Danube Shipping Study

COLD CONTAINER LINER SERVICE DANUBE An Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks of Container Transport on the Danube River between Austria and the Black Sea

FINAL REPORT, Vienna at August 2006

in cooperation with:

© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | of 64

COLD I Final Report August 2006

Project Team via donau

Coordination: Manfred Seitz

Project Manager: Gerhard Gussmagg

Staff: Alfred Heiserer

Csaba Pusztay

Josef Schwanzer

Project Team ÖIR (Macro-economic Analysis of Transp ort Flows)

Reinhold Deußner, Stephanie Novak

Project Team Port of Constanta

Alexandru Capatu and staff of Constanta Port Authority

Companies and persons who have supported this proje ct:

Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology

Austrian Chamber of Commerce

Mierka Donauhafen Krems

Laszlo Somlovari, Port of Budapest

Sasa Jovanovic, Jugoagent Belgrade



Table of Contents

1 STARTING SITUATION ................................. ..................................................................... 8

1.1 Global container flows and transhipment volumes at sea ports ........................................... 8

1.2 Modal split in hinterland transport and success stories of inland navigation ...................... 11

1.3 (Container) transport on the Austrian Danube .................................................................... 16

1.4 Promising Market – Black Sea ............................................................................................ 18

1.5 The Port of Constanta ......................................................................................................... 19

2 MARKET AND PEER ANALYSIS........................... .......................................................... 23

2.1 Current overseas container volumes of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia as well as estimated

costs for rail transport ........................................................................................................ 23 2.1.1 Austria .............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.1.2 Hungary............................................................................................................................................ 26 2.1.3 Slovakia............................................................................................................................................ 27 2.1.4 Truck prices on the Black Sea route................................................................................................. 28 2.2 Forecast of the flow of goods (ÖIR) .................................................................................... 29

3 INLAND Navigation CONCEPT .......................... ............................................................. 32

3.1 Definition of the Liner Service Concept............................................................................... 36

3.2 Hindrances to Danube navigation ....................................................................................... 36

3.3 Inland port charges.............................................................................................................. 38

3.4 Fees for Black Sea Canal ................................................................................................... 39

3.5 Travel times and operating costs of ships (base scenario)................................................. 40

3.6 Transit times and operating costs of ships (optimised scenario) ........................................ 43

4 TARGET GROUP OCEAN CARRIERS........................ .................................................... 48

4.1 Overall view of the supply chain – length of time and rates................................................ 49 4.1.1 Transit time....................................................................................................................................... 49 4.1.2 Costs (Status Quo)........................................................................................................................... 51 4.1.3 Costs (convergence of ocean freight rates)...................................................................................... 53 4.2 Environmental balance........................................................................................................ 54

4.3 Result of the talks in Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade........................................................ 55 4.3.1 Results of talks in Austria ................................................................................................................. 55 4.3.2 Result of talks in Hungary (Budapest) .............................................................................................. 57 4.3.3 Result of the talks in Serbia (Belgrade) ............................................................................................ 58

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



Index of Illustrations

Figure 1: Container flows worldwide ....................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Global volume of container transhipment – status quo and forecast....................................... 9

Figure 3: The “Jowi” next to a conventional inland navigation ship ...................................................... 12

Figure 4: Container shipments on French waterways........................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Inland navigation container ship “Arc en Ciel“ on the Seine .................................................. 14

Figure 6: Waterborne container transhipment at Flemish inland ports ................................................. 15

Figure 7: Transport volumes on the Austrian section of the Danube.................................................... 16

Figure 8: Container transport volumes on the Austrian section of the Danube .................................... 17

Figure 9: Container transhipment volumes on Black Sea ports, 1995 to 2005..................................... 18

Figure 10: Constanta South Container Terminal................................................................................... 19

Figure 11: "Short cut" to Central Europe............................................................................................... 21

Figure 12: Istanbul and the Bosphorus (Satellite photo)....................................................................... 22

Figure 13: The Danube as a link from Central Europe to the Black Sea .............................................. 32

Figure 14: Container transhipment at the Mierka Donauhafen Krems.................................................. 33

Figure 15: Distances and inland ports................................................................................................... 34

Figure 16: Photographs Scheduled Container Services Belgrade - Constanta.................................... 35

Figure 17: Photographs of Black Seal Canal ........................................................................................ 39

Figure 18: Proposed convoy of ships (base scenario) .......................................................................... 40

Figure 19: Scheduled services Krems – Constanta (base scenario) .................................................... 41

Figure 20: Calculation of ship’s costs per container (base scenario).................................................... 42

Figure 21: MCV "Greifenstein" with pushed barge at Budapest port .................................................... 43

Figure 22: Transit time Constanta – Krems (optimised scenario)......................................................... 44

Figure 23: Transit time Krems – Constanta – Krems (optimised scenario) .......................................... 45

Figure 24: Calculation of ship’s costs per container (optimised scenario) ............................................ 47



Index of Tables

Table 1: The most important container ports worldwide (in million TEU).............................................. 10

Table 2: Modal split in hinterland transport, Container (2005) .............................................................. 11

Table 3: Preferred sea ports by Austria ................................................................................................ 24

Table 4: Railway rate matrix Austria (selected routes).......................................................................... 25

Table 5: Estimate of overseas container transport volume Hungary, in EUR (2005) ........................... 26

Table 6: Railway rates matrix Hungary (selected routes) ..................................................................... 27

Table 7: Railway rates matrix Slovakia (selected routes) ..................................................................... 28

Table 8: Truck prices door-to-door ........................................................................................................ 28

Table 9: COLD Potential, forecasting method foreign trade ................................................................. 31

Table 10: Rough structure of the costs of inland navigation ................................................................. 36

Table 11: Container transhipment rates at selected inland ports.......................................................... 38

Table 12: Cost calculation inland vessel round trip Constanta – Krems – Constanta .......................... 46

Table 13: Top 10 Container Carrier worldwide ..................................................................................... 48

Table 14: Transit time comparison of the supply chains (in days) ........................................................ 50

Table 15: Cost comparison of the supply chain (as of 1 Q 206) ........................................................... 52

Table 16: Costs of the Supply Chain Krems – Shanghai (convergence of freight rates)...................... 53

Table 17: Container volumes in Serbia (Estimates for 2005) ............................................................... 58



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In contrast to other rivers in Europe, the volume of container shipments on the Danube has not

been of much significance up to now. In the light of the double digit growth rates in the global

transport of goods and the chronic capacity bottlenecks at Europe's major ports and

connecting routes in their hinterland, now would be the right time for establishing container

transport along the Danube. This study confirms this assessment: the cost benefits of using

inland vessels specialised in container transport are significant. A look at the entire supply

chain for Europe-Asia shipments shows that the frequently mentioned setback of long

transport times is not that severe. Moreover, as the environmental impact balance is good, a

win-win situation is possible for all actors.

The first chapter of the study entitled “Starting Situation” investigates the growing volume of

transhipments at the major container ports throughout the world. While this volume was

around 100mn TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) at the beginning of the 1990s, by 2005, the

figure had climbed to 350mn TEU. The estimate for 2015 is 600mn to 700mn TEU. A crucial

issue for Europe’s economy is the capacity to efficiently deliver and collect such container

volumes in the hinterland of the sea ports, specifically, in the economic core regions of

Europe. Inland navigation can be used effectively for transport in addition to road and rail as

the success stories of the Rhine, Rhône, Seine and the Belgium waterways illustrate. The

boom at the Black Sea ports could be a great opportunity for the Danube River to trigger a

similar development. The Romanian port of Constanta, which is linked to the Danube

waterway by the Black Sea Canal, has seen a remarkable rise in container volumes.

Chapter 2 of the study presents a “Market and Peer Analysis” . It analyzes the existing

overseas container volumes of the countries of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia. The estimates

of the project team are based on a current total volume of some 700,000 TEU per year

(Austria 400,000 TEU, Hungary 200,000 TEU, Slovakia 80,000 TEU). The larger share of

containers is transported by shuttle trains, and the smaller share by truck. The rail tariffs were

surveyed for the most important connections per TEU and 40-ft. container, including

connections to the ports in the Adriatic Sea and truck prices in the Danube region. To assess

the future potential of regular scheduled container services on the Danube River, the Austrian

Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning (ÖIR) conducted a macro-economic

analysis of the flow of goods. The analysis includes transport volumes that could theoretically

be containerised transported within the Danube region as well as short sea and overseas

connections. The potential of the Danube in the three countries of Austria, Hungary and



Slovakia was found to be around 0.65 to 1.15mn TEU until 2010, and by 2020, it could grow to

1.3 to 2.4mn TEU.

Chapter 3, “Inland Navigation Concept” deals with the transport of containers on the

Danube waterway. The subjects of waiting times at locks and border crossings, port fees,

Black Sea canal fees and possible nautical hindrances were investigated. Two scenarios were

developed that represent duration, costs and capacities of container liner services between

Krems in Lower Austria and Constanta. The “base scenario” is based on the use of

conventional Danube ships and double-stack container loading. The bottom line of this

scenario shows that the transport costs per container are the same as by rail. An “optimised

scenario” uses ships with larger capacities (triple-stacked containers) adapted for transporting

containers and covers the round-trip Krems – Constanta – Krems in 16 days. At a capacity

utilization of 75 % the basic costs per container are very attractive.

Chapter 4 investigates the ocean carriers as the target group for implementing a container

liner service along the Danube. Using the example of a transport chain between Shanghai and

Krems, the duration and costs of the transport variants Hamburg plus rail are compared to

Constanta plus inland navigation. This comparison sheds a new light on the frequently

mentioned disadvantages of Danube navigation: In the direction of Asia, the shipment took

around 30 days in both cases, while imports to Europe took two and a half days longer using

the Danube variant. The comparison of the costs of the supply chain is based on the level of

ocean freight costs of the first quarter of 2006 (Constanta more expensive than Hamburg) and

on a second calculation using equal freight costs, as the equalization is already underway. In

the latter case, the cost advantage per container attainable via the Danube is around 20 %.

Moreover, the environmental balance of the variant via Constanta and the Danube is very

encouraging: By avoiding more than 4,000 km of deep sea voyage, an average of 16 % less

CO2 is produced per container. This chapter closes with statements by shipping companies

and their agents in Vienna, Budapest, and Belgrade. The basic sentiment revealed is positive

if reliability is ensured and the price is right. In the short term, a number of companies are

interested in the transport of empty containers along the Danube.

The last chapter of the study presents recommendations for future approaches . After

publication of the study, a first step will be to obtain feedback from ocean carriers and large

transhipment companies. A round table will be held to bring together interested companies

and to create project alliances. The objective of all actors involved could be stated as the

launch of scheduled container services between Austria and Romania in 2007.



1 STARTING SITUATION

1.1 Global container flows and transhipment volumes at sea ports

The global exchange of goods has increased enormously in the past few decades. This is

especially true in the segment of high-value goods, i.e., container shipments where the growth

rates are usually double digit. Shipments from Asia (China, Taiwan, Korea etc.) to Europe play

a great role and the growth rates observed were over 15 % p.a. Consumers in Europe are

demanding cheaper electronics, textiles and shoes from the “Tiger States“.

Figure 1: Container flows worldwide

Source: Hulocon, 2005



There is a direct relationship between the rising volume of transport and the transhipment

figures at international sea ports. While the volume of transhipment was around 100mn TEU

(20-ft. container) at the beginning of the 1990s, the figure had climbed to 350mn TEU by 2005.

The estimates for 2015 are 600 to 700 mn TEU.

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

Source: ISL, Lemper/Stuchtey, 2004

It is still unclear whether the ports are able to efficiently deal with these volumes. According to

a study by the HVB Group / Drewry1 , global bottlenecks at ports are threatening the growth of

global trade – port enlargement and alternative strategies are needed. The overloading of

capacity at the seaside quays are being exacerbated by the problems on landside

infrastructure. The number of gates is often not enough, overloaded port railways, road

congestion and an insufficient number of truck drivers are all factors that limit the smooth

conveyance of containers through the terminals and create backlogs.

1 „Globale Hafenengpässe – Keine schnelle Lösung in Sicht“ (Global Bottlenecks – No Fast Solutions in Sight), published by Hypo Vereinsbank AG Hamburg; Author: Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd. London, February 2005



Since 2005, the world’s largest container port of the world has been Singapore and no longer

Hong Kong. An incredible volume of 23.2 mn TEU was transhipped there in 2005. The largest

European container port is still Rotterdam with 9.3mn standard boxes. In comparison to 2001,

Hamburg has nearly doubled the volume and today the figure is 8.1mn TEU. Hamburg

expects the growth rates to continue to climb steeply and forecasts a 10 % yearly increase in

the coming years – starting out from an already very high level! Compared to these ports, the

Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta may still seem insignificant, but its performance in the

past three years has been very impressive.

Table 1: The most important container ports worldw ide (in million TEU)

Container-ports 2001 2004 2005 Growth rate

2001-2004 Growth rate 2004-2005

Singapore 15.6 21.3 23.2 + 37 % + 9 %

Hong Kong 17.8 22.0 22.5 + 24 % + 2 %

Shanghai 6.3 14.6 18.1 + 130 % + 24 %

Shenzen 5.1 13.7 16.2 + 169 % + 18 %

Busan 8.1 11.4 11.8 + 42 % + 4 %

Kaohsiung 7.5 9.7 9.5 + 29 % - 2 %

Rotterdam 6.1 8.3 9.3 + 36 % + 12 %

Hamburg 4.7 7.0 8.1 + 49 % + 16 %

Constanta 0.12 0.39 0.77 + 224 % + 97 %

Source: Websites of the port authorities and the publication “Port Statistics 2005“, Rotterdam Port



1.2 Modal split in hinterland transport and success stories of inland navigation

The most crucial issue for Europe’s economy is the capacity to efficiently deliver and collect

the container volumes mentioned in the hinterland of the sea ports, specifically, in the

economic core regions of Europe.

Generally, all three modes of land transport (road, rail and inland navigation) are suitable for

transporting containers in the hinterland. Depending on availability, state of the infrastructure

and service level, they are used to varying degrees.

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

Truck Rail Inland navigation Feeder vessel

Rotterdam 43 % 7 % 23 % 27 %

Antwerpen 50 % 8 % 26 % 16 %

Hamburg 52 % 25 % 1 % 22 %

Source: ÖIR, 2006

The table above shows that the share of truck and feeder transport in all three ports selected

ranges around plus/minus 10 %. The reason is that for certain transports, the selection of the

most suitable mode is clear: if the containers remain in the region (within < 100km), a truck is

selected. Should another sea port be the destination, feeder ships are used for transport (so-

called “short sea transport”).

The choice for the share of “hinterland container” with distances of 200 to over 1,000 km will

be between rail and inland navigation as of a certain volume. There are two differences in the

sea ports in this context: The ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp, which are easily reachable by

waterway, account for a share of 23 % to 26 % for inland navigation, while for Hamburg it is

only 1 %.



In European comparison, inland navigation has gained substantial market shares in container

transport. Overall, the volume transported via European rivers and canals has risen within 10

years from less than 500,000 TEU to almost 4 mn TEU. Here, the larger share of the transport

volume involves sea containers in the hinterland of the major sea ports.

