UK Containerfreight

The container freight
end-to-end journey
An analysis of the end-to-end journey
of containerised freight through UK
international gateways
December 2008
The container freight
end-to-end journey
An analysis of the end-to-end journey
of containerised freight through UK
international gateways
December 2008
This document extends to Wales and Scotland in so far as it covers our UK policy responsibilities
for regulation of shipping, and some aspects of road trafc regulation, such as vehicle licensing.
With certain exceptions, such as safety, rail policy is a devolved matter for Scotland, so the
geographical scope of the document is primarily limited to England and Wales, recognising the
powers of the Welsh Assembly Government in relation to Welsh and cross-border services.
It does not cover ports in Wales or Scotland, transport funding programmes administered by the
devolved administrations, or transport services which operate solely within Wales or Scotland.
Its proposals do not extend to Northern Ireland.
The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted
people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Departments
website in accordance with the W3Cs Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The text may
be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other
accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.
Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR
Telephone 020 7944 8300 Website www.dft.gov.uk
Crown copyright 2008
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for
non-commercial research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is
subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright
source of the material must be acknowledged and the title of the publication specied.
To reproduce maps, contact Ordnance Survey via their web site www.ordnancesurvey.gov.uk/
copyright or write to Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey, Romsey Road, Southampton
SO16 4GU.
For any other use of this material, apply for a Click-Use Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/
index.htm, or by writing to the Licensing Division, Ofce of Public Sector Information, Information
Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail licensing@opsi.gov.uk
Contents
1. Preface 2
2. Overview of the UK international freight market 4
3. The container freight end-to-end journey 8
4. Overview of the international container freight market 10
5. Getting to and from the port 20
6. Getting through the port 29
7. Onward distribution within the UK 38
8. Improvements to the container end-to-end journey 69
9. The container freight end-to-end journey: emerging issues 73
Annex A Goals and associated challenges identied for international networks 76
2
1. Preface
International trade gives UK consumers the
option to purchase a wide variety of goods at
competitive prices. For UK rms, international
trade gives access to intermediate inputs such
as raw materials and parts and to a global
market in which to sell their products.
The UKs status as the leading global
economy in the second half of the nineteenth
century was enabled by its strength as a
maritime trading power. Globalisation means
that today the worldwide economy is more
interconnected than ever with shipping still
key to that connectivity.
Although the global economy is experiencing
a downturn in 2008, in the longer term
continuing trends towards greater
globalisation are expected to encourage
businesses to operate on an ever wider-
reaching scale. The UK needs to adjust to
the rapidly changing global environment
and to build on its competitive advantages.
These trends will present opportunities both
for the UK as a whole and for individuals and
businesses, but will also present challenges
such as dealing with climate change and
increased competition.
A growing share of economic activity is
globally mobile, meaning that it could be
carried out in a number of locations this has
led to competition for investment between
countries on the basis of cost and efciency.
An increasing trend that has been enabled by
the expansion of global trade and freight trafc
is for production processes to be distributed
across a number of locations. The process of
supply chains unbundling offers opportunities
to skilled labour in the UK which specialises in
high-end skill-intensive manufacturing.
For the UK, globalisation, increasing world
trade and supply chain links across countries
are likely to reinforce the trends of growth in
services, a smaller domestic manufacturing
sector and increasing importation of goods.
The UK is likely to specialise further in
knowledge-intensive services and high-tech
manufacturing. Sustainable, reliable, efcient
and resilient international end-to-end journeys
are critical to supporting the competitiveness
and productivity of the UK and attracting
inward investment into the UK. Improving the
movement of freight across its end-to-end
journey and understanding where pinch points
exist is essential to maintaining and improving
the UKs competitive position.
The Department for Transports discussion
document Towards a Sustainable Transport
System (October 2007) pointed towards
adopting a network oriented approach to
transport policy development. A key step to
achieving this is to understand journeys of
both freight and passengers from an end-to-
end perspective.
Working with key industry stakeholders,
the Department is developing a suite of
documents that analyse the end-to-end,
multi-modal journey of passengers and freight
through the UKs key international gateways
airports, ports and the Channel Tunnel.
1
This publication focuses on the movement
of containerised cargo through key UK
international gateways.
The document lays out some of the
quantitative and qualitative data collated
by DfT and our strategic partners to give a
picture of what the end-to-end supply chain
journey looks like. The data provides a series
of snapshots through the journey, rather than
a continuous assessment of an individual
containers movement.
1 Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/tasts/userexperience/
3
It also sets out the current and future
improvements that the Department and
industry partners are promoting, which will
help improve these journeys.
End-to-end case studies
2
were also published
by the Department in July 2008 in the The
logistics perspective: End-to-end journey case
studies. These are available for download on
the DfT website.
The UK ports industry is one of the
most competitive in the world. Multiple
organisations with differing responsibilities are
involved with the delivery and regulation of the
ports end-to-end journey. The extent to which
the DfT can inuence different stages of that
journey varies considerably.
This series of documents comprise the rst
step in better understanding the end-to-
end journey and user experience. Moving
forward, the Department will continue to rene
this approach in order to develop a more
systematic evaluation of end-to-end journeys
to support policy development.
Towards a Sustainable Transport System
dened transport goals, explained the actions
already being taken or planned to advance
them, and set out the approach we intend
to take for planning the additional measures
needed in 201419 and beyond. In November
2008, we published two documents;
Delivering a Sustainable Transport System
3

