices). Furthermore, Martindoes not consider that a Brisbanetypeautomated straddle carriersystem would be suitable, due tothe severe Finnish weather.● RTG stacks fed by 1 over 1 shuttlecarriers instead of tractor/trailer sets - the middle option. Aspreviously reported in <strong>WorldCargo</strong><strong>News</strong> (October 2003, pp26-27),Finnsteve has a Kalmar shuttle carrierand carried out extensive trialswith it in the West Harbour. Itfound that the machine did notreally fit well into its standard 1over 2 operation, but this is notreally a guide to how shuttle carrierswould operate with RTGs.However, Kalmar itself regards anRTG/ shuttle carrier combinationas a poor solution (see <strong>WorldCargo</strong><strong>News</strong>, November 2003, pp49-50).As also previously reported,Finnsteve transferred its shuttlecarrier to its daughter companyin Turku, to support a reach stackeryard. It fits in well there as a tractor/traileralternative.● Crane to crane transfer. This isthe best solution, Finnsteve believes,to accommodate growthand reach a target of 45-50 moves/crane hour. The cranes would interfacedirectly with automatedRMGs running on rails parallel tothe quay. The cranes are assumedto be conventional, single trolleycranes so the containers have tobe grounded.As Martin points out, thesystem bypasses the need forshuttle carriers. In broad terms,the concept is not new (egEurokai/La Spezia, MatsonMousetrap), but it is regarded asrisky as there are no “buffers”to provide flexibility. With anautomated RMG, the risks areeven greater. Martin recognisesthis: “It will require some veryinteresting technical and softwaresolutions,” he says.The problem is mainly on theimport cycle where the quaysidecrane will ground the containerin its backreach to be picked upby the cantilever of the RMG. Ifaccurate positioning can be obtained,the system might showvery high cycle times. The exportcycle is not as demanding as theRMG can “find” the requiredcrane through the tasking computerand align with it throughsensors.A detailed simulation programmehas been developed byCosmos which has also beenworking on the evaluation software,presumably using some ofits experienced gained with thenow defunct automated OBCproject for HesseNoord Natie.Wider than wideThe system, employing three orfour cranes supported by five orsix RMGs, would have more thantwice the capacity of Finnsteve’scurrent 330,000 TEU throughputand could easily reach 1.3 millTEU/year using only one stack.However, as there is only onestack it has to be exceptionallywide. The RMGs will span at least80m and perhaps as much as100m, not counting the requiredwaterside cantilever and (prob-ably) a landside cantilever to serviceroad trucks. Such a span mightrequire a central supporting framewith extra, non-powered bogies.This arrangement would certainlyhelp with alignment as slewing isalways going to be a problem onsuch large span machines.In a change of approach,Finnsteve intends to purchase itsown quayside cranes rather thanlease them from the port authority.The control and tasking softwarebetween the quayside and stackingcranes must be fully integrated, sothe system should be regarded asone unit. This would be very difficultto achieve, argues Finnsteve, ifthe cranes and their drivers are suppliedby the port authority, as is itscurrent practice. ❏Hanko hits a new highThe Port of Hanko has had a remarkableturnaround in fortunesince the dark days of 1996, whenRailship, its major customer, transferredto Turku. Throughput hassince doubled and will reach almost1 mill tonnes this year. Asthe port caters exclusively for rorotraffic, this represents significantlevels of activity.Hanko’s relatively ice-free statushas helped, particularly followinglast year’s severe winter whenproblems were experienced in theGulf of Bothnia. To ensure reliabledelivery, M-real is to start railingpaper from the north some750 kms to Hanko instead of shippingthrough Kemi. Initially thisswitch is only for the winter butthere are indications that the trafficmight stay.Currently there is a daily sailingto Lübeck with a large (3000lane-m) Transfennica ship. Transfennicaalso provides four weeklysailings to Paldiski and there is anightly call by the Superfast ferries.The arrival of Superfast in2000 has seen passenger numbersjump from nothing to 70,000 inthe first full year to an estimated182,000 