The most impressive success story is the one of the Rhine . Last year, some 1.8mn TEU were

transported on this waterway. There are well established scheduled services between the

ARA ports and the German terminals such as Duisburg. These offer daily departures and use

special container ships with enormous capacities (JOWI class, max 482 TEU). At distances of

200 to 300 km, the transport times are 24 hours (z.B. www.alcotrans.de)

Figure 3: The “Jowi” next to a conventional inland navigation ship

Source: Manual on Danube Navigation, via donau, 2005



Container inland navigation is booming also in France . A few large shippers such as

Conforama, Carrefour, Monoprix and Auchan use inland navigation as an alternative for

containerised imports and exports. A total of 400,000 TEU were shipped in 2005, which is 8.3

% more than in 2004. Almost half of the volume travelled on the Rhine. The highest growth

rates have been posted on other rivers though: in 2005, 20 % more containers were shipped

on the Rhône than in 2004, and on the Seine, it is even 40 %. Furthermore container imports

and exports via the sea ports of Dunkerque and Antwerp using the network of canals in

northern France and the Schelde are also of significance.

Figure 4: Container shipments on French waterways

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

TE

U

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



Along the transport route Rhône-Saône , the subsidiaries of CMA-CGM, “River Shuttle

Containers“ (www.rsc.fr) and Alcotrans Container Line offer scheduled services between

Marseille-Fos and the inland ports of Lyon, Mâcon and Chalon. The shipping of a 40-ft.

container from Marseille to Lyon costs around €400 with Alcotrans and takes around 36 hrs

(upstream).

There are already five operators on the Seine . The metropolis of Paris accounts for half of the

total containerised transhipment volume in Le Havre. The price of transport from Le Havre to

the city limits of Paris is stated at €380 per 40-ft. container and the duration at around 30 hrs

(distance 330 km vs 200 km on road).

The prices mentioned are door-to-door prices, i.e., they include transport on an inland

navigation ship, pre- and post-haulage by truck, handling fees at the ports as well as custom

fees for imports and exports.

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

Source: River Shuttle Containers, 2006



The volumes have increased steeply in Flanders (Belgium) as well. As reported by the

partner organization of via donau “Promotie Binnenvaart Vlaandern“ growth in container inland

navigation volumes has practically exploded. In 2005, the waterborne container handling at

the Flemish inland container terminals was 456,279 TEU, which is 52,328 TEU or 13 % more

than in 2004.

Figure 6: Waterborne container transhipment at Fle mish inland ports

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

TE

U

Source: Promotie Binnenvaart Vlaanderen, 2006



1.3 (Container) transport on the Austrian Danube

A volume of around 11.5mn tons of goods were transported along the Austrian section of the

Danube. Approximately half of the transport volume stems from imports (largely iron ore for

voestalpine Linz), one-third travels on transit routes. Since 1992, the volumes have been rising

moderate but steadily. In 2003, the Danube lost some volume because of the extremely low

water levels in the second half-year. According to forecasts by ÖIR, with implementation of

measures under the National Action Plan Danube Navigation (NAP) the volume is expected to

rise further up to 27.7mn t by 2015.

Figure 7: Transport volumes on the Austrian sectio n of the Danube

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Tra

nspo

rt v

olum

es in

mn

tons

Domestic Import Export Transit Total

Source: Statistik Austria, in-house calculations, 2006



The situation on the Danube with respect to container transport is not very bright. The

development of the past few years contrasts starkly to the success stories described,

specifically, it has plunged. In 2005, the volume transported on the Austrian Danube was

merely 3,000 units, which is around 5,000 TEU. This corresponds to around 1 % of Austria’s

imports and exports via sea ports. Currently, only exports of cut timber in the direction of

Antwerp as well as empty containers from Hungary and Germany to Austria are shipped via

the Danube.

Figure 8: Container transport volumes on the Austr ian section of the Danube

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Con

tain

ers

tran

spor

ted

in 1

,000

(20

ft, 3

0 ft

and

40

ft)

Source: Statistik Austria, 2006

There are many reasons for the decline in container shipments on the Danube. The massive

impediments by the two crises in former Yugoslavia must be mentioned, and the nautical and

economic difficulties for inland navigation in the western direction (long transport times to

ARA-ports passing through more than 60 locks as well as very competitive shuttle train

connections). In contrast to the Rhine, the development of container inland navigation was not

bolstered by sea ports, i.e., the transport of overseas containers in the hinterland as the basis

for scheduled services was lacking.



1.4 Promising Market – Black Sea

In the context of the region more beneficial for Danube navigation for nautical and economic

reasons, namely the Black Sea, had hardly been any sea ports that handled significant

volumes of maritime containers. However, the situation has changed: The container

transhipment volume in the Black Sea region increased in the period from 1995 to 2005 by ten

times to almost 1.8mn TEU. The most important container port is the Romanian port of

Constanta, followed by the twin port of Odessa/Ilychevsk and the ports of Southern Russian,

Georgia and Bulgaria.

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

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1,00

0 T

EU

s

Constanta

Varna

Burgas

Odessa/IlychevskOdessa

Ilychevsk

Novorossiysk

Poti

Total

Source: Ocean Shipping Consultants Lim.; “The European & Mediterranean Container Port Markets to 2015”, 2006

According to a recently published report by Ocean Shipping Consultants, the container

volumes in the relevant countries are expected to rise to 3mn TEU by 2010, and to 5mn TEU

by 2015.



1.5 The Port of Constanta

The port of Constanta has reported a steep rise in container volumes. Transhipment volume

has nearly doubled in the past three years from 206,000 TEU in 2003 to 387,000 TEU in 2004,

and finally 768,000 TEU last year.

This positive development is closely linked to the start of operations at the CSCT – Constanta

South Container Terminal.The operator is the company DP World2 (www.dpworld.com). The

length of the main berth is 634 m, and there are three Post-Panamax bridge cranes by

Mitsubishi in use at present. The available draught along the quay is at least 14.5 meters.

Further container terminals in Constanta are SOCEP, APM terminals and Umex.

Figure 10: Constanta South Container Terminal

Source: Constanta port, 2006

2 Dubai Ports International (DPI) was renamed in DP World after the acquisition of CSX World Terminal in Jannuary 2005



There have been direct liner service between Asia and Constanta since 2004, e.g. Asia Black

Sea Service (Hapag Lloyd/Norasia), Tiger Service (MSC) and Bosphorus Express (CMA

CGM). The largest ships in these direct services currently have a capacity of 3,000 to 4,000

TEU. In addition, there are a few scheduled container lines within the Black Sea as well as

feeder connections to Gioia Tauro, Piraeus and Istanbul. Since June 2006, Constanta has

been integrated into the AMP Service (Asia Mediterranean Pacific) of the shipping company

ZIM. This round-the-world service operates 13 ships between Mediterranean ports, China,

Canada and the US. An interesting fact is that Constanta has replaced the ports in the Adria of

Koper, Venice and Triest – according to ZIM “to meet the changed market needs”.

The capacities of the Constanta South Container Terminal are to be enlarged by 2007 to

around one million TEU p.a. Two new container bridges will be installed in March that can

cover 18 rows of containers. The reason for these measures is that container ships with more

than 5,000 TEU are expected to dock at Constanta. Dubai Ports has also signed an

agreement on the enlargement of the area around the terminal according to the port

authorities.



We would like to mention the strategic opportunities for Constanta in the opinion of the

project team:

• An alternative to the ports in the northern range (Rotterdam, Hamburg) which are

struggling with capacity problems as regards transhipment and hinterland transport.

(Railway infrastructure, lack of locomotives and wagons, strikes, etc.)

• Connection to Corridor VII (Danube) via the Black Sea Canal (64.4km) and thus a link

to the dynamic regions of Central Europe by waterway.

• Shorter ocean route for Europe – Asia services: Avoids more than 2,400 nautical miles

(almost 4,500 km) versus North Sea ports and thus shortens travel time by 3 to 4

days.

• Membership of Romania in EU very soon -> Unified customs procedures

Figure 11: "Short cut" to Central Europe

Serbia

Source: Constanta port, 2006



However, the risks to Constanta should also be mentioned:

• Waiting times at the “bottleneck” Bosphorus. The connection of Marmara and Black

Sea is 30 km long with a width of 0.7 to 3.5 km and an average depth of 50 to 75 m.

At present, there are a few restrictions to the passage of larger cargo vessels. Higher

volumes and poor transport management could cause hindrances to container

shipment.

• Competition from Adria ports for shipments from and to Central Europe. Ports such as

Triest (Italy), Koper (Slovenia) and Rijeka (Croatia) have close ties to Austria and

Hungary for geographic and historic reasons. Any expansion in container transport at

these ports could diminish volumes at Constanta.

• Ocean freight rates to and from Constanta were higher at the beginning of 2006 for

market reasons versus Hamburg and Rotterdam – despite the shorter distance by

sea. Should these price differences continue over the long term, this would hindrance

the development in Constanta.

• Inefficiencies in the area of customs: a slower and deficient implementation of EU

standards could have a detrimental effect.

Figure 12: Istanbul and the Bosphorus (Satellite p hoto)

Source: NASA Earth Observatory, 16 April 2004



2 MARKET AND PEER ANALYSIS

In order to assess the transport opportunities of the Danube hinterland, it was necessary to

evaluate the relevant sea container flows. The project team of via donau conducted the

analysis of the status quo presented in this study. The Austrian Institute for Regional Studies

and Spatial Planning (Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung, ÖIR) prepared a forecast of

future volumes.

The study covers Austria, in particular, the counties of Upper Austria, Lower Austria and

Vienna as well as the neighbouring Danube states of Hungary and Slovakia. It is in particular

the major cities of Budapest and Bratislava that are potential stations of any Danube

scheduled services between Constanta and Austria.

2.1 Current overseas container volumes of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia as well as

estimated costs for rail transport

There are no official statistics on container transport to and from Austria, Hungary and

Slovakia. The project team therefore attempted to describe the present situation based on

talks with representatives of the sea ports, railway operators as well as on information gattered

from special interest magazines. The following figures are therefore mostly estimates and

should reflect the actual situation with a variation of +/- 10 %.

! Altogether, the current overseas container volume

for the region of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia is

estimated at around 700,000 TEU per year. The base

volume required for scheduled Danube services that

would connect the upper Danube section with

Constanta is around 10,000 TEU per year. This

represents a share of 1.5 % of total volume .

2.1.1 Austria

A look at the “Austrian” portion of traffic volume at the European sea ports reveals that

Rotterdam was the most important sea port for Austria in 2005. Increases in cargo volumes

were recorded mainly for iron ore and coal. The second most important port was Koper

followed by Hamburg, Antwerp and the ports of Bremen. In total, some 70 % of total tonnage



passes through the North Sea ports, 25 % to 30 % via the Adriatic Sea and only a small

percentage via the Black Sea.

There are no precise figures for container traffic volumes. According to the estimates of the

project team, the predominance of the North Sea ports is even stronger here. Approximately

95 % goes through these ports. Hamburg is clearly in first place at over 200,000 TEU, and

some 60 % to 65 % of Austria’s volume is handled at this sea port. Bremen/Bremerhaven and

Rotterdam are in second place as regards container volumes. All in all, the estimated annual

overseas container volume for the year 2005 was around 400,000 TEU. On the whole, imports

and exports are almost balanced, i.e. 200,000 TEU in each case (some ports show

imbalances such as Bremen).

Table 3: Preferred sea ports by Austria

2004 Container*Export Import Total Total in TEU

1. Rotterdam 733,718 3,778,645 4,512,363 4,301,586 80,0002. Koper 788,946 2,738,415 3,527,361 2,969,430 10,0003. Hamburg 1,385,617 938,265 2,323,882 2,167,494 220,0004. Antwerpen 745,808 951,538 1,697,346 1,690,046 10,0005. Bremen Ports 1,017,439 106,282 1,123,721 1,179,433 70,0006. Constanta 40,609 354,708 395,317 420,645 07. Rijeka 175,490 27,221 202,711 195,111 08. Ports Lower Sax. n.a. n.a. 116,185 190,437 0

Trieste n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10,0004,887,627 8,895,074 13,898,886 13,114,182 400,000

* Estimates for 2005

No figures were available for Trieste as of 2004. (2003: Export 609,586 t, Import 324,348 t, Total 933,934 t)

Ports in Lower Saxony: Brake, Cuxhaven, Emden, Leer, Nordenham, Oldenburg, Papenburg, Wilhelmshaven

Austria's transit traffic in tons (2005)

Source: “Sea port balance“ in the magazine Verkehr, in-house estimates

A share of 90 % to 95 % of container volume is transported by shuttle trains and the remaining

volume by truck and inland vessels. A total of about 80 to 100 shuttle trains are travel between

Austrian and the sea ports in Northern Europe per week.

The table below shows the least expensive railway rates (obtained by a small forwarder) for

each of the routes of relevance for Austria. The weight class assumed for 20-ft. container is

< 16.5 t and for a 40-ft. container > 16.5 t. The crane fees are included in the rates.



Table 4: Railway rate matrix Austria (selected rou tes)

Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling 20 ft 8-16.5 t

40 ft 22-34 t

Vienna Freudenau CCT – Hamburg Waltershof € 325 € 618

Vienna NW CCT – Rotterdam Maasvlakte € 328 € 612

Krems port CCT - Rotterdam Maasvlakte € 340 € 670

Linz Stadthafen CCT – Hamburg Süd/Waltershof / Bremerhaven € 308 € 587

Wels Vbf CCT – Rotterdam Maasvlakte € 254 € 531

Source: in-house estimates in 1HY 2006

The connections to the Adriatic ports are to be taken into account also for the Austrian

terminals far from the Danube in Graz and Villach, of course, and the relevant rates to Koper

and Trieste are sometimes far below the ones mentioned above.

As regards transport times, the average assumed is an A-C connection. This means that if

loading closes at 20:00 hrs on day A and the freight is available at 6:00 hrs on day C, the

transport time is 34 hrs. including the time needed for loading and unloading by crane and

transhipment at the terminal. In some cases, A-B connections (overnight) are offered.

However, these transport times cannot always be observed. In the past few years, the

problems in the railway hinterland of sea ports have been growing. It is especially Hamburg

that is affected by massive infrastructure problems at the Maschen railway station. In the

following is a list of headlines taken from the relevant transport newsletters of Austrian

transport companies:

• Change in computer system at Terminal ECT Delta in Rotterdam-Maasvlakte continues to be a massive hindrance to dispatching

• Hamburger container boom creates bottlenecks in rail traffic

• Workers call union meetings in Maschen and Hamburg

• Access ramp to loading points Altenwerder completely closed off on 15 April 2006

• Hindrances in rail transport Wolfurt – Rotterdam a.v.v.

• Hindrances in rail transport at Hamburg port

• Hindrances in rail transport at Bremerhaven

• Hindrances in rail transport in Hungary due to flooding

• Unscheduled construction work planned with short notice at Hamburg Waltershof

• Strike at Italian national railways (FS) on 5 April 2006



• Workers call union meeting in Maschen on 28 March 2006

• Strike by Italian national railway workers in Lombardy

• Acceptances blocked for Bremerhaven

• Bremerhaven – Congestion

• Route interrupted due to risk of avalanches

• Strike at terminal Rotterdam-Maasvlakte APM

• Strike at Antwerp from 16 Jan. 2006 to 17 Jan. 2006

etc.