which sets out our latest strategic thinking,
and a Consultation on planning for 2014 and
beyond which consults on the next steps in
developing and implementing our long-term
strategic plans for transport.
For International Networks, the key goals
and challenges identied in the consultation
document are outlined in annex A. The
analysis in this document will be used to
inform the generation of options to meet the
challenges facing our international networks.
The Department would like to extend special
thanks to its strategic partners for their
cooperation and willingness to share data and
information used in this publication.
2 Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/tasts/userexperience/
3 Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/dasts/
4
2. Overview of the UK international freight market
2.1. Market Overview
Greater global economic integration and
competition place increased emphasis on the
quality of the international logistics networks,
that link the UK to the rest of the world as
other countries invest in their infrastructure
and in improving processes.
It is important that the UK has the domestic
and international transport networks that allow
rms and households to continue to make
the most of the opportunities of globalisation.
UK rms need to be able to get their goods
to market and transnational rms with part
of their supply chain in the UK need fast and
reliable logistics to integrate the different links
of the chain.
This will require continuous improvements
to ensure that logistics chains are optimised
across the full end-to-end journey.
The reduction in international shipping rates
and the trend towards larger ships means
that port operations and inland connections
become an increasingly signicant share of
overall transport costs.
Ensuring cost-competitive and reliable
connections from ports to factories and shops
is vital to ensuring the competitiveness of UK
rms, and the UK as a location for foreign
rms to do business.
The maritime industry is vital to the UK
economy. The latest gures from the British
Chamber of Shipping estimate that the UK
shipping industry directly contributed 5.2
billion to UK GDP in 2006.
UK international freight amounted to 458 million
tonnes in 2006, an increase of 82% since 1980.
Figure 1 illustrates the volume by weight and
mode of transport between 1980 and 2006.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
9
9
9
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
0
1
9
8
9
1
9
8
8
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
2
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
4
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
Sea Channel Tunnel Air
Source: Department for Transport (Sea and Channel Tunnel) and Civil Aviation Authority (Air)
Figure 1: UK international freight transported between 1980 and 2006
In 2006, about 95% of international freight
by weight was transported by sea, compared
with 4% via the Channel Tunnel and less than
0.5% by air.
5
2.2. Freight ows
Figure 2 summarises freight ows in 2007,
inwards and outwards between the UK and
key continental regions including Europe and
the Far East.
All continental regions, with the exception
of North and Central America, export more
goods to the UK than they import from the
UK. 70% of major UK port international freight
trafc by weight is to or from countries in
Europe or around the Mediterranean coast.
2.3. Freight types
There are four key methods of freight
transportation by which goods enter and leave
the UK. These are:
1 Container or lift-on lift-off (lo-lo) services:
the transport of containerised freight, which is
loaded and unloaded at gateway terminals by
cranes onto container ships and transported
by sea. Container freight is carried by either
deep-sea
5
services calling directly at the UK
from the port of origin, on short-sea
6
feeder
services carrying goods from mainland
Europe, or on freight trains through the
Channel Tunnel.
2 Roll-on roll-off (ro-ro) services: freight
units are driven on/off sea ferries, or on/
off specialised truck shuttle rail services
through the Channel Tunnel.
3 Bulk goods: the movement of either liquid
commodities (predominantly oil and fuel) or
dry solids (such as coal and aggregates).
4 Air freight: the transportation of goods
in the hold of passenger services or on
dedicated air freight services.
Source: DfT Maritime Statistics 2007
Figure 2: UK Seabourne freight: 2007 (million tonnes)
4
4 Based on UK major port trafc (97% of total trafc). Origin/destination grouping based on rst port of unloading/last port of
loading
5 Trafc between the UK and countries outside Europe and the Mediterranean.
6 Trafc between the UK and Europe and other Mediterranean countries.
6
Figure 3 illustrates UK ro-ro and container
trafc growth between 1970 and 2007.
Containerised freight has increased from 11
million to 61 million tonnes between 1970
and 2007. UK ro-ro freight has increased
even more signicantly from 6 million tonnes
in 1970 to 105 million tonnes in 2007. These
trends are set to continue. UK container
freight is forecast to grow by a further 178%
and ro-ro freight 112% by 2030
7
.
Growth in liquid and dry bulk freight
transport has grown at a more modest rate
in comparison to ro-ro and container trafc.
Dry and liquid bulk combined grew from 320
million tonnes in 1970 to 385 million tonnes in
2007.
UK air freight trafc has grown rapidly over the
last 15 years, and is now more than double
the level it was in 1991. The 2.3 million tonnes
carried by air into and out of UK airports in
2007 was an increase of 20% on the total for
1997 (CAA Airport Statistics).
Figure 4 provides a breakdown of freight type
by value for UK international cargo moving
outside the European Union.
Courtesy of DP World Southampton
7 It should be noted that all forecasts in this document were made prior to the global economic downturn.
8 From 2000 onwards, containers series shows lo-lo containers only, containers on port-to-port trailers are included in the
ro-ro series. Prior to 2000, containers on port-to-port trailers are included in containers series.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Containers Roll on, Roll off
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
1
9
7
0
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
0
1
9
8
8
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
0
1
9
7
8
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
2
Source: DfT Maritime Statistics, 2007
Figure 3: UK container and ro-ro port trafc (tonnage),
1970 to 2007
8
Bulk liquids
and solids
20%
Roll on/Roll off 7%
Lift on/Lift off
29%
Air 41%
Other
(including rail)
3%
Source: DfT derived from UK Port Demand Forecast to
2030, MDS Transmodal (MDST) for DfT (2006)
Figure 4: UK international freight types by value of
goods (excluding EU trafc), 2004
7
For UK trade outside the EU, over 96% of
freight by tonnage is transported through
our sea ports, 42% of freight by value is
transported by air.
Figure 5 provides an indication of the relative
value per tonne by freight types. Air freight
goods have an average value over 230 times
that of bulk items.
Figure 5: UK international freight types: values per
tonne (excluding EU trafc), 2004
Freight Type Value ( / Tonne)
Bulk liquids and solids 220
Lift on/Lift off 1,800
Roll on/Roll off 3,900
Air 51,400
Source: DfT derived from UK Port Demand Forecast to
2030, MDS Transmodal (MDST) for DfT (2006)
Containers typically have a lower weight
density than bulk goods, so their signicance
is understated in the standard weight-
based statistics. Moving 25 tonnes of bulk
can be done in one HGV, but 25 tonnes of
containerised goods are likely to require two
HGVs, with implications for vehicle kilometres
generated, fuel consumed and pollutants
emitted.
2.4. UK sea freight
Sea freight trafc is concentrated in a small
number of ports, with the top 15 ports (of
the approximately 120 active UK ports)
accounting for almost 80% of total UK port
trafc by tonnage.
Almost one third of all UK port tonnage goes
through the Greater South East ports those
lying between Southampton and Felixstowe.
Courtesy of Tilbury Container Services
8
The container freight end-to-end journey,
from port of origin to distribution centre,
involves the sea leg, the process in getting
through the port, and onward distribution
within the UK. This document considers each
leg of the journey in turn, identifying some
of the key performance issues and market
trends by compiling a range of qualitative
and quantitative data collected by both
the Department for Transport and external
stakeholders.
Figure 6 illustrates the stages of the container
freight end-to-end journey, highlighting the
delivery, policy and regulatory responsibilities
at each stage.
The analysis in this document examines each
of the stages in turn.
Getting to and from the port focuses on key
shipping routes to and from the UK and the
major shipping lines operating to and from the
UK, including domestic transhipments.
Getting through the port examines the
processes between berthing the vessel and
the onward distribution of the container
namely unloading the vessel, stacking
the containers, and security and customs
clearance.
Onward distribution within the UK looks at
the domestic leg of the journey by road, rail,
inland waterway, and coastal shipping.
3.1. Organisations involved in the
container end-to-end journey
Figure 7 illustrates the key organisations in
the end-to-end container supply chain from
port of origin outside the UK to a distribution
centre in the UK for a typical import journey.
The ow of a container is highlighted
alongside the typical contractual relationships
in purple.
The number of organisations involved in the
supply chain has decreased in recent years
due to market consolidation among shipping
lines with several shipping lines now offering a
complete origin-to-destination service.
However, for most journeys, the distribution
chain consists of multiple organisations which
3. The container freight end-to-end journey
Source: Department for Transport, 2008
Figure 6: The container freight end to-end journey
9
in turn creates challenges for optimising the
supply chain from end-to-end to ensure the
efcient movement of goods.
In most major ports the terminal operator acts
as the terminal stevedore.
Terminal
stevedore
Shipping line
Terminal
Operator
Shipping line
Road haulage
Rail operator
HMRC
Distribution
centre
Freight
forwarder
SEA/PORT LEG LAND LEG
Information Flow Container Flow
Figure 7: Organisations involved in the container end-to-end journey
10
4.1. I ntroduction
Container freight transport or containerisation
is the movement of goods in standardised
shipping containers that are loaded onto
container ships, road trucks and rail wagons.
Dedicated container vessels were rst
introduced in the late 1960s when the
container shipping and ports industry realised
the vast potential of the container transport
method. Huge investment was made into
vessels, container terminals and onward
haulage methods which continues today. As
standards in container size and xings were
adopted, containerisation enabled a revolution
in freight shipping transport.
The container freight market has undergone
rapid growth and signicant changes over the
past decade. Transporting goods by container
has become an increasingly inexpensive
method of moving freight.
4.2. Growth in container freight
Figure 8 illustrates the growth in the worldwide
container market between 1996 and 2007 in
both TEU
9
and tonnage terms.
In 1996 332 million tonnes of goods were
transported in 42 million TEU of containers
worldwide. In 2007 these gures had
increased signicantly to 828 million tonnes
of goods transported in 118 million TEU,
representing a year-on-year growth of circa
9% between 1996 and 2007.
A wide range of factors is responsible for
this growth in the containerisation market.
Increase in world trade and GDP have
augmented the requirement for import
and export of goods. The standardised
format of container transport has enabled
increased economies of scale in shipping
and discharging, lowering costs of importing
and exporting goods. Furthermore, lower
manufacturing costs in China and India have
contributed to a surge in container trade from
the Far East to the West, although this has
seen signicant slowing in recent months due
to the global economic decline.
The sea leg cost of shipping a container has
reduced to as little as one tenth of the cost in
1996 per TEU for a typical route from the Far
East to Northern Europe. This has contributed
to an increase in the containerised shipping
of lower value goods, further increasing the
volume of container trade.
4. Overview of the international container freight market
Courtesy of Port of Felixstowe
9 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) is a unit of measurement equivalent to one 20-foot container.
11
Exports from China to Europe and the US
have been a driving factor behind the growth
in containerised trade in recent years. In 2007
the Port of Shanghai increased operations by
4.4 million TEU to 26.2 million, equivalent to
a growth of 1.3 times the size of the Port of
Felixstowe in one year alone.
To handle the expected continued increase
in container trafc worldwide, capacity will
need to increase. It is estimated that a further
85 million TEU of capacity will need to be
offered by 2010, corresponding worldwide
to 65km of new quays from total quay length
in 2006, although this is subject to global
market conditions and the current economic
downturn.
Figure 9 illustrates the growth in the UK
lo-lo container market between 1988 and
2007. Trafc has increased from 2.4 million
containers (3.6 million TEU) in 1988 to 5.4
million containers (8.9 million TEU) in 2007, at
an average rate of 4% containers (5% TEU)
per annum.
4.3. Container growth forecasts to
2030
Container trafc in the UK is forecast to
increase, on average, by around 4% per
annum between 2005 and 2030. This is
T
o
n
n
e
s

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
)
Tonnes TEU
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
T
E
U

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Source: MDSTransmodal, 2007
Figure 8: Worldwide contanerised loaded maritime TEU, 19962007
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r

u
n
i
t
s

(
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
1
9
8
8
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
5
Source: DfT Maritme Statistics 2007
Figure 9: Growth in UK lo-lo container freight 1988
2007 (million units)
12
less than the 6% growth forecast globally,
predominantly as a result of higher growth
rates in Asia.
An increase in transport of goods by container
that were not historically containerised and
the trend towards increased numbers of 40
long, 96 high containers (from 20 length)
contribute to this growth.
Figure 10 forecasts trade in TEU between
world regions and the UK. Trade with East
Asia dominates, with an increase in TEU from
2.7 million in 2004 to 8.8 million in 2030,
accounting for 44% of total UK container
trade.
NW Europe Mediterranean E Europe Africa excl Med N America
C&S America W Asia E Asia Oceania
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2004 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
T
r
a
d
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