this year. Hanko is nowFinland’s third passenger ferryport, after Helsinki and Turku.The port’s trailer traffic hasmore than doubled from 51,000units in 2000 to around 115,000units this year. New car importtraffic has also shown remarkablegrowth. Last year’s record of140,000 vehicles will reach almost200,000 units this year.Much of this traffic is destinedfor the fast-growing Russian market.The port admits that it facescompetition for this business fromthe eastern ports of Kotka andHamina which are developingtheir own terminals. ❏Steveco plans paying off“The pieces are falling into place,”says Olli Parikka, Steveco’s marketingdirector, of his company’slong-term planning goals. Whenthe first boom in the post-SovietRussian economy turned to bust,both Kotka and Hamina were particularlyexposed and the investmentsalready carried out and inthe pipeline (by both port authoritiesand HMT Hamina MultimodalTerminals Oy as well as bySteveco) looked wildly optimistic.But perhaps they are now alittle easier to justify.Kotka is Finland’s second containerport, handling 243,800TEU last year. The forecast for2003 is 270,000 TEU at theMussalo container terminal operatedby Steveco, where last year235,000 TEU were handled. Theport is set to add a fifth Konecranes’ship-to-shore gantry crane.This should arrive fully-erect fromHanko at the end of next year andbe in service early in 2005.Kotka is also looking to developautomobile traffic, focusingspecifically on the fast-growingRussian import market. The portrecognises that forest products traffic(this year ca. 4.25 mt of paper,1.6 mt of sawn timber and plywoodand 0.25 mt of pulp) is fairlymature, so containers, trailers andcars need to be encouraged. A newimport facility is being developedat the Hietanen ro-ro terminal. Sofar only 25,000 cars have beenhandled here but the traffic isgrowing very strongly.The number of trailers handledby Steveco at Hamina has risen90 per cent, mainly as a result ofTransfennica’s Lübeck service,with some 35 per cent of this trafficdestined for Russia. As previouslyreported, the Lübeck serviceis completely containerised onthe weather deck and the containersare loaded by HMT using itsAnsaldo cranes at the same timeas Steveco works the stern ramp.The Port of Hamina has extendedits rail tracks to run underHMT’s cranes to allow directtransloading between ship andRussian rail cars. Most Russiandestinationcontainers landed atHamina, however, are eitherstripped in the port for onwardmovement by trailer, or movedinto Russia on road chassis.Combisped, the HHLA/LHGoperator which slot-charters theupper deck of the Lübeck servicero-ros, has also chartered the 600TEU feeder vessel, UTE. The shipsails three times/week toPetersburg (to the Petrolesportterminal in which HHLA has ashare), timed to coincide with theLübeck vessel’s arrival in Hamina.Frequency can be stepped up todaily if demand warrants. ❏Loading sawn timber in Kotka - a “classic” Steveco operation18<strong>Dec</strong>ember 2003
CARGO HANDLING<strong>WorldCargo</strong>newsReach stacker designs going bananasConfirming an earlier report in<strong>WorldCargo</strong> <strong>News</strong> (March 2003, p1), a newreach stacker will shortly be launched byLiebherr-Werk Nenzing GmbH. Theprototype, which features a distinctivecurved, telescoping boom (Banana boom),has already been demonstrated to potentialcustomers at the company’s plant inAustria and, it is understood, will belaunched early in 2004.Lift capacity and boom configurationare such that, apparently, SWL is 45t upto 6 x 9ft 6in high in the first row, andthere is said to be access to the fifth tierin the second row even if the first row isalso stacked 5-high (ie no need for “pyramid”stacking). As previously surmised, theboom shape lends itself “naturally” tonegative lifting, such as containers onbarges. It is being called a “banana boom.”Liebherr reasons that in order to besuccessful in a “crowded” market, it hasto offer something extra. The variousLiebherr companies appear to operatefairly autonomously and be successful inall their piece good and bulk handlingequipment fields. Their products are generallyreckoned to be at the higher endof the price-performance spectrum. Judgingby its features, the new reach stackeris unlikely to be out of step in this regard.It is hoped to provide a full report later.Liebherr will shortly launch