2.1.2 Hungary

The annual overseas container volume in 2005 is assessed at around 200 to 250,000 TEU,

with two-thirds being imports. The North Sea ports are also predominant for Hungary although

the share is lower in comparison to Austria, namely 75 %. The remaining shipments travel via

the Adriatic ports, especially the Slovenien port of Koper. The Black Sea ports are hardly of

relevance and only few empty containers are transported along this route.

Table 5: Estimate of overseas container transport volume Hungary, in EUR (2005)

Sea port Export Import Total

Hamburg 37,000 68,000 105,000

Koper 18,000 32,000 50,000

Bremerhaven 12,000 19,000 31,000

Rotterdam 6,500 8,000 14,500

TOTAL 73,500 127,000 200,500

Source: Rotterdam Port Representative Budapest, März 2006

As regards the modal split, 95 % of shipments travel in the direction of the North Sea ports by

shuttle train and the rest by truck. The share of truck transport to Koper is higher due to the

shorter distance (600 km to Budapest). In 2006, a massive increase in container volumes by

rail is expected due to the new shuttle train connections in the direction of the North Sea as

well as to the Adriatic Sea (Rotterdam-Györ, Rotterdam-Budapest, Trieste-Budapest, Koper-

Budapest).

Apart from some empty container repositioning, there is hardly any inland vessel transport on

the Danube from and to Hungary. A scheduled Danube line between Budapest and Constanta



presented in mid-2005 by Freeport Budapest and the agency Genshipping never started

operations. One of the reasons was the announcement of the Hungarian and Romanian

national railways to set up shuttle train lines on this route. Up to now, no such line has started

operating. The prices for transport by ship presented at the time for full containers were

between € 350 / 20 ft. and € 480 / 40 ft. and for empty containers € 270 / 20 ft. and € 370 / 40

ft. (freight including port fees at Constanta and Budapest as well as fees for the Black Sea

Canal).

A look at the railway rates reflects the close vicinity of Hungary to the Adriatic ports, Koper and

Rijeka offer similarly good terms. The new connections to the North Sea ports cannot (yet)

compete, but offer more frequent departures of ocean-going vessels and more competition

among overseas shipping companies.

Table 6: Railway rates matrix Hungary (selected ro utes)

Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling 20 ft

8-16.5 t

40 ft 22-34 t

Budapest BILK – Koper Luka KT € 226 € 445

Budapest BILK – Rijeka Luka € 261 € 489

Györ LCH Terminal – Rotterdam Pernis € 368 € 649


Trucking prices were also investigated for the Northern port routes and these are around

twice as high as the railway rates for a 40 ft. container (Budapest-Hamburg € 1,250). On this

route, transport by truck will be an alternative only in exceptional cases for urgent shipments:

unlike the situation for the Adriatic Sea, trucks are used there more often according to experts.

2.1.3 Slovakia

The overseas container volume for the Czech Republic and Slovakia is a total of around

200,000 TEU, however, exact statistics are not available by country. According to estimates by

experts, some 12 shuttle trains per week for Slovakia with a capacity utilization of 80 % (= 60

TEU) and at 50 operating weeks per year would mean a volume of some 80,000 TEU.

Currently, there are shuttle trains carrying containers between Bratislava and Prague, and

there are many connections to the North Sea ports from there.



The volume of containers is set to rise steeply due to the start of production at the automobile

factories in Trnava (Peugeot/Citroen, in full operation around 300,000 vehicles p.a.) and Zilina

(Kia, 200,000 vehicles p.a.). The two locations are scheduled to start operations in 2006.

However, automotive component suppliers will probably mostly be of relevance for rail and

road transport due to the tight schedules.

The railway rates determined for Slovakia are set out below. The indirect connections from

Bratislava to Hamburg and Rotterdam are more expensive than the tariffs ex Vienna (see

Table 4).

Table 7: Railway rates matrix Slovakia (selected r outes)

Rail freight incl. 1 crane handling 20 ft

8-16.5 t 40 ft

22-34 t

Bratislava SPAP – Hamburg Eurokai (via Prague) € 413 € 715

Bratislava SPAP – Rotterdam RSC (via Prague) € 605 € 1,000

Bratislava – Koper / Rijeka € 295 € 554

Zilina – Koper / Rijeka € 340 € 650

Kosice – Rijeka € 363 € 654


2.1.4 Truck prices on the Black Sea route

It was not possible to ascertain any rates for shuttle train transport to Constanta. Therefore,

the prices for transport by truck were obtained from a Hungarian trucker. The distance

Constanta – Budapest is around 1,050 road km, Constanta – Vienna around 1,300 km. The

transport time for the two routes is around two to three days taking rest times into account.

Due to the enormous waiting times at the Romanian-Hungarian border (at times up to 48 hrs)

the route is not very “popular”. The trucking rates are probably less expensive at Romanian

road haulier companies.

Table 8: Truck prices door-to-door

Constanta � Budapest

€ 1,100

Budapest � Constanta

€ 1,400

Constanta � Vienna

€ 1,600

Vienna � Constantza

€ 1,800

Source: Hungarian Road Haulier, July 2006



2.2 Forecast of the flow of goods (ÖIR) 3

The study investigated the potential transport volumes of scheduled Danube container

services in a macro-economic analysis (“COLD Potential”).Two methods were applied to

confirm the results:

The first method taken is based on an analysis of foreign trade between Austria, Slovakia and

Hungary, on the one hand, and the southeast European countries and overseas regions, on

the other.

• First, an overall modal potential was derived from the potential containerisation of the

groups of goods and from the assumptions regarding the large-scale route selection.

• In a second step, the inland navigation potential within the Danube region was derived

from the growth forecasts for the Black Sea ports (OCS, 2005: +7.5 % p.a.) and

current shipments via Black Sea ports.

• In a third step, the potential for scheduled container services (COLD potential) was

calculated, with the attainable share being assessed at 5 % of the inland navigation

potential.

The results were backed up by a parallel, second forecasting approach based on the already

available forecasts for the ports of relevance for Danube navigation.

The study arrives at a potential for inland navigation for all three Dan ube countries for

the year 2003 of 180,000 to 280,000 TEU. As early a s in 2010, an increase is expected to

650,000 - 1.15mn TEU and by 2020 of 1.3 to 2.4mn TE U. The inland navigation potential for

Austria is estimated at around 1.25mn TEU by 2020.

Compared to the figures for current overseas container volumes in Chapter 2.1, the following

should be pointed out:

• The calculation was based on a theoretical containerisation. However, the degree of

containerisation in European goods traffic is constantly rising, and therefore, it is well-

founded to argue a containerisation potential.

• The calculation includes continental shipments in the Danube region as well as short-

sea (Maghreb, Levant, Turkey) and overseas shipments (Near East, Southeast and

3 The following text corresponds to the Executive Summary of the Study “Macro-economic Analysis of Transport Flows in the Project COLD” of the Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning (Österreichische Institut für Raumplanung, ÖIR) which was

commissioned by via donau and prepared in 1HY 2006. The complete study is available upon request in PDF format, and German language from [email protected].



East Asia). Broken down by route, around half of the total modal containerisation

potential in the base year 2003 was accounted for routes in the Danube region

(Eastern Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine). These are followed by routes

to the US (16 %), short sea routes (13 %) and East Asia (11 %).

In a last step of the study, the attainable potential for scheduled Danube services (“COLD

Potential”) was assumed at a share of 5 % for inland navigation. The share was set rather low

at 5 %, because:

• the inland navigation potential (containerisation potential) had already been

generously assumed, and

• the limited number of departures of the scheduled services and the longer transport

times would diminish the appeal versus rail transport (share of time-sensitive goods),

and

• finally, the introduction on the market requires an adequate amount of time.

In the area of the Danube states, 9,000 to 14,000 TEU per year are expected, by 2010 a

volume of 33,000 to 57,000 TEU p.a., and by 2020 al most 120,000 TEU p.a. The

corresponding figures for Austria amount to 63,000 TEU per year.

The table on the next page summarises the results.



Table 9: COLD Potential, forecasting method foreig n trade

Inland navigation potential COLD potential (5 %)

1,000 TEU Exports Imports Total Exports Imports Total

from to from to from to from to from to from to

Austria

Status 2003 27 85 50 74 77 158 1 4 3 4 4 8

Forecast 2007 57 206 103 213 160 419 3 10 5 11 8 21

Forecast 2010 80 298 142 317 223 615 4 15 7 16 11 31

Forecast 2015 119 450 208 491 327 941 6 22 10 25 16 47

Forecast 2020 157 602 274 664 432 1.267 8 30 14 33 22 63

Hungary

Status 2003 30 32 42 50 72 82 1 2 2 3 4 4 Forecast 2007 86 104 121 150 207 253 4 5 6 7 10 13 Forecast 2010 128 158 180 224 308 382 6 8 9 11 15 19 Forecast 2015 198 248 279 349 477 596 10 12 14 17 24 30 Forecast 2020 268 338 378 473 646 811 13 17 19 24 32 41

Slovakia

Status 2003 17 19 10 14 28 33 1 1 1 1 1 2 Forecast 2007 50 61 30 38 81 99 3 3 2 2 4 5 Forecast 2010 75 93 45 56 120 149 4 5 2 3 6 7 Forecast 2015 116 145 70 87 186 232 6 7 3 4 9 12 Forecast 2020 158 198 94 117 252 315 8 10 5 6 13 16

Total

Status 2003 74 144 102 139 176 282 4 7 5 7 9 14

Forecast 2007 194 377 254 401 448 778 10 19 13 20 22 39

Forecast 2010 284 552 367 598 651 1,150 14 28 18 30 33 57

Forecast 2015 433 843 557 926 990 1,769 22 42 28 46 50 88

Forecast 2020 583 1,135 746 1,254 1,329 2,389 29 57 37 63 66 119

Source: ÖIR, 2006



3 INLAND NAVIGATION CONCEPT

The Trans-European Transport Corridor VII, the Danube, links the Black Sea port of Constanta

with the economic centers in Central Europe, e.g., with the capitals of Belgrade, Budapest and

Vienna. After the elimination of the pontoon bridge at Novi Sad in the autumn of 2005, it is now

possible for ships to navigate without interruption or hindrances through the entire route. In

contrast to the structures of western inland navigation on the Rhine and other rivers, on the

Danube, ships must cover much longer distances and pass several border-crossings.

However, this situation is also a great opportunity for Danube navigation, because the long

distances can be covered economically by ship and the waiting times at border-crossings are

minimal due to the free capacities.

Figure 13: The Danube as a link from Central Europ e to the Black Sea

Source: Manual on Danube Navigation, via donau, 2005



The destination and departure port in the hinterland of the inland port of Krems in Lower

Austria was selected for the further analysis. Krems is located at Danube km 1998 and has

two dock basins with a total quay length of 1,500 m as well as two KÜNZ bridge cranes with a

maximum capacity of 50 t. The privately-owned operating company of the port (Mierka

Donauhafen Krems GesmbH & Co. KG) was founded in 1939 and is managed by Hubert

Mierka since 1974. The container terminal of the port is operated by the subsidiary WienCont

Krems and reported a total transhipment volume of 40,000 TEU in 2005.

On 20 October 2005, the port of Krems and the port of Constanta signed a marketing

cooperation agreement. The objective is to intensify business between the ports and increase

the use of the Danube.

Figure 14: Container transhipment at the Mierka Do nauhafen Krems

Source: Mierka Donauhafen Krems – www.mierka.com



The distance between Krems and Constanta is 1,763 river kilometres and there are eight locks

(Altenwörth, Greifenstein, Wien-Freudenau, Gabcikovo, Iron Gate I and II, Cernavoda and

Agigea). By way of comparison: The distance on the river between Krems and Rotterdam is

almost just as long, but it has 62 locks! Therefore, in this respect the Eastern route is much

more advantageous.

Figure 15: Distances and inland ports

Source: via donau, 2006



The first activities for scheduled container services have already been launched on the lower

Danube section. Thus, the company Jugoagent started scheduled services between

Constanta and Belgrade in May 2005 together with ZIM Lines, the port of Belgrade and BRP

(Bulgarian River Shipping Company). Every 15 days, large pushed barges from BRP (four

containers across, a total of 80 TEU in double stacks) depart from Belgrade or Constanta.

Transport prices for full container are around € 300 / 20 ft. and € 430 / 40 ft. container per

route.

Until May 2006, 738 TEU were transported on the Danube, i.e., on average 60 TEU per

month. It is obvious that the capacity of inland navigation is not being fully exploited. The

integration of the container barges into convoys with bulk cargo helps to guarantee the

continuation of the services. It is very difficult to increase the capacity utilization due to the

limited container market in Serbia – estimates state 20,000 TEU p.a. for the entire country.

The company is therefore considering an expansion of the services to Budapest.

Figure 16: Photographs Scheduled Container Service s Belgrade - Constanta

Source: Sasa Jovanovic, Jugoagent, 2006

The critical factors of the inland navigation concept are travel times and costs . The analysis

presents the information provided by Alexandru Capatu (base scenario: conventional ships)

and the calculations by via donau (optimised scenario, use of ships adapted for containers).



The following rough structure applies to the costs:

Table 10: Rough structure of the costs of inland na vigation

Availability costs (ship staff, depreciation, insurances, etc.)

+ Operation costs (fuel and lubricants)

+ Transhipment costs at inland ports

+ Fees for Black Sea Canal

BASIC COSTS INLAND VESSEL

3.1 Definition of the Liner Service Concept

Scheduled container services are defined in this study as meeting the following criteria :

• Keeping deadlines and binding offers even if the waterway is temporarily unavailable

(nautical hindrances),

• Existence of a time schedule (at least every 14 days),

• Service available throughout the year (in both directions),

• Offer made to the general public

3.2 Hindrances to Danube navigation

Generally, a differentiation must be made between blocked navigation for safety reasons due

to flooding or ice and the limited use in low-water periods.

• Blocked navigation: In January and February 2006, ice formed on the Danube after

many years for the first time and this caused the locks in Austria to be closed thus

bringing navigation to a standstill. Immediately following the ice came the flooding,

which affected mainly the regions of the lower Danube especially in Romania. In the

event of flooding, navigation must be suspended for safety reasons as well. However,

over the long-year average, the times of blocked na vigation are only 3 to 4 days

per year.



• Restricted use due to low water levels: In the free-flowing sections the fairway depth

becomes low in the event of low waters, which limits the possible draught of the

vessels and thus restricts the use of the vessel’s capacity. Restrictions due to low

waters occur frequently, but should not cause any d isadvantages to customers

of scheduled Danube container services .

In the event of low water, there are several possible responses for Danube navigation. The

draught of the vessels can be lowered by reducing the payload (tonnage). Either fewer full

containers are transported (and more empty ones) or the cargo is distributed across additional

barges. The latter option would slightly prolong the travel time.