U
K

a
n
d

w
o
r
l
d

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

(
0
0
0

T
E
U
)
Figure 10: Forecast containerised trafc, 20042030, by World Region (000s TEU)
Courtesy of Maersk
13
4.4. Worldwide container ows
Figure 11 shows approximate container ow
volumes along major trade lanes between
world regions. Trade routes with over one
million TEU are illustrated on the map in
Figure 12. This indicates the scale of
worldwide trade to/from the Far East. 86% of
all worldwide trade container trade is to, from
or within the Far East.
Australasia &
Oceania
655 37 1,413 217 27 75 297 224 10 2,955
East and
Southern Africa
44 202 270 213 26 143 112 387 95 1,492
Far East 1,722 1,139 24,072 5,561 2,446 4,558 14,498 10,146 654 64,795
Gulf & ISC 100 265 1,195 1,425 61 937 750 1,596 153 6,483
Latin America 50 128 911 317 1,274 901 2,834 1,749 233 8,398
Mediterranean 135 173 914 1,055 393 1,369 1,348 1,286 218 6,891
North America 207 172 4,213 773 1,898 813 776 1,898 38 10,789
North West
Europe
301 550 3,710 1,638 808 1,474 3,498 2,569 461 15,008
West Africa 1 21 103 122 11 94 42 269 80 743
Total
3,216 2,686 36,802 11,321 6,943 10,366 24,155 20,123 1,942 117,554
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
a
s
i
a

&

O
c
e
a
n
i
a
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
E
a
s
t

a
n
d

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

A
f
r
i
c
a
N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
F
a
r

E
a
s
t
N
o
r
t
h

W
e
s
t

E
u
r
o
p
e
G
u
l
f

&

I
S
C
W
e
s
t

A
f
r
i
c
a
L
a
t
i
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

T
o
t
a
l
Figure 11: Container trade between world regions (thousand TEU)
Figure 12: Shipping route container ows greater than 1 million TEU (million TEU)
14
Internationally terminal operators have
experienced a level of consolidation, so
that more terminals are operated by fewer
organisations. This consolidation is illustrated
in Figure 13. In 2003, the top four worldwide
terminal operators in 2008 owned 24% of all
terminals by TEU. By 2008 this had increased
to a 34% market share.
4.5. European and UK port trafc
The UK is home to Europes sixth (Felixstowe)
and eleventh (Southampton) largest container
ports. Rotterdam is the biggest container
port in Europe with 9.6 million TEU of trade in
2006.
In 2006, the total European
10
container trafc
was 74 million TEU. The three largest ports
in Europe (Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp)
constitute 34% this total.
Figure 14 illustrates the largest 20 container
ports. UK ports are denoted in red.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Hutchison
Port
Holdings
28.6 32.0 34.0 30.5 35.5 40.9
PSA
International
24.8 28.5 32.4 44.5 51.4 59.2
APM
Terminals
16.8 20.6 24.1 29.4 37.2 43.0
DP World 5.8 9.1 9.9 25.7 28.6 33.2
Top four
operators
76.0 90.1 100.0 130.0 153.0 176.0
Share of
total market
24% 25% 25% 29% 32% 34%
Figure 13: Worldwide container terminal ownership
(million TEU)
Source: Hercules Haralambides The Role of Ports as
Potential Bottlenecks in Global Supply Chains,
Erasmus University Rotterdam
R
o
t
t
e
r
d
a
m

(
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
)
H
a
m
b
u
r
g

(
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
)
A
n
t
w
e
r
p

(
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
)
B
r
e
m
e
n

&

B
r
e
m
e
r
h
a
v
e
n

(
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
)
A
l
g
e
r
c
i
r
a
s

(
S
p
a
i
n
)
F
e
l
i
x
s
t
o
w
e

(
U
K
)
G
i
o
i
a

T
a
u
r
o

(
I
t
a
l
y
)
B
a
r
c
e
l
o
n
a

(
S
p
a
i
n
)
V
a
l
e
n
c
i
a

(
S
p
a
i
n
)
L
e

H
a
v
r
e

(
F
r
a
n
c
e
)
S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

(
U
K
)
P
i
r
e
u
s

(
G
r
e
e
c
e
)
L
a

S
p
e
z
i
a

(
I
t
a
l
y
)
G
e
n
o
v
a

(
I
t
a
l
y
)
M
a
r
s
e
i
l
l
e

(
F
r
a
n
c
e
)
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
a

(
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
)
L
a
s

P
a
l
m
a
s

(
S
p
a
i
n
)
G
o
t
h
e
n
b
u
r
g

(
S
w
e
d
e
n
)
Z
e
e
b
r
u
g
g
e

(
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
)
B
i
l
b
a
o

(
S
p
a
i
n
)
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

T
E
U
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Figure 14: Europes 20 largest container ports by throughput
10 27 countries in the EU plus Norway and Croatia.
15
Figure 15 shows the market share for the
movement of containerised goods of the
largest container ports. This includes both
international and domestic movements.
Southampton and Felixstowe dominate
container trafc in the UK.
Figure 16 shows that Felixstowe and
Southampton account for 59% of container
trade in the UK. The top ve UK ports account
for 83% of all and 99% of deep-sea UK
container trafc.
Figure 15: Key container ports in Great Britain total
container movements, 2007
Domestic Short-sea Deep-sea All routes
% share of all
routes
Felixstowe 93 692 2,275 3,343 38
Southampton 53 170 1,574 1,869 21
London - 526 310 844 10
Liverpool 53 274 344 675 8
Medway 2 32 423 519 6
Hull 11 293 - 304 3
Belfast 92 172 - 264 3
Forth 76 180 - 256 3
Tees and Hartlepool 14 132 7 154 2
Grimsby and Immingham 9 134 1 144 2
Bristol 1 56 28 85 1
Portsmouth 28 14 35 77 1
Clyde 8 68 76 1
Goole 63 - 63 1
Figure 16: Container trafc by port (thousand TEU)
16
Figure 17 illustrates this share by the top 12
UK ports. Felixstowe, Southampton, London
and Liverpool ports handle over three quarters
of all UK container trade.
Figure 18 illustrates the top 12 UK container
ports shipping origins and destinations
by domestic, EU countries, other short-
sea countries and deep-sea countries all
measured in TEU.
Felixstowe and Southampton combined
handled 75% of all deep-sea container cargo
and 57% of all container trafc departing from
and arriving to the UK in 2007. These ports
have the terminal capacity to accommodate
the largest vessels and are closer to the
prime Asia/North West Europe shipping route,
making them attractive destinations to vessels
calling from the East to Northern Europe.
Figure 19 shows the weight of containerised
goods loaded and unloaded in the UK
in 2007, including both international and
domestic trafc. The UK is a net importer
of containerised goods, importing over 35
million tonnes in 2007 and exporting 22 million
tonnes. As a result 53% of containers leaving
the UK in 2007 were empty, compared with
5% of those entering the country.
Felixstowe
37%
Southampton
21%
Liverpool 8%
Belfast 3%
Hull 3%
Medway 6%
Other
major ports
9%
London 10%
Forth 3%
9.7 million TEU
Figure 17: Container trafc UK share by top 8 ports
F
e
l
i
x
s
t
o
w
e
S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
L
o
n
d
o
n
L
i
v
e
r
p
o
o
l
M
e
d
w
a
y
H
u
l
l
B
e
l
f
a
s
t
T
e
e
s

&

H
a
r
t
l
e
p
o
o
l
F
o
r
t
h
G
r
i
m
s
b
y

&

I
m
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
B
r
i
s
t
o
l
P
o
r
t
s
m
o
u
t
h
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

T
E
U
Domestic
EU countries
All other short-sea countries
All deep-sea countries
Figure 18: Top 12 UK container ports trade by world region
17
4.6. Types of container
The main types of standard containers in use
internationally are shown in Figure 20. There
are other container sizes, including 30, but
the below comprise the majority of containers.
Figure 21 illustrates trends in container sizes to
and from the UK between 2000 and 2007. In 2000
4.5 million TEU of 40 containers were imported
and exported to/from the UK. This gure had
increased to 6.2 million in 2007, representing an
increase from 67% to 69% of overall TEU.
45 high-cube containers increased in share
from 2% in 2000 to 8% in 2007, or from
149,000 TEU to 750,000 TEU.
There are other types of specialised container
as follows:
Refrigerated or reefer containers are used
for the transportation of temperature-sensitive
cargo. They require an external power supply
when held on land, or can be powered by
diesel powered generators whilst on road.
Open-top containers are tted with either a
solid or tarpaulin removable roof to enable
loading and unloading from above.
Bulk containers, or bulktainers are used for
transportation of free-owing dry cargo which
is loaded and unloaded through a hatch in the
roof of the container.
C
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r

u
n
i
t
s

(
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
Imports
Foreign
Exports
Domestic
Outwards Inwards
Figure 19: UK major ports foreign and domestic
container trafc
2000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2001 2003
n 20 Containers n 40 Containers n Containers > 40
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