an unusual,new reach stacker, making the marketeven more competitive in the processby Hyster, are believed to have turned outaround 600 machines last year, of whichalmost two thirds were ECHs.There appears to have been a strongdemand for reach stackers from the USmilitary this year. This has nothing to dowith Kalmar’s ongoing production ofRTCHs in Sweden for US-TACOM andother defence forces approved by the Pentagon,but concerns normal (commercialspec) machines. Both Terex (PPM) andLinde HTD, for example, are known tohave had orders for machines for Kuwait(ie for coalition forces in Iraq).Marque twainKalmar is still the market leader in reachstackers, while Fantuzzi appears to havestepped up production, notably at NoellChina. CVS and Terex Cranes (PPM)appear to be going well. Like Kalmar, CVSnow has two marques (Ferrari and Belotti)with different technical characteristics.According to CVS, the former Belottideclined due to poor management and(related to that) lack of investment in after-sales,spare parts, an insufficient dealernetwork, etc. The Belotti products are nowavailable through the CVS network and,says CVS, will be fully-supported.Kalmar claims that sales of itsContchamp ‘F’ series and revisedContmaster reach stackers, both launchedin September last year (<strong>WorldCargo</strong> <strong>News</strong>,September 2002, pp38-39) have outstrippedits projected sale targets in theirfirst year on the market. Sales are wellahead of our targets all over the world,exceeding our expectations by almost 40per cent,” said Per Rosengren, productmanager of Kalmar reach stackers, lastmonth, highlighting recent orders for 15‘F’ Contchamps from customers in Africa,such as in Namibia and Kenya.Without any knowledge of Kalmar’ssales forecast or how sales break down asbetween Contchamps and Contmasters,it is hard to make much of its claims, butHead countEstablished players will probably welcomea new entrant of Liebherr’s strength andreputation in the ports industry like a holein the head. If one includes regional playerssuch as Madal, Indital and TCM, thereare probably 15 companies vying for businessin this sector.On the other hand, looking on thebright side, overall demand for reachstackers appears to have gone up this year,although some of this is ongoing conversionfrom masted container handlers(MCHs). The US is probably the only bigmarket where MCHs still predominatein laden container handling, but it hasbeen fairly quiet this year in any case.Recent business for Taylor in the USincludes two 5-high top picks for GreenwichTerminals LLC’s operation at PackerAvenue Marine Terminal, Philadelphia.Taylor (and perhaps Svetruck AB) areprobably the only significant MCH suppliersstill producing more laden thanempty (ECH) handlers. For ECH applications,the reach stacker has, if anything,lost ground to the MCH in the past fewyears all over the world. Recent “newcomer”to big trucks, Italy-based ZV, reportsan order for a 40 tonne MCH forAladdin Container Company in Dubai.Upright citizensSvetruck and Mitsubishi appear to be theonly “big names” still offering heavy FLTsbut not also reach stackers (either owndesign or badge-engineered). There seemsto be little prospect of Svetruck changingits policy. Its range covers MCHs,other FLTs and TMF log stackers from8-52t and it appears to retain strong brandloyalty from its customers in the port, forestry,steel and other heavy industries.Just now Svetruck is looking to expandin North America, where it ispresent through the former Kaldnes setup.Svetruck deliveries this year are understoodto include a total of 18 ECS-6H dedicated ECH machines for KatoenNatie/Teveco in Antwerp. These 1 over5 machines are actually equipped for 2over 5 stacking, using Elme’s patented,double horizontal twistlock spreader design(type 572).Svetruck is the biggest customer todate for this Elme spreader which positivelylocks two containers through thefront apertures of the corner castings. Thisenables stacks to be positioned close togetheras there is no need for space forside clamps.670-880?!Overall demand for reach stackers in 2002excluding Kalmar’s RTCHs has beenestimated at anything between 670 and880. <strong>WorldCargo</strong> <strong>News</strong> believes that theformer figure is more realistic. In theMCH sector, the top nine suppliers, lead<strong>Dec</strong>ember 2003 19
Change language