In the event of extremely low waters and if the river is blocked, the response is to turn to

alternative transport routes and means (substitute transport ), which is very likely to incur

higher costs. The study also investigated the options for buying insurance against such

additional costs. None of the insurance companies interviewed has an appropriate product on

offer now (among other things, explained by the lacking statistics on the Danube region).

The substitute mode of transport in the event of longer-lasting hindrances to Danube

navigation should be rail and truck in the Danube Corridor (it is assumed that regular railway

lines will run from Constanta to Vienna in the future, for example). In special cases, a

somewhat more complicated variant using feeder vessels at sea ports in the Adriatic Sea is

feasible.

• In the case of a go ahead decision for an alternative mode of transport, Austrian

imports containers in Constanta are loaded onto a feeder vessel to Koper/Trieste

instead of onto the inland vessel, and from there to the sea port shuttle train "Butterfly"

overnight to Villach and then (plus 1 day) to Krems.

• For Austrian exports ex Krems, the containers are loaded onto the railway line to

Villach instead of onto the inland vessel and from there to the sea port shuttle train

”Butterfly” (overnight connection to Trieste/Koper) and from there to a feeder vessel to

Gioia Tauro, Taranto, Piräus, Malta, Damiette, etc. for shippment on a direct line to

Asia.



3.3 Inland port charges

To guarantee comparability with the shuttle train rates in Chapter 2.1, which usually include

crane handling, the costs of the inland port must be added to the calculated “production costs”

of inland navigation.

These consist of the tariff for waterside handling and the pierage. As shown in Table 11 a

differentiation is made at Danube ports between empty and full containers for lifting waterside,

but not between 20 ft. and 40 ft. (exception: Belgrade port). The rates are higher on average

than the rates for land-side lifting (probably due to the need to use the more expense bridge

cranes). On the average of the four Austrian ports, transhipment of full containers waterside

costs €35 per lift.

Table 11: Container transhipment rates at selected inland ports

Linz Enns Krems Vienna Budapest Belgrade

OperatorContact

Linz AG EHG WienCont WienContMAHART Container

CenterPort of Belgrade

landside empty € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 25.00 € 25 / € 33landside full € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 23.00 € 34.00 € 25 / € 33

waterside empty € 33.20 € 27.00 € 24.00 € 24.00 € 25.00 € 30 / € 40waterside full € 40.40 € 33.00 € 32.70 € 32.70 € 34.00 € 45 / € 66

plus € 23 for indirect handling

- -different tariffs for

20 ft/40 ft

Storage fee

full containers:up to 3 workdays free,next 4-7 days € 1.00

/TEU/day,as of day 8 € 2.00

/TEU/day

empty containers:up to 7 workdays free,

afterwards € 0.87 /TEU/day

full containers:up to 3 workdays free,

afterwards € 1.00 /TEU/day

empty containers:up to 7 workdays free, afterwards € 0.87 /TEU

and day

full containers:€ 3.63 /TEU/day

empty containers:€ 1.82 /TEU/day

full containers:€ 3.63 /TEU/day

empty containers:€ 1.82 /TEU/day

full containers:up to 3 workday free,next 4-10 days € 8.00

/TEU/day, 10-20 days € 15.00

/TEU/day; as of day 21 € 20.00

/TEU/day

empty containers: € 3.00/TEU/day

14 days free, afterwards

20 ft € 0.50/day40 ft € 1.00/day

For empty containers, an additional handling fee is charged, because they are transferred

from storage to the quai or v.v.

Another cost element at ports is the pierage for inland navigation. The fee per tonne

transhipped is € 0.38 and at an assumed container weight of up to 14 to including tare it is

about € 5 per TEU and € 10 per 40 ft. container.

Therefore, a total of € 40 per 20 ft. and € 45 per 40 ft. container are to be added to the

ship’s operating costs per container.



3.4 Fees for Black Sea Canal

Constanta is linked to the Danube via the 64.4 km long Danube-Black Sea-Canal which starts

at Cernavoda at Danube km 300. It shortens the distance to the Black Sea by 240 km. The

mouth of the river in Constanta is at the southern part of the port right near the new CSCT and

the planned inland navigation terminal. There are two locks to be passed: one at Cernavoda at

the west end of the canal and Agigea at the east end.

Figure 17: Photographs of Black Seal Canal

Photograph: Cernavoda lock Agigea lock

Source: www.acn.ro

The state-owned canal management body at Constanta (ACN) is responsible for collecting the

passage fees. As a rule, € 0.50 per ton deadweight of the convoy (€ 0.48 > 4,000 t) are due.

Based on three examples, the – relatively high – amount of these fees is illustrated.

• Coupled formation consisting of motorised cargo vessel and 1 barge, 1,400 resp.

1,700 to deadweight: (1,400 + 1,700 = 3,100) x € 0.50 = € 1,550 per passage/direction

• Push-boat without barge: 2,400 HP x € 0.20 = € 480 per passage/direction

• 3-vessel convoy consisting of 1 motorised goods vessel (1,400 to deadweight) and 2

barges (1,400 + 1,700 + 1,700 = 4,800) x € 0.48 = € 2,300 per passage/direction

Special agreements need to be considered for the im plementation of scheduled

services (fixed passage fee per container, discount s for empty containers, etc.).



3.5 Travel times and operating costs of ships (base scenario)

In accordance with the information provided by Alexandru Capatu (representative of

Constanta port in Vienna and expert for Danube navigation), a scheduled service line using

existing, conventional Danube ships for the route Krems – Constanta - Krems is described.

For the concept, convoys of ships made up of motorised cargo vessel (also called self-

propelled vessel) and non-motorised barges were selected. A small self-propelled vessel with

around 1,500 t deadweight and 900 HP was selected for cost reasons (rent and fuel) that can

push a barge. A convoy consisting of a push boat and two barges would be much slower

according to navigation experts (resistance of currents, effectiveness of propeller).

Figure 18: Proposed convoy of ships (base scenario )

60 TEU 60 TEU Total 120 TEU

Source: via donau

The cargo hold of the self-propelled ship can carry up to 30 TEU per stack (10 TEU

lengthwise, 3 TEU across) and double stacks, i.e., total 60 TEU or 30 40 ft containers can be

transported. The barge with a hold of 65 x 7.95 m can also carry 30 TEU per stack and

therefore a total of 60 TEU can be transported. The capacity of such conventional double

convoys is 120 TEU.

At an average container weight of 14 to per TEU (incl. tara), the cargo weight per ship is 840

tonnes. A loaded draught of 1.60 m to 1.80 m is achieved with such a cargo and thus the ship

should be able to navigate in low waters without problems as well.

The loading of these ships can only be done in double stacks. The reasons are:

• Lacking stability of the ship units as well as lacking extendable wheel house (to

guarantee the captain unhindered view).

• Ship’s deck is not reinforced (greatest weight at the four corner fittings of the

containers).



To be able to guarantee one fixed departure per week for the scheduled line, a round trip

Krems – Constanta – Krems of three weeks and the use of three convoys is proposed.

The following draft schedule by Mr. Capatu assumes a departure every Friday from Krems and

every Sunday from Constanta. The effective travel time of the containers would therefore be

12 days upstream Constanta – Krems and 8 days downstream Krems – Constanta.

Figure 19: Scheduled services Krems – Constanta (b ase scenario)

Fr Su Fr Su Fr Su Fr Su

Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Convoy I 1 2 3 4 5 X 6 7 8 9 10 KR

1 2 3 X 4 5 6 B CO

1 2 3 4 5 X 6

Convoy II 3 X 4 5 6 B CO

1 2 3 4 5 X 6 7 8 9 10 KR

1 2 3 X 4 5 6 B CO

Convoy III 7 8 9 10 KR

1 2 3 X 4 5 6 B CO

1 2 3 4 5 X 6 7 8 9 10 KR

1 2

CO Konstanza

KR Krems

Upstream

Downstream

B Buffer

X Border crossing or stay at port

Source: DI Alexandru Capatu

In the case of an all-year service (17 round trips per convoy and year), an annual capacity of

4,100 TEU per convoy can be achieved. By using three convoys, the total capacity in this

system amounts to around 12,500 TEU per year.

According to Mr. Capatu, the costs of one round tri p of the convoy must be estimated at

least at € 70,000 (inclusive of fees for passage of the Black Sea Canal).



This results in the following costs for the round-trip Krems – Constanta – Krems:

Figure 20: Calculation of ship’s costs per contain er (base scenario)

Relation: Krems - ConstantaTyp of vessel: MCV + PL, capacity per 60 TEUCapacity of convoy 120 TEUround-trip time 21 DaysLump sum cost per round-trip € 70,000

Utilisation 100% 90% 75% 50%TEU per round-trip 240 216 180 120Vessel cost per TEU 291.67 € 324.07 € 388.89 € 583.33 € incl. canal fees

Waterside handling fee per container 35.00 € 35.00 € 35.00 € 35.00 € Pierage per TEU 5.00 € 5.00 € 5.00 € 5.00 €

Basic cost 20' 331.67 € 364.07 € 428.89 € 623.33 € Basic cost 40' 628.33 € 693.15 € 822.78 € 1,211.67 €

!

For the base scenario and the double stacking of

containers, 90 % capacity utilization is assumed to be

realistic and attainable. This means that 216 TEU a re

transported on every round trip. Taking the transhi pment

costs and port fees into account, the basic costs a re around

€ 364 for a 20 ft. container and € 693 for a 40 ft. container.

In comparison, the estimated value in Chapter 2.1.1 for the

rail connection from Krems to Rotterdam is stated a t € 340 /

TEU and € 670 / 40 ft. Travel time: A-C.

The basic costs of Danube navigation are thus more or less

just as high as the customer rates for rail transpo rt. The

capacity of Danube navigation and the inherent cost

advantages per container are not fully exploited in this

scenario. However, it would be possible to start su ch a

service at any time, as there are ships and (intere sted

operators) in the Danube region.



3.6 Transit times and operating costs of ships (opt imised scenario)

The basis for the calculations of the project team for the optimised scenario is a convoy of

ships consisting of a motorised cargo vessel (MCV) (“Steinklasse”4) and one pushed barge for

containers. These ships are currently in use at DDSG Cargo GmbH. The motorised cargo

vessel has a capacity of 90 TEU (3 containers across, 10 TEU lengthwise, 3 stacks), the

pushed barge has 132 TEU (4 across, 11 lengthwise, 3 stacks). The horsepower is 1,650 HP

(means 1,500 HP on the propeller, i.e., some 1,100 kW).

Figure 21: MCV "Greifenstein" with pushed barge at Budapest port

Source: Pilot project DCS (Danube Combined Services), December 2001

The optimised scenario assumes triple-stack loading. The necessary air clearance of around

seven metres is given at almost all bridges east of Krems, even at high water levels. The only

exception is the “temporary railway bridge Novi Sad“ at km 1254.3; the air clearance there is

4 The “Steinklasse“ comprises the sister ships Aggstein, Dürnstein, Greifenstein, Jochenstein, Kreuzenstein and Partenstein of DDSG Cargo. These motorised cargo vessel were built in 1974/75 at the wharf in Linz and have a length of 95 m, a width of 11.4 m, a

maximum deadweigt of 2,000 tonnes at a loaded draught of 2.70 m and a horsepower of 2 x 750 resp. 2 x 825 HP. Dürnstein has an extendable wheel house.



6.82 at highest navigable water level – this occurs only on a few days at year. The calculations

of the air clearance and the list of bridges is contained in Annex C.

The calculation of travel times is based on the assumption of maximum load and the current

speed per section of the route as well as two scenarios for the fairway depth (average water

level and low navigation and regulation level. When the water is “good“, the upstream trip

takes longer due to the faster currents, while the downstream trip is shorter of course.

The average travel speed is between 6 and 12 km/h upstream and 12 to 20 km/h downstream.

On the route Constanta – Krems, around 30 % of the total route of 1,760 km is dammed and

70 % is free-flowing.

Figure 22: Transit time Constanta – Krems (optimis ed scenario)

Krems – Constanta Transit time in hours

WL = 5 m

~ AWL

WL = 3.5 resp. 4 m

~ LNWL

Downstream 91.6 109.9

Upstream 161.4 153.4

253.0 263.4

WL …Water Level

AWL …Average Water Level

LNWL …Low Navigable Water Level

The further calculation depends on the duration of the round trip at an average water level.

The longer trips at low navigation regulation level (LNRL) (around 10 hours) are compensated

by smaller loads, shorter transhipment times or the convoy formation "cigar" as of km 1811

downstream (see Annex D). The pure travel time is therefore in the ideal case 92 hours

downstream and 162 hours upstream. If the schedule of operation is 24/7 (24 hours a day,

7 days a week) this would mean almost 4 days downstream and 6.5 days upstream. The

waiting times at border crossings, locks and ports must be added to the pure travel time.

There are eight locks between Krems and Constanta: Altenwörth, Greifenstein, Vienna-

Freudenau, Gabcikovo, Iron Gate I and II, Cernavoda and Agigea. The three Austrian locks

can be assumed to take around 45 minutes locking time, while for Gabcikovo and Iron Gate II

1.5 hours are to be expected and for the other three locks around 3 hours per lock. This

means an amount of time needed of roughly 11.25 hours per direction and 22.5 hours for the

round trip.



The border crossings in Serbia (Bezdan and Veliko Gradiste) and Hungary (Mohacs) take

about 3 hours on average in each case. This requires an advance notification of the border

officials or the agency on site. The stays in Slovakia (Komarno) and Austria (Vienna) take

around 2 hours. This means an amount of time of roughly 13 hours per direction and 26 hours

for the round trip.

Furthermore, waiting times of inland vessels at sea and inland ports must be taken into

account (transhipment, transfer and making the containers available). The number of hours

assumed for the port of Krems is 18 (incl. buffer) and for the sea port Constanta is 24 hours in

each direction per round trip, thus 36 and 48 hours, which equals 84 hours all together.

Figure 23: Transit time Krems – Constanta – Krems (optimised scenario)

Transit time per round-trip Krems-Constanta-Krems ( optimised scenario)

Necessary hours downstream upstream round-trip

Transit time only 91.58 161.39 252.98Locks 11.25 11.25 22.50Border crossing 13.00 13.00 26.00Krems: Handling + buffer 18.00 18.00 36.00Constanta: Handling + buffer 24.00 24.00 48.00

157.83 227.64 385.48

Necessary days with 24-hrs-operation

6.6 9.5 16.1

! In total, the round trip Krems – Constanta – Krems would take

16 days (1/3 standing times at ports, locks and border crossings).

If the service is operated year round and 22 round trips are

made per year, the theoretical capacity per convoy would be

around 10,000 TEU and year. If two convoys are used , then

there could be a departure every 8 days, and the to tal

capacity per year would be 20,000 TEU.

(See detailed calculation of travel times in Annex F)



3.6.1.1 Costs

The detailed calculations for standby costs and travel costs are included in Annexes G and H.

The following tables summarise the results.