T
E
U
Figure 21: UK ports container size 20002007
11
Length
(feet)
Width
(feet)
Height
(feet)
Twenty-
foot
equivalent
units
(TEUs)
20 8ft 8ft 6in 9ft 6in 1
40 8ft 8ft 6in 9ft 6in 2
45 8ft 8ft 6in 9ft 6in 2.25
Figure 20: Types of container
11 There are also a small number of containers sized between 20 and 40, which have been excluded from this graph.
18
4.7. Commodities transported by
container
Shipping lines are required to declare the
contents of all containers arriving and
departing to/from the UK to HMRC when the
goods have originated from or are destined for
outside the EU.
Figure 22 uses data from HMRCs CHIEF
12

database to illustrate the commodities
imported and exported to/from the UK to/
from non-EU countries. Manufactured goods
account for 27% of all UK imports.
6.6 million tonnes of food and beverage goods
were imported by container from non-EU
countries in 2007, and 1.3 million tonnes from
EU countries in 2007, totalling nearly 8 million
tonnes of food and beverage imports. This
equates to one tonne of food and beverages
for every eight people in the UK.
Figure 23 illustrates the top UK container
imports from the EU. Food, live animals and
beverages account for 19%.
Food and Live
Animals 19%
Chemicals
8%
Fuels and
lubricants 5%
Beverages and
Tobacco 4%
Crude Materials
including (waste
paper and scrap
metal) 10%
Machinery and
transport
equipment
11%
Manufactured
Goods 27%
Miscellaneous
manufactured
articles 16%
Animal, vegetable
oils, fats and
waxes 0.1%
25.4 million tonnes
Source: HM Revenue and Customs CHIEF database, 2007
Figure 22: UK container imports from non-EU countries
(tonnes)
12 CHIEF (Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight) is the main system used by HMRC for processing import and export
declarations.
Courtesy of Teesport
Food and Live
Animals 17%
Chemicals
21%
Beverages and
Tobacco 2%
Crude Materials
including (waste
paper and scrap
metal) 15%
Machinery
and transport
equipment 5%
Manufactured
Goods 37%
Miscellaneous
manufactured
articles 3%
Animal, vegetable
oils, fats and
waxes 0.2%
6.6 million tonnes
Source: MDS Transmodal: Great Britain Freight Model, 2007
Figure 23: Estimated GB container imports from EU
countries (tonnes)
19
Figure 24 illustrates container exports to
non-EU countries by weight. Waste products
account for 41% of all exports, with pulp and
waste paper making up 28% and ores and
scrap materials a further 13%.
Figure 25 illustrates container exports to EU
countries. Manufactured goods comprise
the largest proportion of exports, with 35%,
chemicals constitute a further 23% of exports.
Food and Live Animals 7%
Chemicals
15%
Fuels and
lubricants 4%
Beverages and
Tobacco 5%
Crude Materials
including (waste
paper and scrap
metal) 41%
Machinery and
transport equipment
9%
Manufactured
Goods 16%
Miscellaneous
manufactured
articles 3%
Animal, vegetable
oils, fats and
waxes 0.1%
13.4 million tonnes
Source: HM Revenue and Customs CHIEF database, 2007
Figure 24: UK container exports to non-EU countries
(tonnes)
Food and Live Animals 7%
Chemicals
23%
Beverages and
Tobacco 1%
Crude Materials
including (waste
paper and scrap
metal) 27%
Machinery and transport
equipment 6%
Manufactured
Goods 35%
Miscellaneous
manufactured
articles 1%
Animal, vegetable
oils, fats and
waxes 0.3%
3.3 million tonnes
Source: MDS Transmodal: Great Britain Freight Model, 2007
Figure 25: Estimated GB container exports to EU
countries (tonnes)
This section sets out some of the key data for
the sea leg of the end-to-end journey.
Figure 26 illustrates the key European
shipping routes, gateway ports, transhipment
ports and core logistics regions. The
importance of the UKs South East ports is
illustrated by the proximity of Felixstowe and
Southampton to the major shipping lanes.
Figures 27 and 28 illustrate inwards and
outwards trade of containers between the UK
and world regions and domestically. Container
trade between the UK and mainland Europe
accounts for the highest proportion of trade.
20
Getting to and from the port Getting through the port Onward distribution within the UK
5. Getting to and from the port
Figure 26: Key European ports, shipping routes and
inland regions
Figure 27: Container freight movement to/from UK (TEU), 2007
124
109
UK Domestic
Africa
Australasia &
Polynesia
North & Central
America
To UK
From UK
246
261
56
19
373
306
147
108
South America
Europe
Asia
1,377
1,562
2121
1634
21
5.1. Container ship capacity
Container ships vary in size, some serving
major ports have capacities exceeding 10,000
TEU whereas others built for feeder service
(i.e. serving smaller ports from a major port)
have capacities of 500 TEU or less.
The largest container ships are only able to
dock at ports with sufcient draft clearance
and navigable width. Gantry cranes with the
largest reach are also required to discharge
containers from the widest ships.
The Emma Maersk is the largest container
vessel currently in operation. She has a
length of 400m, beam of 56m, has a dry
weight tonne capacity of 157,000 tonnes
(approximately 11,000 TEU of containers)
and has a draft of 15.5m. Felixstowe and
Southampton are the only UK ports capable
of handling the Emma Maersk.
Figure 29 illustrates the growth in the number
and size of container ships since 1995. In
1995 there were 463 panamax
13
container
vessels with a total of 1.3 million TEU,
representing 2,900 TEU per vessel. The full
container eet in 1995 was 1,329 vessels, with
a capacity of 2.8 million TEU.
In 2008 there were 1,768 container vessels,
comprising 8.4 million TEU, an average of
4,700 TEU per vessel.
Figure 30 illustrates the growth in standard
container ships over the past forty years.
Todays largest vessels are able to carry twice
as many TEU as the largest ships in operation
only ten years ago.
The pace of container growth coupled with
the underlying trend of increasingly large
vessels has encouraged port operators to
Inwards Outwards
Asia 2121 1634
Europe 1377 1562
North & Central America 373 306
UK domestic trafc 246 261
South America 147 108
Africa 124 109
Australasia & Polynesia
56 19
Figure 28: Container freight movement to/from UK
(Thousand TEU), 2007
Courtesy of Maersk
13 Panamax vessels have a beam of around 32.3 metres, the widest able to negotiate existing Panama locks.
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
5
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
T
o
t
a
l

T
E
U
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
T
o
t
a
l

V
e
s
s
e
l
s
Total Vessels
Total TEU
Source: MDS-Transmodal Containership Databank, 2008
Figure 29: Number of container vessels worldwide
22
plan for vessel sizes which are currently
not operational in order to future proof
investments for potential larger ships.
The diagram denotes the maximum draft
clearance of main terminals at a range of
ports worldwide and in the UK. This indicates
that the next generation of container ships
will be unable to call at some UK ports
without development to increase draft
clearance.
Erasmus University Rotterdam has undertaken
analysis into optimum container ship sizes,
based on shipping costs and port costs and
suggest that there is an optimum container
ship size. Figure 31 is one of the outputs of
this study.
While the specics are open to academic
debate, the study highlights that while
shipping costs per TEU decrease through
economies of scale as ships get larger, port
costs increase due to higher handling fees,
the requirement for the vessel to remain
berthed in the port for longer and the cost
of infrastructure to support the vessels
increases.
Figure 30: Container ship sizes and port draft clearance
23
The analysis points to a generalised optimum
ship size which takes into account both
shipping and port costs, which they estimate
to be around 8,000 TEU. This model is
simplied and there are many other variables
which factor into the overall cost, however
it demonstrates the aspects that both port
operators and shipping lines take into
account when planning and the difculties of
optimising operations across the supply chain.
The benets of economies of scale from
increasingly large ships are also tempered by
the operational costs of running the vessels.
For example, a vessel over approximately
400m would require a second engine to
generate the required propulsion, signicantly
increasing fuel costs.
5.2. Shipping lines
The container ship industry has experienced
considerable consolidation in recent years.
In 2000, the top ten global shipping lines
collectively handled 37% of total TEU
transported. In 2006, the top ten lines handled
65% of the total annual TEU transported.
Figure 32 illustrates this consolidation since
1980 between the top 20 shipping lines and
terminal operators. The top 20 shipping lines
have increased market share from 26% in
1980 to 81% in 2007.
Generalised
costs
Economies of
scale in shipping
Port costs and
diseconomies
of scale
S
h
i
p
p
i
n
g

C
o
s
t
s

p
e
r

T
E
U
~8,000TEU Ship size
P
o
r
t

C
o
s
t
s

p
e
r

T
E
U
Source: Erasmus University Rotterdam
Figure 31: Optimum container ship sizes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 2007
Top 20 shipping lines share of TEU capacity
Top 20 terminal operators share of throughput
S
h
a
r
e

o
f

T
E
U

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
55%
81%
42%
26%
Source: Notteboom, 2008
Figure 32: Consolidation in the container shipping
industry
Courtesy of Ace Stock Limited/Alamy
24
The top 20 terminal operators handled 42% of
the total throughput in 1980 and 55% in 2007.
Figure 33 shows the top ten worldwide
container ship carriers in 2008 by TEU.
Maersk and MSC combined have a 41%
share of the total top ten shipping lines by
TEU.
Courtesy Maersk
Current Ships
Current
Shipboard slots
(thousand TEU
Ships on order
(thousand TEU
TOTAL
(thousand TEU)
%
1 Maersk Line 563 1,913 410 2,323 23%
2 MSC 412 1,335 448 1,783 18%
3 CMA-CGM 373 939 540 1,479 15%
4 Evergreen 180 631 4 635 6%
5 Hapag-Lloyd 126 479 105 584 6%
6 Coscon 137 477 437 914 9%
7 APL 123 442 133 575 6%
8 NYK 131 419 151 570 6%
9 CSCL 104 402 185 587 6%
10 Mitsui OSK 111 371 174 545 5%
TOTAL 2,260 7,408 2,587 9,995 100%
Figure 33: Top ten container lines by slot capacity deployed
25
Figure 34 illustrates the number of worldwide
vessels by size and the trends in growth
between 1995 and 2008.
The number of new post-Panamax
14
vessels
by TEU was approximately 55,000
in 2007 and 100,000 in 2008. There are an
estimated 442,000 TEU of new post-Panamax
vessels currently on order worldwide, further
demonstrating the trend towards larger ships.
5.3. Shipping routes
Shipping lines determine the
most protable routes based
upon a range of factors including
connections offered by the port,
capacity for deep-sea vessels and
volume of trade opportunities at
each port determined by client
demand.
Figure 35 shows journeys, or
loops, operated by shipping
lines on the dominant East Asia to
Europe route, including the number
of port calls in Asia and Europe.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 On
order
TEU Panamax TEU Post Panamax TEU New post Panamax
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

T
E
U
Figure 34: Total TEU capacity of container ships
15
14 New post-panamax vessels have a length greater than 366 metres and a beam greater than 49 metres.
15 Post-panamax vessels have a beam greater than 32.3 metres but less than 49 metres.
Courtesy of Hoberman Collection UK/Alamy
26
Transit times between the UK and Far East
ports vary based on the number and order
of ports called en route. Typically it can take
around 25 days to import a container from
Shanghai to Felixstowe but up to 40 days to
export to Shanghai due to the order of port
calls en route. A typical transit from Singapore
to Felixstowe takes around 25 days.
Once the container arrives in the port, the free
time grace period, where ports allow lines to
hold containers free of charge in the dock, can
last up to ve days, depending upon the port
of arrival and the shipping line transporting the
container. An onward distribution leg of one
to two days, from a total of around 35 days
to transport a container from Shanghai to
Felixstowe can therefore constitute less than
5% of the overall end-to-end journey.
The volatility of the price of oil has an
impact on transit times. Some shipping
lines responded to the high price of oil by
slowing the speed of the vessels (slow-
steaming) to reduce fuel-burn. As fuel costs
have decreased in recent months this is
less prevalent, although remains a method
adopted by some lines.
Source: Notteboom, 2005
Figure 35: Selected loops on the Asia Europe route
Operator
Loop name
No. of
vessels
No of port
calls
Asian port of
call
European
port of call
Grand Alliance
EUR 1 8 9 5 4
EUR 2 8 9 5 4
EUR 3 7 7 4 3
EUR 4 8 8 5 3
EUR 5 9 12 8 4
New World Alliance
Asia Europe Express 8 11 7 4
Japan Europe Express 8 10 6 4
China Europe Express 8 9 6 3
South China Europe
Express
7 7 4 3
MSC
Silk Express 10 10 6 4
Lion Service 10 11 8 3
Evergreen CEM Service 8 9 5 4
CMA-CGM
FAL Service 8 10 5 5
North China Express 8 11 6 5
Sunda Express 7 8 3 5
CKHYS alliance
China Europe Service 8 11 7 4
China Europe Express
Service
8 9 6 3
Japan Express Service 8 10 6 4
Maersk
AE1 8 12 7 5
AE2 9 14 9 5
AE7 8 12 7 5
China Shipping
AEX1 8 8 4 4
AEX2 8 17 11 6
Average 8 10 6 4
27
5.4. Transhipment
Container trafc falls into one of two
categories: direct call and transhipment.
Direct call trafc travels from the port of origin
to the port of destination without the goods
changing ship en route.
Transhipment trafc calls at an intermediate
port en route to its ultimate destination and
is discharged and reloaded onto a secondary
vessel for nal shipping. This serves as a
more cost-effective way for shipping lines to
maintain long-distance, deep-sea operations
of their largest vessels, and allows containers
to be shipped, by smaller vessels, to ports
incapable of handling the largest ships due to
draft clearance or operational constraints.
Shipping lines tend to call at ports in the
South East of England due to their proximity
to the Northern Europe shipping lanes. In
order to maximise productivity and turnaround
times the largest vessels will seek to call at
ports with minimum deviation from the global
shipping lane. In the UK this has been a key
factor in the emergence of Felixstowe and
Southampton as the largest UK container
ports.
There are multiple market factors which
inuence transhipment activity. UK customers
(e.g. retailers and goods owners) tend to
dislike transhipments, because it creates an
additional leg in the journey that is avoidable
and can drive costs up and reliability down.
North West Europe has a number of ports
available to shipping lines, enabling a choice
as to which port to call before transhipping.
Typically a vessel will call at up to four ports
Rotterdam (or Antwerp), Hamburg (or
Bremerhaven), Felixstowe (or Southampton)
and, say, Le Havre. Transhipment to smaller
ports can take place from any one of these.
With sufcient capacity, UK ports would
have the ability to compete in the European
transhipment market. Transhipments between
Europe and the UK also serve a distinct market
that is not always tied to Far East trade.
Figure 36 below shows the growth in
transhipment trafc to 2006 and forecast
growth to 2011.
Courtesy of Roland Shaw/Alamy
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

T
E
U
2
0
0
8

2
0
0
9

2
0
1
0

2
0
1
1

1
9
9
6

1
9
9
7

1
9
9
8

1
9
9
9

2
0
0
3

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
4

2
0
0
1

2
0
0
0

2
0
0
7

2
0
0
6

2
0
0
5

Source: MDS Transmodal, 2006
Figure 36: Global transhipment trafc 1996 2011
28
Figure 37 illustrates transhipment volumes at
seven major European transhipment ports,
and Figure 38 illustrates transhipments as a
percentage of overall trafc at the same ports,
in 1994, 1999 and 2004.
Hamburg, Rotterdam and Antwerp have all
experienced large growth in transhipment
trafc between 1994 and 2004. Transhipments
at Antwerp have increased from 400,000
TEU in 1994 to 1.5 million TEU in 2004
representing 24% of overall trade.
Similarly, the port of Hamburg has increased
transhipments from 1 million TEU to 2.6
million TEU representing 37% of overall trade.
Felixstowe, by contrast, has decreased
transhipment trade from 700,000 TEU in 1994
to 300,000 TEU in 2004, a decrease from 33%
in 1999 to 13% in 2004 of overall trade.
The decrease of UK transhipments at
Felixstowe is a consequence of the increased
import demand to the UK. As import demand
has grown, transhipments have been replaced
by direct deep-sea vessels.
R
o
t
t
e
r
d
a
m
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
A
n
t
w
e
r
p
B
r
e
m
e
n

&

B
r
e
m
e
r
h
a
v
e
n
F
e
l
i
x
s
t
o
w
e
L
e

H
a
v
r
e
Z
e
e
b
r
u
g
g
e
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1994 1999 2004
T
r
a
n
s
h
i
p
m
e
n
t