Table 12: Cost calculation inland vessel round trip Constanta – Krems – Constanta

Utilisation ratio 100% 75% 50%TEU / Payload in round-trip 444 / 6,216 333 / 4,662 222 / 3,108

Standby costs (MCV + PL)Daily costs € 1,954.- x

16 days round-trip€ 31,261 € 31,261 € 31,261

Operating costs round-trip(MCV)

70,000 l Gas oil at full capacity

€ 46 per 100 l, incl. Lubricants

€ 32,533 € 28,467 € 24,400

TOTAL VESSEL COSTS € 63,794 € 59,727 € 55,661

Remarkable is the fact that the costs of travel (fuel consumption and lubricant) are just as high

at 75 % capacity utilization as the standby costs. Just like in other sectors, the rising oil price

plays a significant role here.

The charges for travelling on the Black Sea Canal amount to exactly € 3,793 for the round trip

at 0.48 € / t deadweight for the convoy types selected. In the event of scheduled services,

special terms should be accorded (fixed price per TEU, volume discounts).

The total costs in this system are therefore around € 67,000 (base scenario € 70,000) at

full capacity including the charges for travelling the Black Sea Canal.



Figure 24: Calculation of ship’s costs per containe r (optimised scenario)

Relation: Krems - ConstantaTyp of vessel: MCV + PL, capacity 90/132 TEUCapacity of convoy 222 TEUround-trip time 16 Days

Utilisation 100%* 75% 50%

Cost per round-trip € 63,794 € 59,727 € 55,661TEU per round-trip 444 333 222Vessel cost per TEU 143.68 € 179.36 € 250.72 €

Canal fee per TEU 8.54 € 11.39 € 17.08 €

Waterside handling fee per container 35.00 € 35.00 € 35.00 € Pierage per TEU 5.00 € 5.00 € 5.00 €

Basic cost 20' 192.22 € 230.75 € 307.80 € Basic cost 40' 349.44 € 426.50 € 580.61 €

* Required fairway depth not available all year round

! With the 75 % capacity utilisation deemed realistic here, the

basic costs amount to around € 231 per TEU or € 427 per 40 ft.

container. This is much less than the reference val ue for the

railway route Krems-Rotterdam (€ 340 / TEU or € 670 / 40 ft.).

The triple stack loading creates the significant co st

advantages in inland navigation and thus an attract ive supply

chain variant in combination with overseas navigati on.



4 TARGET GROUP OCEAN CARRIERS

Compared to the pilot project, DCS (Danube Combined Services) that failed in 2002 and had

concentrated on continental shipments between Deggendorf, Enns and Budapest, this study

has a focus on the transport of sea containers and thus addresses ocean carriers as a target

group. In the ideal case, what is achieved is a “company barge“ solution or a “dedicated

Danube service“, i.e., the overseas shipping company guarantees the capacity utilisation of

the Danube scheduled services and exclusively adjusts the schedule of the inland vessels to

the shipping company.

The target group for acquisitions of the required annual base therefore includes the globally

active shipping companies listed in the table.

Table 13: Top 10 Container Carrier worldwide

Rank Carrier Headquarters No. of ships Capacity of ships (TEU)

1. A.P. Moeller Maersk (Maersk Line, P&O Nedlloyd, Safmarine)

Copenhagen, Demark

549 1,723,170

2. MSC - Mediterranean Shipping Company

Genf, Switzerland

299 893,503

3. CMA CGM Marseille, France 256 507,954

4. Evergreen Group Taiwan 153 477,911

5. Hapag-Lloyd Germany n.a. 412,344

6. China Shipping (CSCL) China 111 346,493

7. APL Singapore 99 331,437

8. Hanjin / Senator Korea/Germany. n.a. 328,794

9. COSCO Container Line China 118 322,326

10. NYK Japan 105 302,213

11. Mitsui O.S.K. Line (MOL) Japan n.a. 241,282

12. OOCL Hong Kong n.a. 234,141

13. CSAV Group Chile 83 234,002

14. K Line Japan n.a. 227,872

15. ZIM Israel 93 201,432

Source: BRS-Alphaliner, wikipedia.org



Although the agencies of most ocean carriers still view Constanta as an “Outport” versus the

“Main ports” of Hamburg and Rotterdam, almost all major companies are already represented

in Constanta. The size of the ships and the frequencies are, of course, smaller, but in addition

to feeder transports from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, there are direct lines already

running to the Far East.

Tabelle 1: The most important ocean carriers at por t of Constanta in 2005

Number of vessels TEU

1. MSC 147 215,286

2. CSAV Norasia 165 177,752

3. CMA CGM 161 108,453

4. ZIM 136 96,363

5. Maersk Line 60 41,327

6. China Shipping C.L. 84 40,756

Source: Port of Constanta

4.1 Overall view of the supply chain – length of ti me and rates

In the following, the inclusion of the Danube into the global supply chain of an overseas

shipping company will be discussed with respect to travel times and costs. The explanations

have no claim to completeness especially not in the area of ocean freight rates and sea port

fees. The calculations are to serve as basis for discussion and foundation for further

considerations and implementation projects.

As an example, an import from Shanghai to Krems and an export from Krems to Shanghai will

be discussed. This supply chain that serves as example will be evaluated as to travel time and

costs. The information used is based on shuttle trains connections (Chapter 2.1), the results of

the inland navigation concept (Chapter 3.6), on on information from ocean carriers and the Far

Eastern Freight Conference (FEFC) on ocean freight rates and port terminal handling charges

(THC).

4.1.1 Transit time

For the deep sea voyage trip from Shanghai to Hamburg the direct liner services of Hapag

Lloyd (Europe - Asia Loop 3/EU3) and Maersk Line have been used as examples. The travel

time for import containers from the Far East to Europe (westbound) as well as export

containers (eastbound) is 27 days. For Constanta, the joint services “Asia-Black-Sea-Service



(ABS)“ by Hapag-Lloyd and CSAV Norasia is assumed at 23 days, therefore the travel time

advantage is four days.

As there is no shuttle train at present for the route Krems – Hamburg, the shuttle train travel

time from Vienna (ICA "Wien Container Express") with an actual transit time of 29 hours for

imports and 40 hours for exports was combined with an additional spoke connection to Krems

(12.5 hrs). The time needed for crane loading and unloading and the transfer to the rail

terminal has been included in the calculation because it covers the time from the closing time

to availability. For the inland vessel (Constanta-Krems) the travel times include locking, border

checks and the time at port of Krems from Chapter 3.6.

The time spent at the sea ports, i.e., loading and unloading the sea vessels and the transfer to

the terminals has been assumed at 24 hours for Hamburg and Constanta.

Table 14: Transit time comparison of the supply cha ins (in days)

Hamburg + Rail

Constanta + IWT

Duration in daysHamburg

+ RailConstanta +

IWT

1.7 8.5Hinterland connection

(transport time rail resp. IWT incl. handling in inland terminals)

2.2 5.5

1.0 1.0 Seaport-time(Hamburg resp. Constanta) 1.0 1.0

27.0 23.0 Deep sea voyage(Direct service) 27.0 23.0

29.7 32.5 30.2 29.5100% 109% 100% 98%

PORT SHANGHAI

I M P O R TShanghai -> Krems

E X P O R TKrems -> Shanghai

PORT of KREMS

! Overall, the variant via Hamburg and subsequent rai l transport results in a travel

time of 30 days for imports and exports. Constanta plus Danube navigation

prolongs the supply chain for imports – due to the longer upstream travel times of

inland vessels – by almost 3 days, i.e. around 10 % . In exports, the same overall

travel time for the supply chain is reached or it i s even slightly shorter. Therefore,

with respect to the travel time there is no major d isadvantage.



Divergent frequencies in transport in the hinterland has been observed. Due to the already

high volumes, daily departures are offered at Hamburg for both deep sea vessles and shuttle

trains. In the case of Constanta where currently one-tenth of container handling, compared to

Hamburg is done, the frequency is cut to one to three times a week. Therefore, it is

absolutely necessary to coordinate the inland vesse l schedule with the deep sea

vessels schedule.

4.1.2 Costs (Status Quo)

During the period investigated (1st quarter 2006), the basic ocean freight rates 5 to and from

Constanta were higher than the level of the North Sea ports at 2 out of 3 shipping companies

(direct lines were compared, no feeder services). The reasons for this are firstly the strong

competition of the major ocean carriers and secondly the economies of scale due to bigger

deep sea vessels. Constanta would have to be at least just as expensive due to the shorter

transit time in Europe – Asia lines or even less expensive.

Exports to China, e.g. Shanghai were quoted in 1Q 2006 (after the price drops of 2005) at

basic rates of 50 to 100 USD per TEU and 50 to 150 USD per 40 ft. container ex

Rotterdam/Hamburg. The rates for direct shipments ex Constanta were around 50 to 150 USD

higher.

In the major import routes, i.e., shipments from Asia to Europe, the basic rates for the northern

range were quoted at 700 to 800 USD per 20 ft. and 1,400 to 1.500 USD per 40 ft. container.

Comparable direct shipments to Constanta usually cost around 100 to 300 USD more per

container.

The most important surcharges CAF (Currency Adjustment Factor) and BAF (Bunker

Adjustment Factor) were at the same level in 1Q 2006 for the Far East route for

Hamburg/Rotterdam and Constanta.6

As regards imports, the rate disadvantage of Constanta was even heighted by the

“Bosphorus surcharge” of USD 75 / TEU. This surcharge was introduced by the members of

the Far Eastern Freight Conference (FEFC) in December 2005 due to the frequent delays in

the Bosphorus. According to the latest information from CSCL and Hapag Lloyd, since August

2006, no Bosphorus surcharge on imports to Constant a has been collected. This may be

related to the elimination of the construction site (tunnel) in the Bosphorus.

5 Basic ocean freight rate = ocean freight rate exclusive CAF, BAF and other surcharges, excl. THC (Terminal Handling Charges) 6 (CAF approx. 5.5% of the basic rate, BAF approx. 250 USD / TEU)



The amount of the transhipment costs in Hamburg and Constanta, the so-called Terminal

Handling Charges (THC) was calculated on the basis of the information given by shipping

companies and the website of FEFC (Hamburg € 153 /Container, Constanta USD 90/TEU

resp. USD 130/TEU).

The reference values of Chapter 2.1.1 were used for the railway rates per TEU and 40 ft.

container. The costs of inland navigation correspond to the calculated values in the optimised

scenario at 75 % capacity utilisation.

Table 15: Cost comparison of the supply chain (as of 1 Q 206)

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40']

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40']

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40']

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40]

€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-Hinterland connection (Railway

and IWT incl. manipulation in Railway or IWT-Terminals)

€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-

€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,- THC(Hamburg resp. Constanta)

€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,-

€ 825,- € 1,649,- € 1,020,- € 2,039,- Ocean freight rate in Euro(incl. all additionals)

€ 242,- € 442,- € 348,- € 569,-

€ 1,318,- € 2,472,- € 1,322,- € 2,570,- € 735,- € 1,265,- € 650,- € 1,099,-

100% 100% 100% 104% 100% 100% 88% 87%

P O R T S H A N G H A I

Hamburg + Railway Constanta + IWT

P O R T K R E M S




! During the period reviewed 1Q 2006, the supply chai n costs were slightly higher

in imports in the variant via Constanta and the Dan ube. In exports, the cost

advantage of inland navigation is already fully dev eloped and the savings

achieved are up to 13 %.



4.1.3 Costs (convergence of ocean freight rates)

A convergence of the Far East ocean freight rates b etween North Sea ports and

Constanta is very likely in the opinion of the proj ect team. The reasons are the continued

growth of container volumes in the Black Sea and thus the greater competition of shipping

companies, the use of larger ocean-going ships and the expansion on local markets. Not least

is the fact that the distance traveled by sea as of the Suez Canal is also more than 4,000 km

shorter.

Another argument for converging prices is the introduction of a temporary surcharge on

imports to the north range. The member shipping companies of FEFC have introduced a

“Peak Season Surcharge (PSS)” of USD 90 per TEU for shipments from Asia (except

Japan) to Northern Europe, Baltic states and Scandinavia. The surcharge entered into force

on 1 June and shall be effective until 31 October 2006. This surcharge will not be collected for

docking in Constanta (Information CSCL, August 2006).

Table 16: Costs of the Supply Chain Krems – Shangh ai (convergence of freight rates)

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40']

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40']

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40']

Tariff[€/TEU]

Tariff[€/40]

€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-Hinterland connection (Railway

and IWT incl. manipulation in Railway or IWT-Terminals)

€ 340,- € 670,- € 231,- € 426,-

€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,- THC(Hamburg resp. Constanta)

€ 153,- € 153,- € 72,- € 104,-

€ 900,- € 1,800,- € 900,- € 1,800,- Ocean freight rate in Euro(incl. additionals)

€ 325,- € 610,- € 325,- € 610,-

€ 1,393,- € 2,623,- € 1,203,- € 2,330,- € 818,- € 1,433,- € 628,- € 1,140,-

100% 100% 86% 89% 100% 100% 77% 80%




P O R T S H A N G H A I


P O R T K R E M S

! When ocean freight rates converge in the future, th e alternative of Constanta will

become very attractive. In imports, a cost reductio n in the supply chain by 11 % to 14

% will be achieved, and in exports even up to 23 %. The disadvantage of 2 to 3 days

regarding travel time in imports will probably be a cceptable if the cost benefit is so

attractive.



4.2 Environmental balance

As a supplement to the calculations regarding travel time and costs, the transport routes

Shanghai – Hamburg – Krems (rail) and Shanghai – Constanta –Krems (inland vessel) were

compared from an environmental perspective. The key ratio here is CO2 emission per TEU.

The detailed calculations are in the Annex J.

A calculation was done to show the dimensions based on a 4,000 TEU sea-going vessel for

Constanta and a 8,000-TEU vessel for Hamburg. At increasing ship sizes in the Black Sea, the

result will of course be even more favourable for Constanta.

The ocean trip breaks down into equal distances for both in the section from Shanghai to the

Suez Canal (Port Said), the smaller ship to Constanta is only slightly worse with respect to

CO2 emissions per TEU. However, from Suez on 3,527 nautical miles have to be covered and

to Constanta it is only 944. On this section, 71 % less CO2 per TEU is produced! In the overall

balance for the ocean section, the variant Constanta is therefore 19 % below the CO2-

emission of the Hamburg variant. [The shipping companies will probably be more interested in

the fuel costs saved…]

In the hinterland, the two environmentally friendly transport means of rail and inland vessel

were compared assuming a 100 % capacity utilisation. The result was a greater advatage for

the Danube downstream, but the railway was slightly ahead upstream due to the stronger

motor power required by the ship. On the round trip, thanks to the transport capacities of the

inland vessel, 2 % less CO2 per TEU is produced.

! If one combines the waterway and hinterland routes, the variant via Constanta

and the Danube produces 22 % less CO 2 per container in exports, 10% less in

imports, and on the round trip 15 % less.



4.3 Result of the talks in Vienna, Budapest and Bel grade

The project team via donau conducted many talks with representatives of the major ocean

carriers and agencies in Vienna, Budapest and Belgrade. (A list of all persons contact is in the

Annex A.) In Hungary and Serbia, a staff member with knowledge of the regional language

was employed. The most important statements are summarised in the following section:

4.3.1 Results of talks in Austria

The representatives of the ocean carriers in Austria are oriented strongly on the North Sea.