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

(
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

T
E
U
)
Figure 37: Transhipments at major European ports
(TEU)
R
o
t
t
e
r
d
a
m

H
a
m
b
u
r
g

A
n
t
w
e
r
p

B
r
e
m
e
n

&

B
r
e
m
e
r
h
a
v
e
n

F
e
l
i
x
s
t
o
w
e

L
e

H
a
v
r
e

Z
e
e
b
r
u
g
g
e

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
%

o
f

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
40%
1994 1999 2004
Figure 38: Transhipments at major European ports (%
of total TEU)
29
6.1. Terminal operators
Figure 39 illustrates the terminal operators of
the twelve largest UK container ports in TEU
terms. This includes London Gateway,
a container terminal which is currently under
construction but is expected to commence
initial operations in 2011.
6. Getting through the port
Figure 39: UK port terminal operators
Port Terminal Operator
Approximate thousand
TEU handled per annum
Felixstowe Hutchison Port Holdings 3,340
Southampton DP World (51%) Associated British Ports (49%) 1,870
Tilbury
Tilbury Container Services: DP World (34%) ABP (33%)
Forth Ports (33%)
Tilbury Short-sea terminal: Forth Ports
820
Liverpool Mersey Docks and Harbour Company 680
Medway (Thamesport) Port of Sheerness 520
Hull Associated British Ports 300
Belfast Belfast Trust Port 260
Forth Forth Ports PLC 260
Teesport Babcock & Brown Infrastructure 150
Grimsby & Immingham Associated British Ports 140
Bristol Bristol Port Company 90
London Gateway DP World n/a
6.2. Container ports summary
The following provides a short prole of the
ten largest English container ports.
6.2.1. Bristol
Bristol port is served by two lock systems,
which separately provide access to Royal
Portbury and Avonmouth docks. Royal
Portbury Lock has a draught clearance of
14.5m and can accommodate vessels of
maximum size 300m length and 41m width.
Avonmouth Lock has a draught clearance
of 11.0m and can accommodate vessels of
maximum size 210m length and 30m width.
Collectively these provide over 35 berths, the
largest of which are at Royal Portbury Dock.
Source: The Bristol Port Company
Figure 40: Bristol port plan
30
An application has been made to the DfT for
a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) to enable
construction of a new container terminal.
6.2.2. Felixstowe
The Port of Felixstowe is the UKs largest
container port with an annual capacity of
approximately 3.3 million TEU. The main
navigation channel is dredged to 14.5m with
a maximum depth of 15m alongside the quay,
sufcient to accommodate post-Panamax
vessels.
The port has two container terminals named
Trinity and Languard with a combined area of
143 hectares.
Trinity Terminal has one of Europes longest
continuous quays, at 2,350 metres. The
Terminal has seven deep-water berths, varying
in depth from 11.6 metres to 15 metres. The
terminal has a capacity of approximately
97,000 TEU.
Languard Terminal consists of 550m of quay, at
a maximum depth of 11.9m, and is capable of
handling 450,000 TEU per year.
6.2.3. Grimsby and Immingham
Grimsby and Immingham ports are located on
south bank of the Humber estuary, the busiest
shipping estuary in the UK. Container trafc
is mostly through feeder vessels to mainland
Europe (the port of Rotterdam is less than
200 miles from the Humber). Immingham is
the UKs busiest port in terms of tonnage,
handling chiey bulk freight.
6.2.4. Hull
The Port of Hull is located on the north bank
of the River Humber. Regular short-sea
services operate to Europe, Scandinavia and
the Baltic states.
Hulls container trafc is handled primarily
at Queen Elizabeth Dock by Hull Container
Terminal, which handles around 300,000
TEUs per year for operators such as Samskip,
EuroAfrica Shipping Lines, Bulcon, OOCL
and Finnlines. The terminal provides 300m
of quay, enabling three vessels to be berthed
simultaneously.
6.2.5. Liverpool
The Port of Liverpool handled approximately
613,000 TEU of containerised cargo in 2006.
The location is suited to serving the Americas
and it handles more container units to America
than any other port in the UK.
31
6.3.2. Medway
Medway Ports is the Port of Sheerness and
Chatham Docks. It is part of Peel Ports, the
UKs second largest port group and has
annual capacity of 520,000 TEU. Medway is
located at the conuence of the River Medway
and the Thames.
The Port of Sheerness has nine berths, six
with ro-ro facilities. Chatham has eight berths,
a total length of 1,200m and four ro-ro ramps.
6.2.7. Southampton
Southampton port is operated by DP World
Southampton and is the second largest
container operation in the UK.
The container terminal sits on over 86
hectares of operational land, with 1,350 m of
continuous quay, and a ve berth quay able to
accommodate vessels up to 150 m in length.
During 2007, DP World Southampton increased
its terminal footprint by 23.5 additional acres
with an additional 15 straddle carriers and two
super post-panamax gantry cranes each with
an outreach of 22 containers wide.
Courtesy of Peel Ports Group
Courtesy of DP World Southampton Source: Medway Ports
Figure 41: Medway Port
32
6.2.8. Teesport
Teesport, operated by PD Ports handled
133,000 TEU of containerised cargo in 2006.
The majority of the Ports container trafc
is handled at Teesport Container Terminal,
located on the South bank of the River Tees
adjacent to Tees Dock.
PD Ports has invested in a second facility
known as TCT2. Opened in Autumn 2003,
Phase 1 of this new facility operates with
two wide span gantry cranes each capable
of operating in excess of 30 moves per hour.
TCT2 offers two berths of 10.9m depth,
coupled with the crane out-reach of 32.5m
allowing the handling of 13 boxes across.
6.2.9. Tilbury
Tilburys Freeport status encompasses the
entire 325 hectares (800 acres) of the Port of
Tilbury complex. Tilbury Container Services
is jointly owned by three of the largest port
operators; DP World, Associated British Ports
and Forth Ports. It is the only direct access
deep-sea terminal within the port of London.
The entrance lock is 305m long and 34m
wide, with a depth of 7.3m. The largest
vessels usually acceptable are 262m in length,
beam up to 32m and draught of 11.4m. The
Port consists of 34 operational berths, over
7.5km of quay.
6.3. UK container port capacity
Port capacity is a function of a range of
variables including the number and length
of available berths, draft clearance
16
, crane
performance and yard space.
Berth capacity, ship size and the volume of
container trafc to load and unload determine
the number of ships that can be processed
through the port during the course of a day.
These factors affect the ports ability to berth
different sizes of vessel (larger vessels require
longer berths and deeper draft clearance),
and how quickly and efciently vessels can be
serviced when they arrive.
A number of UK port expansion schemes are
at various stages of development and, if they
proceed, will provide signicant additional
capacity. The projects are shown in Figure 39,
which outlines where potential future capacity
will emerge to meet the rising demand.
Opening dates and TEU capacities are best
estimates only. Delivery of additional capacity
will depend on many factors, including
progress with statutory procedures and
market conditions.
16 The maximum water-depth of the terminal facility
33
In 2006 the Department undertook a review
of ports policy for England and Wales and
published an Interim Report in July 2007. This
conrmed the Governments commitment
to a thriving market-oriented ports sector.
Following the successful passage of the
Planning Bill through Parliament in November
2008, the intention is to consult during 2009
on a draft National Policy Statement on ports.
Figure 42 shows the notional capacity plotted
against forecast demand. This is indicative
only as phasing and scheme development
details and timescales are subject to change.
Forecasts in the short-term are also inuenced
by the global economic conditions.
Demand has been calculated by estimating a
growth in UK container trade between 3% and
4% per annum based on MDS Transmodals
forecasts, 2006/07. This has been aggregated
to a low and high forecast, with a variance of
5% above and below the forecast.
Eddington stressed the importance, for transport
infrastructure generally, of making best use of
existing facilities. It is in each port operators
interest to seek to operate its existing terminals
at an efcient capacity utilisation rate before
engaging in costly new investment. At the same
time, there is a national interest in resilience
and, of course, in environmental protection. The
ports NPS will guide the Infrastructure Planning
Port
Additional Capacity
(Million TEU per
annum)
Development Stage
Estimated opening
date
Owner
London Gateway
Phase 1
0.7
Preparatory works
started
201011 DP World
London Gateway
Phase 2
2.8
Cleared to proceed,
not yet started
2017 DP World
Felixstowe South
Phase 1
0.7 Construction started 2010 Hutchison Ports UK
Felixstowe South
Phase 2
0.9
Cleared to proceed,
not yet started
2014 Hutchison Ports UK
Bathside Bay (Port
of Felixstowe)
1.7
Approved, pending
Harbour Revision
Order
2017 Hutchison Ports UK
Mersey 0.5
Cleared to proceed,
not yet started
2011 Peel Ports LTD
Teesport Phase 1 0.7
Cleared to proceed,
not yet started
2011 PD Teesport
Teesport Phase 2 0.8
Cleared to proceed,
not yet started
2014 PD Teesport
Bristol Port Phase 1
(if consented)
0.5
Application
outstanding
2015 (arbitrary date
assumed)
Bristol Port
Company
Bristol Port Phase 2
(if consented)
1
Application
outstanding
2018 (arbitrary date
assumed)
Bristol Port
Company
Southampton
Container Terminal
1.8
Proposed
enhancements
2012
DPW (51%) ABP
(49%)
Hull 0.3
Cleared to proceed,
not yet started
Unknown ABP
Figure 42: Approved and proposed container terminal schemes
34
Commission (IPC) on the interpretation of capacity requirements in the context of all the other criteria
that must apply to major development applications.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Mid forecast Low forecast (-5%) High forecast (+5%) Notional Capacity
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
Source: Department for Transport modelling
Figure 43: Notional UK container port demand versus capacity forecast 2005 to 2030
6.4. Processes in getting through the
port
There are generally ve stages involved in
transporting a container through a port:
N Berthing the vessel
N Loading and discharging the containers
N Stacking the containers
N Security clearance
N Customs clearance
In each of these areas the metrics used to
quantify productivity vary from port to port. The
ports are not directly comparable and therefore
trends at each port are more instructive than
comparisons between the ports.
6.4.1. Berthing the vessel
Ports with the facility to service the largest
deep-sea vessels will typically have longer
average loading and unloading times because
the higher capacity of the ship allows it
to carry more containers. For example, in
2007, the average berth time at the Port of
Felixstowe was just over 22 hours.
35
6.4.2. Loading and discharging the
containers
Containers are discharged from the vessel
by container handling gantry cranes
specialised cranes designed to lift containers
from container ships. Container cranes are
classied by their lifting capacity and the size
of the vessels they can discharge. Panamax
cranes can load/unload container ships of
1213 container rows wide. Post-Panamax
cranes can lift containers from vessels of
around 18 container rows wide. The largest
cranes are termed Super-Post-Panamax, and
are capable of lifting containers from vessels
22 container rows wide.
There is no accepted, systematic method
of data collection for berthing vessels and
loading/discharging containers.
6.4.3. Stacking containers
The number of containers a port can stack
once discharged from a vessel is key to the
overall capacity of the port. Above a certain
utilisation of space the port yard can no longer
operate effectively a maximum level of
capacity is required to allow space to move
containers and perform other operations.
When a vessel calls at a port the containers
bound for that port are discharged to the quay
and moved to be stacked. Laden containers
for export are then loaded onto the vessel
ahead of empty containers.
Containers are moved to and from the quay
cranes by a variety of equipment which varies
from port to port. For example the Port of
Felixstowe uses rubber tyred gantries in
the port yard, capable of stacking up to 5
containers high in conjunction with tractor
trailer units which deliver containers to/from
the quay. Southampton and Tilbury ports use
straddle carriers capable of stacking 2 and 3
high. Thamesport use rail mounted gantries
for yard operations and tractor and trailer units
to connect the yard to the quay.
Containers can be moved from the port side
by straddle carriers cranes designed solely
to transport and stack containers in ports. The
largest straddle carriers can stack containers
up to ve high. Rubber tyred gantry cranes
(RTGs), which enable increased storage
density, are also used at some ports to move
36
containers. Rail mounted gantry cranes
(RMGs) perform the same function from
xed rails, usually to lift containers onto rail
wagons.
Ports allow a free time period during which
containers can be stored in the port following
discharge at no additional cost to the shipping
line or haulier. Following this period, charges
are usually incurred. This incentivises shipping
lines and hauliers to move containers within
an allotted time.
To provide greater exibility to hauliers and to
avoid the above charges, a number of hauliers
are making use of private holding depots
located near to the ports. An example of this
is the Pentalver depots located next to the
Ports of Southampton and Felixstowe.
If a ship is running behind schedule it will
often set sail without loading empty containers
in order to regain lost time before arriving
at the next port, hence occasionally empty
containers will be stock-piled at the port
awaiting distribution, using valuable space at
the UKs container ports.
6.4.4. Security clearance
The Department for Transports Transport
Security and Contingencies Directorate
(TRANSEC) is responsible for implementing
the International Ship and Port Facility
Security Code (ISPS Code) in the UK.
The ISPS code mandates the minimum
security requirements for ships and ports.
Ports are responsible for meeting the
requirements of the Dangerous Goods
in Harbour Areas Regulations and the
International Maritime Dangerous Goods
Code. HMRC is responsible for operating
UK points of entry (sea ports, airports and
international rail terminals), and for the
initial detection of any imported nuclear or
radiological material.
The Container Security Initiative (CSI) was
introduced in 2002 by the US Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection. It has since been adopted
by ports around the world, and is currently
in place at Felixstowe, Tilbury, Thamesport,
Southampton and Liverpool in the UK.
The initiative consists of four elements:
using intelligence to identify containers that
may pose a security threat, pre-screening
containers before they arrive at a port, using
detection technology to pre-screen containers,
and using tamper-proof containers.
The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) was created
from the US Safe Port Act with the objective
of screening 100% of freight bound for the
USA. Southampton port took part in the rst
phase of the trial, which concluded in April
2008. The results of this initial phase will be
included in an EC report with a view to wider
implementation; however doubts exist as to
the feasibility of scanning 100% of container
freight on a global basis.
Figure 46 illustrates the UK customs clearance
process. Courtesy of Bristol Port
37
6.4.5. Customs clearance
The legislative basis for customs data
requirements is stated in the EU Community
Customs Code, which codies current
customs law. The code prescribes that all
non-EU goods arriving in the EU must be:
N Immediately considered to be in a state
known as Customs Supervision;
N Legally presented by the shipping agent to
customs within three hours of arrival;
N Once unloaded, accepted by the wharf
operator into Temporary Storage (pending
entry to a Customs Procedure);
N Entered to a Customs Procedure within 45
days.
Goods are declared by shipping lines to
customs prior to the arrival of the vessel;
however only a small proportion are moved to
temporary storage to be physically checked.
Cargo arriving on a vessel may include
containers from both EU and non-EU
countries and the customs procedures are
different depending on whether the origin of
the goods is from within or outside the EU.
STAGE 1
PRE-SEA LEG
STAGE 2
PRE-PORT CLEARANCE
STAGE 3
PRE-ONWARD DISTRIBUTION
Contract between
supplier and UK buyer
Booking made with
shipping line
Export
declaration
Loaded
onto vessel
Vessel details recorded on
Port Community System
Vessel and consignment
reference numbers
generated by PCS