Hamburg is the most important container port for Austria – as mentioned in Chapter 2.1.1 –

followed by Rotterdam and the Bremen ports.

The were complaints of the problems of delivery and removal of containers, but usually only an

alternative within the North Sea range is considered, e.g., Rotterdam instead of Hamburg. The

Adriatic ports are currently not attributed any major significance as container transhipment

ports.

An alternative via Constanta and the Danube seemed a bit “exotic“ for the persons

interviewed. There are frequent prejudices regarding the Danube with respect to reliability

without having any detailed knowledge of the nautical problems in detail (flooding, ice and low

water levels). Some of the persons interviewed generally reject a Danube solution. Others

believe it is a very interesting option over the medium term – on the condition that the quality

of the service and the price are right – and want to be informed on the developments.

Statements by companies interviewed:

• “Ocean freight rates in the Black Sea region are much higher than North continent

rates, because not all shippers are there (The higher rates are positive for ocean

carriers and agencies from the perspective of earnings!)“

• “The travel time is still too long despite the geographically shorter route, especially due

to the bottleneck at the Bosphorus: Even if the construction site is completed in

summer, two days waiting time is still common, e.g. when oil tankers pass through.”

• “Our ship docks directly at Koper and from there I am in Central Europe in two days!“

• “The transit time of inland vessels is not the biggest problem, reliability is a bigger

issue. But in Hamburg there are also massive problems with the railways.



• “The conditions are unclear at the Danube ports (keyword terminal-terminal rates).“

• “Customers of our oversea shipping company would never go to Constanta, because

they prefer the “premium” ports on the norther continent (quality aspect), Adria is

possible but Romania is viewed as Balkan.“

• “The logical alternative to the North Sea ports is the Adriatic Sea (geographic vicinity!),

Koper and Trieste ought to cooperate more closely.“

• “Austrian carriers are only permitted to book direct ships via Constanta if there is no

direct service. In Austria customers are generally forwarders and they are allowed

Merchant’s Haulage (detention-free time7: Imports: 6-7 days, Exports: 12-14 days).“

• “The most important ports of Bremerhaven and Rotterdam for Austria have enormous

problems, in Rotterdam the ECT computer was down last week and there was a strike

at the APM-Terminal, in Bremerhaven capacities are exhausted it is not possible to

enlarge.“

• “We view the idea of a scheduled container services on the Danube positively if the

two issues are met of “keeping the schedule“ and “all-year service also if nautical

hindrances occur“.

• “We would urgently need inland vessel offers for the transport of empty containers

between Hungary and Austria.“

• “The capacity problems in access to and from the North Sea ports will become worse

in the foreseable future, we believe the Danube is a good alternative.“

• “Even the commercial banks in Europe and the Far East should be informed of

Constanta and the Danube transports so that they can advise their clients on opening

letters of credit. (Motto: No longer “any European port”, but explicitely “Constanta” or

similar).“

• “Sea containers should ultimately be only the backbone of the service, while the

”meat” should come from continental shipments. For logistics providers this is a very

attractive option due to the fierce competition among maritime operators“

7 Detention: Container rental if the empty container is not returned on time. Demurrage: Container rental if the container is not received as delivered at the port with a specific time.



4.3.2 Result of talks in Hungary (Budapest)

Overseas shipping companies in Hungary choose 65 % to 75 % the route through the North

Sea ports and some 30 % the Mediterranean and Adriatic ports (see Chapter 2.1.2).

Since the failed attempt by the Budapest port to set up a scheduled container service along

the Danube between Budapest and Constanta, the representatives of ocean carriers have

been very sceptical in Hungary, almost negative to all inland navigation efforts. Not much

potential is perceived in full containers, while empty containers are a theme.


• “Constanta does not play any role for business in Hungary today, but for Romania,

Bulgaria, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and the Caucasus states it is important.“

• “We export many empty containers to Constanta, but no full containers. In imports

there are currently no containers in Constanta destined for Hungary.”

• “We drive to Constanta 2 to 3 times a week by truck or rail. The transhipment, storage,

loading and unloading functions perfectly since DP World has become operator.”

• We are theoretically in favour of a scheduled container line on the Danube but we do

not want to be the guinea pigs. Just do it, we will then see.”

• “The Bosporus is not a problem for us; we drive through once a week and have not

had any major problems yet.”

• “Up to now we have been using inland navigation only for empty containers – freight

price and transport times must be right for us.”

• “If the service offered is attractive and timely, then we can talk about it.”

• “As of right now there are 60 empty containers for loading ready in Budapest, we are

looking for barges. Even to Giurgiu! We thought you were a Danube shipping

company that accepts goods for direct forwarding.”

• We really need a Danube ship that can take our empty containers from Budapest to

Constanta. The price of the shipment should not be more than €400 per container.”



4.3.3 Result of the talks in Serbia (Belgrade)

Generally, container volumes in Serbia are very small. In 2005, an estimated 20,000 TEU

were transported. First, there are only few Serbian exports (US Steel Smederevo, Tiger tire

factory in Pirot). Second, the degree of containerisation in Serbia is generally very low, and

part of the goods is transferred to trucks at the seaports. Imports are three times as high as

exports. Imported goods come mostly from Asia, i.e., consumer goods such as electronics,

textiles, shoes and food.

Table 17: Container volumes in Serbia (Estimates f or 2005)

FIRM Import Export Total

HUB Dunav 3,000 TEU 1,000 TEU 4,000 TEU

Maersk 1,000 TEU 800 TEU 1,800 TEU

MSC 4,500 TEU 500 TEU 5,000 TEU

CMA-CGM 2,000 TEU 500 TEU 2,500 TEU

Jugoagent 4,000 TEU 2,500 TEU 6,500 TEU

TOTAL 14,500 TEU 5,300 TEU 19,800 TEU

Source: Interviews of via donau in Serbia, 1HY 2006

Bar, Rijeka and Koper are currently the most lively and frequently used ports by the ocean

carriers in Serbia. None of the companies interviewed ships regularly via ARA ports. Only 1 –

2 containers per year go through Rotterdam to Serbia; most orders are moving households of

diplomats.

Jugoagent has been operating a regular scheduled container service line since the beginning

of May 2005 on the Danube between Belgrade and Constanta. Apart from ZIM, other shippers

also use this service.


• “We prefer the ports of Koper, Rijeka, Bar and Thessalonica. For Rijeka, we use

mainly trucks, Koper and Bar have good connection with Belgrade by rail.”

• “A Danube solution must be attractive versus road and rail with respect to price and

travel time!”

• “To connect Serbia via the Danube, the port in Belgrade must be included (to solve

transport and customs problems).”



• “It is a question of time; our customers are accustomed to conventional destinations. If

the delivery time and price are right, we can talk about Danube navigation to and from

Constanta.”

• “The great risk to the Danube is ice and the high and low water levels; furthermore,

the avian flu halted transport this year.”

• “In addition to Bar, we will look more closely to Constanta, the port will receive more

and more goods from the Far East and the Serbian market will absorb part of it.“

• “We would greatly appreciate if all Danube countries were to cooperate in the COLD

project; we have enjoyed working with via donau in Vienna very much.”



5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

There are many signs that the Black Sea ports will develop into a serious alternative to the

northern and southern ports and that Constanta will retain or even expand its leading position

on the Black Sea. This will create an enormous need for efficient connections in the hinterland

to and from Constanta. Only a small part of containers will stay within a 100 km radius – and

will be transported mainly by truck. Apart from a significant share of feeder containers that are

moved by short-sea shipping, a large share of hinterland containers will go to Central

European destinations. A choice will have to be made for these shipments to Serbia, Hungary,

Slovakia and Austria between truck, rail and Danube. Considering the infrastructure deficits of

railways in Eastern Europe and the disadvantages of shipping by truck over long hauls, inland

navigations seems the logical alternative. Generally, it can solve the tasks of hinterland

transport very well as the examples in Western Europe show.

For Austria’s economy, the advantages of a positive development of Danube container

transport will lie in the opening of new, inexpensive transport alternatives in the growth regions

of the lower Danube, Black Sea and overseas routes (Far East).

As the target group and initiator of heightened use of inland navigation, the ocean carriers play

a very important role. This study reveals that the variant via Constanta and the Danube carries

the potential of large cost cuts if one looks at the entire supply chain (example Krems -

Shanghai). The frequently mentioned longer travel times have not been confirmed for exports

in any case and in imports, the difference is a relatively acceptable two to three days longer.

Apart from efficiency in travel time and costs, a Far East variant via the Black Sea ports and

the Danube boasts a very good environmental balance: 16 % less CO2 per container is

produced.



This study can only serve as a stimulus for the further realisation of innovative scheduled

services on the Danube. To verify certain aspects, supplement new details and look into the

subject in more depth, it will be necessary to conduct more talks.

• First, feedback from the ocean carriers and large s hippers (manufacturing

industry) is to be obtained.

The aim is to discuss and examine the results of the study with the target groups of

the ocean carriers. Ultimately, the wait-and-see stance taken by these companies

must be overcome in order to implement a container line. Usually, customers want to

wait until the services to go into operation and observe the quality for some time – only

then will contracts for volumes be signed.

A financially robust and balanced structure of the shareholders of the operating

consortium is necessary. The main partner is to be an ocean carrier, as already

mentioned. The activities of CMA CGM may be used as role model, the company that

founded a subsidiary “River Shuttle Containers” and started a scheduled service on

the Rhône and Seine. (www.river-shuttle.com)

To overcome an impasse, the establishment of a central platform modelled after the

“Antwerp Intermodal Solutions” could be of use (see excursus further below).

Proposal: Organisation of round tables in Austria (e.g. at the chamber of

commerce) and in Constanta (e.g. at the port authorities)

• Subsequently, a detailed analysis and validation of the inland navigation

concept must be conducted

Small Danube ships with double-stack container loading and generous travel times no

longer suffice to adequately take advantage of the potential of Danube navigation. In

comparison to the offers of the railway lines, no attractive services can be offered. The

optimised scenario presented in this study therefore points to larger inland vessels

and as short as possible round trips of 16 days. In the further course of the project, it

will be clarified how such ships can be used. Furthermore, availability of a fairway

depth of 2 to 2,20 m throughout the year must be examined in detail and solutions

found if it drops below this level.

Substitute transport in the event of flooding or ice must also be examined in detail. It is

feasible that the ocean carriers will trigger alternative transport when the containers for



imports are waiting for shipping to the hinterland at Constanta and exports are waiting

in Krems for forwarding to seaports.

An efficient tracking & tracing system as well deviation management using the River

Information Services is called for as well.

The costs of inland navigation can be improved by transporting empty containers and

combining with continental cargo (silo and tank containers) as well as ro/ro shipments.

The effects of the necessary stops at intermediate ports of call remain to be analysed.

Nonetheless, all existing assistance programmes at EU and national level should be

used to minimise the initial losses (Marco Polo programme of the EU and national

UCT assistance8).

Within the scope of the inland navigation concept, procedures at inland ports must be

analysed and if necessary optimised. Efficient container handling at the involved

inland ports and attractive transhipment rates for waterside lifts are called for in this

context.

Proposal: Follow-up project COLD II carried out by via donau in cooperation

with companies that have an interest in setting up, operating and using

scheduled container services between Austria and Romania. The objective is to

draft an operation plan.

8 UCT (unaccompanied combined transport)



EXCURSUS: Antwerp as Model for Intermodal Solutions ?

The port of Antwerp founded a communications platform in February 2006 to raise the share

of modal split of railways in hinterland transport. The “Antwerp Intermodal Solutions – AIS“

project is being carried out jointly with terminal operators PSA HNN and P&O Ports and

supported by the rail infrastructure operator Infrabel.

The starting situation is the low share of rail transport in hinterland transport (approx. 10 %,

road 60 %, IWT. 30 %). Only Maersk Line and MSC operate their own railway services from

Antwerp. Up to now, the ocean carriers have not joined forces to operate shuttle trains

together.

The AIS project group has carried out an analysis to serve as starting point for the discussion

on container transport to and from Antwerp. The results are entered into a platform in which

ocean carriers, agencies, logistics providers and carriers come together. Railway operators

develop proposals for intermodal transport and analyse how many containers are necessary to

operate the connections efficiently. The overseas shipping companies examine the option of

combining container volumes to fill the trains. The plans are to start the first train lines in the

four selected regions in 2006 (Northern Rhine Westphalia, Central Germany, Bavaria and

Northeast France).

The COLD Final Report of via donau could serve as “starter” for a similar communication

platform that could be operated by the port authority Constanta, for example, and is open to

shipping companies and carriers.



For further information and contacts:

For inquiries regarding the project: For inquiries regarding the port of Constanta and inland navigation:

Gerhard Gussmagg Alexandru Capatu

Team Manager Transport Development Managing Director

via donau - Österreichische Wasserstraßen- Gesellschaft mbH

Navromsa AG, Vienna branch

A-1220 Wien, Donau-City-Straße 1 A-1020 Wien, Freudenauerhafenstr. 8

tel +43 (0) 50 4321-1617 tel +43 (1) 729 67 00

fax +43 (0) 50 4321-1050 fax +43 (1) 729 67 01

cell +43 (0) 676 613 99 99 cell +43 (0) 664 302 58 74

[email protected] [email protected]

www.via-donau.org

www.donauschifffahrt.info

COLD CONTAINER LINER SERVICE DANUBE An Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks of Container Transport on the Danube River between Austria and the Black Sea

ANNEX, Vienna at August 2006

© via donau – Reproductions, forwarding or any other use shall require written consent. Version 1.0 | Page 2 of 20

COLD I Annex August 2006



ANNEX

A List of interview partners (in alphabetic order)... ........................................................................ 4

B Calculation of necessary fairway depth (optimised s cenario) ........................................... ....... 6

C Calculation of necessary vertical clearance (optimi sed scenario) ...................................... ..... 7

D Form of convoy (optimised scenario)................ ........................................................................ 10

E Engine power (optimised scenario) .................. ......................................................................... 10

F Transit time calculation inland waterway Constanta - Krems (optimised scenario) ............ 11

G Calculation of standby costs (optimised scenario).. ................................................................ 13

H Calculation of operating- and total costs (optimise d scenario)........................................ ...... 14

I Calculation of supply chain Krems - Shanghai....... .................................................................. 15

J Calculation of environmental balance ............... ........................................................................ 17



A LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTNERS (in alphabetic order)

Between January and July 2006 the project team did a multiplicity of personal interviews with

representatives of ocean carriers, inland navigation, politics and administration.