PCS makes consignment
data available to
relevant parties
Vessel arrives,
PCS updated
CHIEF declarations
released, UKBA
selections revealed
X-ray scanned,
examined, goods
seized/released
Haulage assigned
Selected for examination
by HMRC/UKBA
Release note issued
UKBA select containers
to holding based on
risk level
Figure 46: UK imports customs clearance process
Port Community System (PCS)
Port Community Systems control the
movement of freight at most major UK
container ports. These provide a means for
traders to submit declarations to the UKs
electronic declaration processing system
(CHIEF). The CHIEF system handles over
21 million import and 5 million export
declarations per annum and relays release
messages via the community system on
each container.
38
Distribution of containers within the UK is a
key component of the end-to-end journey.
This section considers the methods used to
distribute containers to/from the port and
where pinch-points in the journey exist. For
the purposes of this analysis, the distribution
centre, where the container is loaded for
export or broken down following import is the
nal stage in the end-to-end journey.
Data on the onward mode of containers in
the UK and the means of transport is not
collected by all ports in a standardised format.
Assumptions are required on the data in
order to calculate the modal share of onward
container distribution.
Figure 47 tabulates the modal share by road,
rail and coastal shipping.
7. Onward distribution within the UK
Courtesy of Freightliner
Imported container
movements (thousand TEU)
(DfT Maritime Statistics)
1,065 578 27 46 250 206 147 81
Containers transhipped
(thousands)
107 29 8 12 15
Containers by rail
(thousands)
194 170 13 18 2 24
Containers by road
(thousands)
764 379 27 33 225 191 108 81
% rail 20% 31% 0% 28% 7% 1% 18% 0%
% road 80% 69% 100% 72% 93% 99% 82% 100%
F
e
l
i
x
s
t
o
w
e
S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
M
e
d
w
a
y
L
i
v
e
r
p
o
o
l
B
r
i
s
t
o
l
H
u
l
l
T
e
e
s
p
o
r
t
T
i
l
b
u
r
y
Figure 47: Container onward distribution modal share from selected container ports
39
Figure 48 illustrates the modal share by port
for road, rail and transhipments. Teesport
and Southampton transport the highest
proportion of containers by rail. All of the
containers leaving Bristol port and Hull port
are transported by road. Some ports, notably
Liverpool, also distribute containers by barge.
Road is the dominant means of transporting
freight in the UK. 167 billion tonne km by rail,
representing 8 tonnes transported by road for
every one tonne transported by rail
17
.
7.1. Regional Distribution
The majority of imported container trafc
is distributed to regional and national
distribution centres (RDC/NDCs). A high
proportion of distribution centres are located
in the Midlands area. The Midlands is
advantageously placed for distribution by
road as it is served by the M1 and M6 to
the north, and the M40, M5 and M1 to the
south. The core of this region is termed the
Golden Triangle for container freight due
to its prevalence of distribution centres and
accessibility to the rest of the UK. This is
illustrated by gure 49.
Around three quarters of the countrys
population can be served by road in a one-
day return trip from locations within the
Golden Triangle, and around 90% can be
accessed within a four-hour drive.
F
e
l
i
x
s
t
o
w
e