1. Baumann, Norbert (Managing Director danu transport GmbH, Vienna)

2. Bicsak, Tamás (General Manager, CMA CGM HUNGARY Ltd., Budapest)

3. Brunelik, Gerhard (Sales, IMS Intermove Systems Speditions- und Transport GmbH,

Vienna)

4. Culafic, Vladica (Head of department, Port Belgrade)

5. Dangl, Georg (Group Director Sea Cargo, cargo partner AG, Vienna)

6. Deininger, Paul (CEO, multimar Seefrachtenkontor GesmbH, Vienna)

7. Demmer, Mag. Andreas (Managing Director, Association of Austrian forwarders)

8. Dworczak, Thomas W. (Managing Director, CargoCompass Schifffahrtsagentur

GesmbH [Agency Yang Ming], Vienna)

9. Eden, Prof. Mamut (Director of CAES „Ovidius“ University of Constanta)

10. Fazekas, András (General Manager, Hapag-Lloyd Austria Budapest Office, Budapest)

11. Ghebaur, Liviu (CEO, Northstar Shipping, Constanta)

12. Hannya, Ernesto K. (Managing Director, China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd,

Budapest)

13. Herzig, Herbert (Instructor, WKÖ – Department of finance and trade policy, Vienna)

14. Hofmann, Johannes (CargoCompass Schifffahrtsagentur GesmbH, Vienna)

15. Hutter, Ing. Andre (Insurance broker, Vienna)

16. Jánovszki, László (General Manager, MSC Hungary Ltd., Budapest)

17. Jovanov, Dejan (Director Marketing and Quality Sector, Port Belgrade)

18. Jovanovic, Sasa (Danube Port Agency Department, Jugoagent, Belgrade)

19. Kastner, Franz (Managing Director, MSC Austria GmbH, Vienna)

20. Katanic Rosaj, Zorica (Director, MSC Belgrade)

21. Kerepesi, Márta (General Manager, ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd., Budapest)



22. Klepatsch, Wolfgang K. (Director ocean freight Central Europe, Kühne + Nagel

GesmbH, Linz)

23. Mayer, Christian (Manager Operations, Hapag Lloyd Container Line, Vienna)

24. Michel, Christophe (General Manager, TOUAX SA, Paris)

25. Mierka, Hubert (CEO, Mierka Danube-Port, Krems)

26. Munkas, Zolt (Managing Director YU-Agent, Bezdan)

27. Netkovic, Zoran (General Manager, Jugoagent, Belgrade)

28. Nistor, Andreaa (Port Strategy and European Integration Department, N.C. Maritime

Ports Administration S.A. Constanta)

29. Obucina, Vojislav (Commercial Director, Jugoagent, Belgrade)

30. Presser-Velder, Gion-Otto (Oxford Said Business School, UK)

31. Rankl, Christian (Head of SCHENKER Ocean-Service-Center, St. Pölten)

32. Ruzic, Dragana (Director, CMA CGM – The French Line, Belgrade Repres. Office)

33. Schmid, Gerhard (National Sales Manager, Maersk Österreich GmbH, Vienna)

34. Skundric, Bilijana (General Manager Assistant, Port Belgrade)

35. Somlóvari, László (CEO, Budapesti Szabadkikötö Logisztikai Zrt., Budapest)

36. Stancu, Vasile (Director Executiv, TOUAX ROM S.A., Constanta)

37. Tomassovich, Wolfgang (Managing Director, IMS Intermove Systems Speditions- und

Transport GmbH, Vienna)

38. Uzelac, Ruzica (Director, HUB DUNAV d.o.o. - Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, Belgrade)

39. Visekruna, Petar (Director, Maersk Line Interlog d.o.o., Belgrade)

40. Weigert, Friedrich (Managing Director, Kühne + Nagel Euroshipping GmbH,

Regensburg)

41. Widhofner, Reinhard (Sales Manager, Reedereikontor Meridian, Vienna)

42. Wiesinger, KommR. Manfred E. (Managing Director, CMA CGM Austria GmbH,

Vienna)

43. Winter, Mag. Alexander (Head of department (Ocean freight), Schenker & Co AG,

Vienna)

44. Wowy, Norbert (Manager Sales, Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, Vienna)



B CALCULATION OF NECESSARY FAIRWAY DEPTH (OPTIMISED

SCENARIO)

Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 100 % uti lisation of loading capacity

Container (TEU) Payload (t)

Fuel + Supply Total Draught

Average Draught*

necessary fairway depth

MCV 90 1.260 80 1.340 2,1 2,35 2,65PL 132 1.848 1.848 2,6

Assumption: 14 t / TEU 14 t / TEU

Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 75 % util isation of loading capacity



Average Draught*


MCV 68 945 80 1.025 1,79 1,96 2,26PL 99 1.386 1.386 2,13


Calculation of necessary fairway depth at 50 % util isation of loading capacity



Average Draught*


MCV 51 709 80 789 1,56 1,67 1,97PL 74 1.040 1.040 1,77


MCV...Motor Cargo VesselPL…Pushed Lighter* reached by balanced loading between MCV and PL (e.g. heavy container on MCV)



C CALCULATION OF NECESSARY VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OPTI MISED

SCENARIO)

Calculation of necessary air clearance (optimised s cenario)

Container type 8'6" 9'6" 8'6" 2 x 8'6" and 1 x 9'6"

1 x 8'6" and 2 x 9'6"

9'6"

Height 5.18 5.79 7.77 8.08 8.39 8.69add. double bottom 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60add. safety distance 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

6.08 6.69 8.67 8.98 9.29 9.59minus draught 1.40 1.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00necessary air clearance

4.68 5.29 6.67 6.98 7.29 7.59

Draught results from payload resp. ballast tank (proportion of empty containers)Container type: External dimensions of container = 8’6“ = 2.591 mm (Standard ISO Container)

External dimensions of container = 9’6“ = 2.896 mm (High Cube Container)

2 Layer 3 Layer



AWL = Average Water Level, period 1961-1990HNWL = Highest Navigable Water Level

#River

Kilometre Bridge Name at AWL HNWL Comment1 2414.25 Road Bridge Kelheim - Maximiliansbrücke 7.52 5.19 17.02 2412.72 Roadbridge - Europabrücke 8.93 6.78 31.003 2,410.10 Roadbridge Saal 8.88 7.00 64.004 2,400.42 Railway brigde Poikam 7.10 6.98 29.005 2,400.24 Brigde Bad Abbach 6.43 6.24 48.006 2,387.60 Motorway bridge Sinzing 41.77 40.90 50.007 2,386.71 Railway bridge Sinzing 11.25 10.51 48.008 2,385.68 Railway bridge Mariaort 9.22 8.72 32.009 2,381.11 Motorway bridge Pfaffenstein 6.71 6.63 39.0010 2,380.17 Oberpfalzbrücke (Regensburg) 6.63 6.40 67.0011 2,379.56 Protzenweiherbrücke (Regensburg) 8.43 5.94 12.0012 2,378.39 Nibelungenbrücke (Regensburg) 8.82 6.28 50.0013 2,376.82 Railway bridge Schwabelweis 8.12 6.07 31.0014 2,376.32 Road bridge Regensburg-Schwabelweis 10.55 8.71 115.0015 2,369.65 Road bridge Donaustauf 9.40 8.83 102.0016 2,358.27 Motorway bridge Wörth 8.25 7.74 140.0017 2,353.33 Road bridge Pfatter 10.62 8.10 85.0018 2,327.52 Road bridge Lock Straubing 10.72 7.93 25.0019 2,325.70 Agnes Bernauer Bridge 11.05 8.20 100.0020 2,316.98 Road bridge Reibersdorf 11.33 8.10 70.0021 2,311.28 Railway bridge Bogen 7.22 4.60 44.0022 2,308.40 Road bridge Bogen 10.77 8.30 75.0023 2,290.12 Motorway bridge Metten 10.83 8.63 70.0024 2,285.87 Railway bridge Deggendorf 6.89 4.40 40.0025 2,285.50 Motorway bridge Fischerdorf 10.78 8.30 100.0026 2,284.60 Road bridge Deggendorf - Maximiliansbrücke 10.68 7.00 100.0027 2,282.50 Motorway bridge Deggenau 11.88 9.00 87.0028 2,266.22 Donau Wald Bridge 11.01 9.80 62.0029 2,249.16 Road bridge Vilshofen 9.27 7.80 90.0030 2,234.26 Motorway bridge Schalding 35.85 35.00 100.0031 2,230.43 RMD Lock bridge Kachlet 12.01 9.40 27.0032 2,230.28 Railway bridge Steinbach 8.91 6.50 59.0033 2,230.10 Franz Josef Strauß Brigde 14.03 11.50 68.0034 2,226.98 Schanzlbrücke (Passau) 10.57 8.30 102.0035 2,225.75 Luitpoldbrücke (Passau) 7.89 5.60 80.0036 2,223.29 Railway bridge Kräutelstein 12.04 9.30 73.0037 2,203.31 Lock bridge Jochenstein 7.75 7.75 24.0038 2,194.10 Road bridge Niederanna 9.59 8.13 101.0039 2,162.92 Lock Aschach - Pedestrian bridge 8.23 24.0040 2,162.94 Lock Aschach - Service bridge 11.66 10.96 24.00 Source for HNWL-levels for Austrian Danube:41 2,159.97 Road bridge Aschach 9.95 8.76 125.00 KWD 1996, WSD, Vienna42 2,146.73 Lock Ottensheim-Wilhering 9.30 9.00 24.0043 2,135.10 Road brigde Linz Nibelungenbr. 9.33 7.77 90.0044 2,133.83 Road and Rail bridge Linz 8.66 7.42 78.0045 2,133.46 Roadbr. Linz (Voest Brücke) 10.71 9.57 153.0046 2,127.73 Road brigde Steyregg 8.59 / 9.01 8.11 / 8.53 70.0047 2,127.68 Rail bridge Steyregg 8.87 / 8.88 8.39 / 8.40 71.0048 2,127.16 Voest-Werkshafen 7.11 6.65 60.0049 2,119.45 Lock Abwinden-Asten 10.90 10.67 24.0050 2,111.05 Bridge Mauthausen (Road & Rail) 9.21 8.08 72.0051 2,094.50 Lock Bridge Wallsee 13.20 9.96 24.0052 2,080.82 Road Bridge Grein 10.71 8.86 100.0053 2,060.42 Lock Bridge Persenbeug 7.96 7.66 24.0054 2,043.60 Road Bridge Pöchlarn 8.57 / 9.16 8.31 / 8.9 80.0055 2,038.12 Bridge Melk (Lock) 10.26 9.96 24.0056 2,034.43 Road Bridge Melk 12.95 9.62 132.0057 2,003.53 Road Bridge Stein - Mautern 8.96 7.64 79.0058 2,001.51 Railway bridge Krems 8.83 / 8.69 31601.00 77 / 7659 1,999.77 Motorway bridge Krems 9.06 8.58 111.0060 1,980.90 Lock bridge 11.46 11.16 24.00

Source for HNWL-levels German Danube: WSD South, Wurzburg

For bridges 1-36: HNWL in the German Danube does not comply with the statistically defined HNWL value (determined by the Danube Commission). Especially in the free flowing section (Straubing - Vilshofen) where the HNWL exceedance probability is beyond 1 % of the ice-free days of a given year.

Vertical clearance upstream / downstream in m

List of Danube Bridges (as of August 2006)

Lateral Clearance in m

(width)



61 1,965.00 Rosenbrücke Tulln 10.36 9.77 151.0062 1,963.15 Old BridgeTulln 8.17 / 8.28 7.9 / 8.01 83.0063 1,949.23 Lock bridge (Greifenstein) 9.86 9.56 24.0064 1,932.62 Nordbrücke Vienna 8.51 / 8.76 8.16 / 8.41 58.0065 1,932.57 Nordsteg 8.76 / 9.07 8.5 / 8.81 58.0066 1,931.71 Floridsdorfer Brücke 8.52 8.32 57.0067 1,931.20 Nordbahnbrücke 8.32 / 8.29 8.15 / 8.12 65.0068 1,931.17 Subway Bridge 8.51 / 8.47 8.35 / 8.31 65.0069 1,930.45 Brigittenauerbrücke 8.66 8.53 64.0070 1,928.90 Reichsbrücke 7.99 / 7.93 7.94 / 7.88 59.0071 1,925.99 Road bridge Donaustadt 8.32 8.24 94.0072 1,925.76 Praterbrücke 7.99 7.91 65.0073 1,924.96 Ostbahnbrücke 8.11 / 8.07 8.03 / 7.99 65.0074 1,921.05 Lock Bridge Freudenau 9.84 9.74 24.0075 1,920.87 Bridge Freudenau 12.05 8.52 59.0076 1,917.70 Pipeline Brücke Mannswörth 14.42 11.16 126.0077 1,914.35 Barbarabrücke Pipe bridge 14.04 10.98 113.6078 1,886.25 Brücke Hainburg 16.42 13.35 114.4079 1,871.35 Lafranconibrücke B'lava 15.88 120.0080 1,869.10 Schrägseilbrücke B'lava 11.46 180.0081 1,868.14 Reichsbrücke Bratislava 7.59 67.0082 1,867.30 Apollo Road Bridge in B'lava 8.38 -83 1,866.40 New Bridge Bratislava 11.06 170.0084 8,30* Lock bridge Gabcikovo 8.99 34.00 * Navigable canal Gabcikovo; Starting at km 1.85385 1,806.35 Brücke Medvedov 8.77 76.0086 1,770.40 Railway bridge Komarom 8.65 90.0087 1,767.80 Road Bridge Komarom 8.35 80.0088 1,718.80 Road Bridge Esztergom 9.91 103.5889 1,654.50 Uijpester Brücke 7.66 70.0090 1,651.40 Arpadbrücke 7.82 70.0091 1,648.75 Margarethenbrücke 9.95 - 5.00 60.00 Arch bridge higher in mid92 1,647.00 Szechenyi Kettenbrücke 7.36 130.00 8.20 at 80 m width93 1,646.00 Elisabethbrücke 7.42 80.00 8.72 at 80 m width94 1,645.30 Szabadsagbrücke 9.54 80.0095 1,644.30 Petöfibrücke 8.30 80.0096 1,643.25 Südbrücke 9.15 60.0097 1,632.81 Motorway bridge Budapest 10.00 100.0098 1,571.70 Motorway Bridge M8 23.69 50.0099 1,560.55 Bridge Dunaföldvar 8.73 74.00100 1,498.50 Road Bridge Szekszand 9.50 100.00101 1,480.22 Bridge Baja 8.09 60.00102 1,424.47 Brücke Bezdan-Batina 9.50 120.00 For further information on Serbian bridges see:103 1,366.73 Road Bridge Erdut-Bogojevo 9.00 120.00 www.plovput.co.yu104 1,366.50 Railway bridge Bogojevo 8.15 97.70105 1,297.06 Illok - Backa Palanka 9.70 150.00106 1,257.60 Road Bridge "Sloboda" NoviSad 21.29 100.00107 1,255.00 Varadanski Bridge 9.50 124.00108 1,254.30 "Temporary Railway bridge" 6.82 91.30109 1,232.05 Beska Bridge 42.90 180.00110 1,166.50 Belgrade - Pancevo Bridge 9.15 150.00111 1,112.90 Smederevo Pipeline Bridge 13.20 140.00112 1,112.10 Smederevo Road Bridge 10.00 120.00113 1,045.12 Road Bridge Moldova 18.15 130.00114 943.00 Lock bridge Iron Gate 1 10.00 34.00115 863.00 Lock Bridge Iron Gate 2 13.87 34.00116 488.70 Road Bridge Giurgiu - Rousse 13.13 150.00117 300.07 New Bridge Cernavoda 24.99 170.00118 300.00 Old Bridge Cernavoda 30.96 182.00119 237.80 Vadu Oii - Giurgeni 15.20 148.00

Source: ECDIS MapsWESKA 2003 - European Navigation- and Port Calender



D FORM OF CONVOY (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)

Downstream (Krems -> Constanta):

� up to km 1,640 coupled formation (Pushed lighter on starboard side of motor cargo vessel)

� ex km 1,640 in the slim „cigar“ form

Upstream (Constanta -> Krems):

� „cigar“ form

E ENGINE POWER (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)

MCV Aggstein, Built 1974Main engine: 2 x MWM TBD 440.06Power: 2 x 607 kW at 900 rpm

kW HPPower at engine 1,214 1,65110 % Loss of power in gearbox 121 165Power at propeller 1,093 1,486

1 Kilowatt equals 1.36 HP



F TRANSIT TIME CALCULATION INLAND WATERWAY CONSTANT A - KREMS (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)

100 % utilisation of loading capacity (90 + 132 = 2 22 TEU per convoy)

downstream WL = 5 m WL = 3,5 resp. 4 m

SectionRiver-

kmRiver-

kmDistance

(km)V River(km/h)

V Vessel(km/h)

Transit time(h)

Prop.(kW)

Engine(kW) kWh

V River(km/h)

V Vessel(km/h)

Transit time(h)

Prop.(kW)

Engine(kW) kWh

Port Krems - Lock Freudenau

1,998 1,921 77 5.0 19.1 4.0 1,100 1,210 4,878 2.0 16.1 4.8 1,100 1,210 5,787

FFS East of Vienna 1,921 1,873 48 10.0 20.0 2.4 350 385 924 5.0 16.0 3.0 1,100 1,210 3,630

Border AT-SK to lock Gabcikovo

1,873 1,851 22 8.0 20.0 1.1 650 715 787 2.0 16.1 1.4 1,100 1,210 1,653

Canal Gabcikovo 37 4.0 12.0 3.1 200 220 678 2.0 12.0 3.1 700 770 2,374

FFS to Budapest Csepel

1,811 1,640 171 6.0 20.0 8.6 1,050 1,155 9,875 3.5 14.5 11.8 1,100 1,210 14,270

FFS East of Budapest 1,640 1,433 207 5.0 20.0 10.4 850 935 9,677 3.0 16.0 12.9 1,100 1,210 15,654

Estuary Save to end dyke section IG I (Belgrade) 1,433 1,170 263 5.0 20.0 13.2 850 935 12,295 3.0 17.0 15.5 1,100 1,210 18,719

Dyke section to IG II 1,170 864 306 4.0 20.0 15.3 1,050 1,155 17,672 1.0 17.1 17.9 1,100 1,210 21,653

FFS to Cernavoda 864 300 564 5.0 20.0 28.2 850 935 26,367 2.5 16.5 34.2 1,100 1,210 41,360

Danube Black Sea Canal

65 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085

1,760 18.3 91.6 85,239 15.3 109.9 127,186

Remarks:Speed limit in canal Gabcikovo and Danube Black Sea Canal 12 km/hMaximum speed upstream 20 km/h due to nautical conditionsFFS = Free Flowing Section



100 % utilisation of loading capacity (90 + 132 = 2 22 TEU per convoy)

upstream WL = 5 m WL = 3,5 resp. 4 m

SectionRiver-

kmRiver-

kmDistance

(km)V River(km/h)

V Vessel(km/h)

Transit time(h)

Prop.(kW)

Engine(kW) kWh

V River(km/h)

V Vessel(km/h)

Transit time(h)

Prop.(kW)

Engine(kW) kWh

Danube Black Sea Canal

65 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085 0.0 12.0 5.4 350 385 2,085

FFS Cernavoda to IG II

300 864 564 5.0 11.1 50.8 1,100 1,210 61,481 2.5 11.5 49.0 1,100 1,210 59,343

IG II to end dyke IG I 864 1,170 306 4.0 12.1 25.3 1,100 1,210 30,600 1.0 15.1 20.3 1,100 1,210 24,521

End dyke IG I to estuary Save

1,170 1,433 263 5.0 11.1 23.7 1,100 1,210 28,669 3.0 11.0 23.9 1,100 1,210 28,930

FFS to Budapest Csepel

1,433 1,640 207 5.0 11.1 18.6 1,100 1,210 22,565 3.0 10.0 20.7 1,100 1,210 25,047

FFS to lock Gabcikovo 1,640 1,811 171 6.0 10.1 16.9 1,100 1,210 20,486 3.5 9.5 18.0 1,100 1,210 21,780

Canal lock Gabcikovo 37 4.0 12.0 3.1 1,050 1,155 3,561 2.0 12.0 3.1 700 770 2,374

Lock Gabcikovo to border AT-SK

1,851 1,873 22 8.0 8.1 2.7 1,100 1,210 3,286 2.0 14.1 1.6 1,100 1,210 1,888

FFS East of Vienna 1,873 1,921 48 10.0 6.1 7.9 1,100 1,210 9,521 5.0 8.0 6.0 1,100 1,210 7,260

Lock Freudenau - Port Krems

1,921 1,998 77 5.0 11.1 6.9 1,100 1,210 8,394 2.0 14.1 5.5 1,100 1,210 6,608

1,760 10.5 161.4 190,650 11.7 153.4 179,835

Remarks: 275,888 307,021Speed limit in Gabcikovo canal and Danube Black Sea Canal 12 km/hFFS = Free Flowing Section



G CALCULATION OF STANDBY COSTS (OPTIMISED SCENARIO)

Standby costs and daily rate

Type of vessel MCV PLOperating mode C (24h/d) C (24h/d)Current value € 1,150,000 290,000Operator Company Companytdwat 2000 t / 1.650 HP 1950 tDays in use/year 320 320Cost in €/year

Crew 184,000 € Repairs 32,500 € 11,250 €

Insurance 23,000 € 9,125 € Miscellaneous 11,000 €

Amortisation/Depreciation 1) 92,000 € 29,000 € Interest 2) 34,500 € 10,875 €

Overhead shipping company (30 %) 3) 113,000 € 18,125 € Total costs 490,000 € 78,375 €

Daily costs 1,531 € 245 €

1) assumed remaining period 12,5 years

2) 6 % of 50 % of the current value

3) including agent fee of about 10 EUR / TEU

Daily cost for convoy 1,776 € Profit margin (+10 %) 178 € Daily cost for convoy 1,954 € Time for round trip 16 DaysStandby cost round trip 31,261 €



H CALCULATION OF OPERATING- AND TOTAL COSTS (OPTIMI SED

SCENARIO)

Operating costs

Fuel consumption 0.21 kg/kWhConversion factor l/kg 1.1765Fuel price 0.46 €/l

WL = 5 m WL = 3,5 m Average*Necessary kWh 275,888 307,021 286,266Fuel consumption in kg 57,936 64,475 60,116Fuel consumption in l 68,161 75,852 70,725Fuel costs € 31,354 € 34,892 € 32,533

*Assumption: 2/3 per year WL = 5 m, 1/3 WL = 3,5 m

Operating costs round-trip € 32,533 at 100 % capacityOperating costs round-trip € 28,467 at 75 % capacity**Operating costs round-trip € 24,400 at 50 % capacity**

**Approximation: 25 % less payload equal 12,5 % less fuel consumption, 50 % results in 25 % less fuel consumption

Utilisation ratio 100% 75% 50%TEU / Payload in round-trip 444 / 6,216 333 / 4,662 222 / 3,108

Standby costs (MCV + PL)Daily costs € 1,954.- x

16 days round-trip€ 31,261 € 31,261 € 31,261

Operating costs round-trip(MCV)

70.000 l Gas oil at capacity

€ 46 per 100 l, incl. lubricant

€ 32,533 € 28,467 € 24,400

TOTAL VESSEL COSTS € 63,794 € 59,727 € 55,661

Transit fee Danube Black Sea Canaltdwat convoy 3,950 3,950 3,950Fee per ton of deadweight capacity 0.48 0.48 0.48 Fee per passage € 1,896 € 1,896 € 1,896Fee per round-trip € 3,792 € 3,792 € 3,792

TOTAL COSTS ROUND-TRIP € 67,586 € 63,519 € 59,453



I CALCULATION OF SUPPLY CHAIN KREMS - SHANGHAI

1) As of 1 st quarter 2006

Comparison ocean freight rate Europe-Asia-Services (HAM vs. CON)"Guideline rates" from Hapag-Lloyd (valid until 31.3.2006)

Basic rates in US $Rate

20'GPRate

40'GPRate

40'HCRate

20'GPRate

40'GPRate

40'HC

Europe-Asia Loop 3Shanghai - Hamburg

$740 $1,480 $1,680 $50 $50 $50

Asia-Black-Sea-ServiceShanghai - Constanta

$900 $1,800 $2,000 $175 $200 $200

Extra costs Constanta $160 $320 $320 $125 $150 $150

Rates excl. CAF, BAF and other additionals

Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin US $

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC


$1,031 $2,061 $2,272 $303 $553 $553


$1,275 $2,549 $2,760 $435 $711 $711

Extra costs Constanta $244 $488 $488 $132 $158 $158

CAF 5.50% BAF 250.00 USD/TEUBosphorus-Add 75.00 USD/TEU

Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin EURO (1€=1,25USD)

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC


€ 825 € 1,649 € 1,818 € 242 € 442 € 442


€ 1,020 € 2,039 € 2,208 € 348 € 569 € 569

Extra costs Constanta € 195 € 390 € 390 € 106 € 127 € 127

In the 1 st quater of 2006 Constanta was faced with higher cos ts in export of 100 Euro per 20' and 130 Euro per 40' container and in import "thanks" to Bosporus additionals even with about 200 respective ly 390 Euro.

IMPORT EXPORT

IMPORT EXPORT

IMPORT EXPORT



2) Assumption: Equal ocean freight rate

Comparison ocean freight rate Europe-Asia-Services (HAM vs. CON)Assumption: Equal ocean freight rate for Hamburg and Constanta

Basic rates in US $Rate

20'GPRate

40'GPRate

40'HCRate

20'GPRate

40'GPRate

40'HC


$750 $1,500 $100 $150


$750 $1,500 $100 $150

Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin US $

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC


$1,110 $2,220 $408 $762


$1,110 $2,220 $408 $762

CAF 8.00% BAF 300.00 USD/TEU

Bosphorus-Add 0.00 USD/TEU

Ocean freight rate incl. additionalsin EURO (1€=1,25USD)

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC

Rate 20'GP

Rate 40'GP

Rate 40'HC


€ 888 € 1,776 € 326 € 610


€ 888 € 1,776 € 326 € 610

EXPORT

IMPORT EXPORT

888 Euro for import Shanghai-Krems, 326 Euro for ex port.

IMPORT EXPORT

IMPORT



J CALCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSEL(ex.SUEZ)

4000 TEU Vessel Constanta

8000 TEU Vessel Hamburg

Number of 20' containers 4,000 8,000Engine (MAN-BW) 8K90MC-C/ME-C 12K98MC Mk6Engine power [kW] 36,560 68,640Required engine power (Engine power*0,9)[kW] 32,904 61,776Specific fuel consumption [g/kWh] 171 171Speed [kn] 20 20Distance [nM] ex Suez-canal (Port Said) 944 3,527Time consumption (Distance/Speed) [h] 47.2 176.35Fuel consumption [t] 265.57 1,862.91Fuel consumption per container [kg] 66.4 232.9Kg CO2/kg fuel 3.2 3.2

CO2 emissions per container [kg] 212.5 745.2Relative CO2 emissions [%] 29% 100%

ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSEL(Port Said - Shanghai)



Number of 20' containers 4,000 8,000Engine (MAN-BW) 8K90MC-C/ME-C 12K98MC Mk6Engine power [kW] 36,560 68,640Required engine power (Engine power*0,9)[kW] 32,904 61,776Specific fuel consumption [g/kWh] 171 171Speed [kn] 20 20Distance [nM] Port Said - Shanghai 7,247 7,247Time consumption (Distance/Speed) [h] 362.35 362.35Fuel consumption [t] 2,038.79 3,827.76Fuel consumption per container [kg] 509.7 478.5Kg CO2/kg fuel 3.2 3.2

CO2 emissions per container [kg] 1,631 1,531Relative CO2 emissions [%] 107% 100%

ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE DEEP SEA VESSELTOTAL



Shanghai - Port Said 1,631 1,531Port Said - Constanta resp. Hamburg 212 745CO2 emissions per container [kg] 1,843 2,276Relative CO2 emissions [%] 81% 100%



ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE HINTERLAND

Blocktrain Hamburg-Krems

(applies v.v.)

IWT Constanta-Krems

(upstream)

IWT Krems-Constanta

(downstream)

Blocktrain Hamburg-Krems

ROUND TRIP

IWT Constanta-Krems ROUND

TRIPMax. capacity in TEU 75 222 222Payload [t] 1,050 3,108 3,108Distance [km] 1,100 1,760 1,760Ton-kilometres 1,155,000 5,470,080 5,470,080Required kWh 190,650 85,239Fuel consumption [kg/kWh] 0.21 0.21Fuel consumption [kg] 40,036 17,900

kg CO2/ 1000 tkm 27.75 *

kg CO2/kg Fuel 3.2 3.2

CO2 emission [kg] 32,051 128,116 57,280 64,103 185,397CO2 emissons per container [kg] 427 577 258 855 835Relative CO2 emissions [%] 100% 135% 60% 100% 98%

Max. capacity railway 75 TEU / BlocktrainMax. capacity IWT: MCV (90 TEU) + PL (132 TEU) = 222 TEU/Convoy* 40 % proportion of caloric power stations



CO2 emissions per container [kg]

Export Krems->Shanghai Import Shanghai->Krems Total Krems->Shanghai->Krems

HAM+Rail CON+IWT HAM+Rail CON+IWT HAM+Rail CON+IWTHinterland 427 258 Hinterland 427 577 Hinterland 855 835Deep Sea Vessel 2,276 1,843 Deep Sea Vessel 2,276 1,843 Deep Sea Vessel 4,553 3,687

2,704 2,102 2,704 2,421 5,407 4,522100% 78% 100% 90% 100% 84%

22% 10% 16%

TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE

less CO2 per container! less CO2 per container! less CO2 per container!



For further information and contacts:

For inquiries regarding the project: For inquiries regarding the port of Constanta and inland navigation:

Gerhard Gussmagg Alexandru Capatu

Team Manager Transport Development Managing Director

via donau - Österreichische Wasserstraßen- Gesellschaft mbH

Navromsa AG, Vienna branch

A-1220 Wien, Donau-City-Straße 1 A-1020 Wien, Freudenauerhafenstr. 8

tel +43 (0) 50 4321-1617 tel +43 (1) 729 67 00

fax +43 (0) 50 4321-1050 fax +43 (1) 729 67 01

cell +43 (0) 676 613 99 99 cell +43 (0) 664 302 58 74

[email protected] [email protected]

www.via-donau.org

www.donauschifffahrt.info

in cooperation with:

Danube Shipping Study

Documents

Transcript of Danube Shipping Study