Transhipment Road Rail
M
o
d
a
l

s
h
a
r
e
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
B
r
i
s
t
o
l

T
e
e
s
p
o
r
t

H
u
l
l

M
e
d
w
a
y

L
i
v
e
r
p
o
o
l

T
i
l
b
u
r
y

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

Source: MDS-Transmodal, 2007
Figure 48: Container modal share by port
17 This gure includes all freight movements by road, including light goods vehicles.
40
Figure 49: Strategic road access from Golden Triangle
41
Figure 50 illustrates the rst inland destination
districts for containers moved by road, using
the Continuing Survey of Road Goods
Trafc (CSRGT). This illustrates the prevalence
of distribution centres in the Midlands and in
close proximity to the port of Felixstowe.
Source: DfT using CSRGT, 2007
Figure 50: Inward containers 20042007 moved by road from container ports by rst
destination district (tonnes)
Crown copyright.
All rights reserved.
Department for Transport
100039241 2008
42
Source: DfT, Continuing Survey of Roads Goods Transport
Region
%
share
Of which n% travels from
Eastern England 27% 63% Felixstowe 17% Tilbury 20% Other
East Midlands 13% 42% Felixstowe 17% Tilbury 41% Other
South East 12% 38% Southampton 24% Tilbury 21% Felixstowe 17% Other
North West 11% 47% Liverpool 15% Felixstowe 38% Other
Yorkshire & the
Humber
9% 29% Felixstowe 23% Hull 20% Immingham 28% Other
West Midlands 8% 34% Felixstowe 18% Southampton 18% Tilbury 30% Other
Greater London 8% 40% Felixstowe 28% Tilbury 17% Medway 15% Other
South West 5% 39% Southampton 26% Tilbury 35% Other 40% Other
Wales 3% 26% Southampton 19% Felixstowe 15% Tilbury
Scotland 3% 48% Grangemouth 21% Teesport 31% Other
North East 2% 51% Teesport 49% Other
Total 100 36% Felixstowe 15% Tilbury 14% Southampton 35% Other
Figure 51: Regional distribution of inwards container movements by road from UK container ports
Courtesy of Mark Dyball/Alamy
The Port of Bristol conducted a study
into onward distribution in the UK. Using
postcodes for container origins and
destinations the study provided a view on the
UK distribution of container freight, illustrated
by gure 51.
43
Figure 52 tabulates the destination of
containers imported and distributed
onwards by road. CSRGT only records the
rst destination of the vehicle, and not its
ultimate destination, which explains the high
proportion of containers whose destination is
the Eastern England region; as containers are
initially moved to holding depots near Tilbury
and Felixstowe ports, before being moved to
a distribution centre.
Source: The Bristol Port Company, 2007
Figure 52: Container freight imports destination
44
Container import distribution is represented
by red circles. This data reinforces the
importance of the Midlands as a key market
for distribution centres.
The majority of container imports are
transported to distribution centres in the
Midlands and London.
It should be noted that this survey was
commissioned by Bristol Port and data was
collated from one onward distributor only.
The data should therefore be treated as
indicative on this basis.
In terms of future patterns of demand for
warehousing and distribution facilities, Figure
53 shows a forecast conducted by Gerald
Eve chartered surveyors, examining the most
appropriate locations for warehouses based
on a variety of factors including transport
connections, labour market issues and the
planning environment.
Unlted Klngdom
warehouslng Actlvlty Porecast 2006
|nformatlon provlded by Gerald Lve (2006 data)
Drawlng No. 392ll
GLPALD LvL PLG|ON
D|STP|8UT|ON
PPOSPLCTS
South orkshlre Lxcellent
Avon & Somerset Lxcellent
London Last very good
8erkshlre & wlltshlre very good
8ucklnghamshlre & 8edfordshlre very good
Northern Last Mldlands very good
west orkshlre very good
Southern west Mldlands very good
South wales Good
Scottlsh Central 8elt Good
Southern Last Mldlands Good
Merseyslde & Cheshlre Good
Cambrldgeshlre Good
London west Good
Greater Manchester Good
Gloucestershlre & worcestershlre Good
Northern west Mldlands Good
London North Good
South Coast Average
Surrey & Hampshlre Average
London South 8elow average
Sunolk & Lssex 8elow average
Oxfordshlre
Peglons are ranked by thelr attractlveness to occuplers of
warehouses. The lndex lncludes ll factors whlch lnclude transport
connectlons, labour market lssues and the plannlng envlronment.
8elow average
Kent 8elow average
GLPALD LvL PLG|ON
NAT|ONAL
D|STP|8UT|ON
SCOPL
South orkshlre
Southern west Mldlands
Northern Last Mldlands
Northern west Mldlands
Gloucestershlre & worcestershlre
London North
Avon & Somerset
Oxfordshlre
Southern Last Mldlands
London west
8ucklnghamshlre & 8edfordshlre
8erkshlre & wlltshlre
South wales
Cambrldgeshlre
Greater Manchester
Merseyslde & Cheshlre
South Coast
west orkshlre
Surrey & Hampshlre
London Last
London South
Kent
Sottlsh Central 8elt
The ranklngs shows the llkellhood of a reglon to lmprove lts posltlon as
a dlstrlbutlon locatlon over the next 3 years. The lndex takes lnto account
factors such as transport lnfrastructures, developer actlvlty and rental
growth prospects.
Sunolk & Lssex
ll3.2l
lll.88
lll.09
l08.64
l05.52
l04.l2
l03.85
l03.76
l03.32
l03.0l
l02.32
l0l.34
l0l.l6
l00.04
99.28
98.54
98.l4
97.76
95.92
95.66
94.63
85.35
86.47
73.62
Scottlsh
Central
8elt
Avon and
Somerset
South
orkshlre
Glos and
worcs
Southern
west
Mldlands
Northern
west
Mldlands
8erks and
wllts
South
Coast
Surrey and
Hampshlre
London
Last
London
north
London
west
8eds and
8ucks
London
South
South
wales
Merseyslde
and Cheshlre
Oxfordshlre
Kent
Sunolk
and Lssex
Cambrldgeshlre
Greater
Manchester
west
orkshlre
Northern
Last
Mldlands
Southern
Last
Mldlands
Source: Gerald Eve, 2006
Figure 53: Great Britain Warehousing Activity Forecast
45
7.2. Onward distribution by road
The movement of containers by road to/from
the port accounts for over 80% of all container
movements within the UK. Road transport is a
exible means of transporting goods, without
the terminal location constraints inherent in
rail transport, although generates more carbon
and contributes to congestion on the UK road
network.
The following sections shows, for each of the
ports, how the volumes of imported container
trafc are distributed on the strategic road
network and the levels of congestion and
trafc speeds on key routes surrounding each
of the ports.
Courtesy of Imagebroker/Alamy
46
7.3.1 Road distribution
Port of Bristol
Bristol port has direct access to the M5
motorway from a spur road connecting to
junctions 18 (Avonmouth) and 19 (Portbury).
The M5 provides connectivity to Birmingham
and the Midlands to the north, and Devon
and Cornwall to the south. Bristol port is
well placed both geographically and by road
connectivity to serve distribution centres in
the Golden Triangle.
The M4 motorway, via junction 15, provides
access to Wales over the Severn Estuary and
access to London markets to the east.
Figure 54 illustrates international HGV
container ows from the port.
Figure 54: International HGV container ows from the Port of Bristol
Crown copyright. All rights reserved
Department of Transport 100039241 2008
47
Figure 55: Average delay per 10 vehicle miles for the slowest 10%
of journeys on the road network around Bristol port
18
18 The background to this measure is set out in CSR07 Baseline gures and methodology which can be found at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roadstrafc/speedscongestion/
congestiononthestrategicroad5359
Figure 55 illustrates the average delay
per ten vehicle miles for the slowest
10% of journeys around Bristol.
Average journey time heading north
on the M5 is 9 minutes per 10 miles
travelled.
Figure 56 illustrates the average speed
during 6am and 8pm on weekdays on
the road network surrounding Bristol
port.
Figure 56: Average speed during weekdays (6am8pm) in 2007
on theroad network around Bristol port
48
Figure 57: International HGV container ows from the Port of Felixstowe
7.3.2 Road distribution
Port of Felixstowe
The A14 and A12 are the strategic road
routes serving the Port of Felixstowe. The A14
extends 130 miles from the Port of Felixstowe
in the east to the junction of the M1/M6 in the
Midlands at the heart of the golden triangle.
The A12 links to the A14 (13 miles to the west
of the port) and provides connectivity to the
M25, London orbital motorway, 50 miles to the
south. Both routes have estimated container
import volumes of over 400,000 containers
per year.
49
Figure 58: Average delay per 10 vehicvle miles for the slowest
10% of journeys on the road network around Port of
Felixstowe
Figure 58 shows the average delay
10% of journeys on the road
network surrounding Felixstowe.
The A12 heading south has the most
congestion of roads to/from the port.
during 6am and 8pm on weekdays
on the road network surrounding
Felixstowe port.
on the road network around Port of Felixstowe
50
7.3.3. Road distribution Ports of
Grimsby, Hull and Immingham
The A63 links the port of Hull to the M62,
located 17 miles to the west and provides the
main access to the north west of England and
the conurbations of Leeds, Manchester and
Liverpool.
Figure 60: International HGV container ows from the Port of Hull
51
of journeys on the road network around ports of Hull,
Grimsby and Immingham
10% of journeys on the road network
surrounding Hull.
the road network surrounding the port
of Hull.
on the road network around Ports of Hull, Grimsby
and Immingham
52
7.3.4. Road distribution
Port of Liverpool
The A565/A5036 connects the port to the
motorway network (M57, M58). The M57
links to the M62 which provides access to
Manchester, Leeds and Hull to the east. The
M58 links to the M6 which provides access to
the Golden Triangle.
Figure 63: International HGV container ows from Port of Liverpool
53
Figure 64: Average delay per 10 vehicle miles for the slowest
10% of journeys on the road network around Port of
Liverpool
10% of journeys on the surrounding
road network.
the road network surrounding the port
of Liverpool.
Figure 65: Average speed during weekdays (6am-8pm) in 2007
on the road network around Port of Liverpool
54
Ports of Medway and Tilbury
The A1089 links the port of Tilbury to the A13,
3 miles to the north. The A13 links to the M25,
four miles to the west. Medway port is linked
by the A249 to the M20, 17 miles to the south
west. The M20 links to junction 3 of the M25
21 miles to the north west.
Figure 66 and Figure 67 illustrate international
HGV container ows from the ports of
Medway and Tilbury.
Figure 66: International HGV container ows from
Medway port
Figure 67: International HGV container ows from
Tilbury port
55
of journeys on the road network around Medway and
Tilbury ports
surrounding Tilbury and Medway
ports.
the road network surrounding Tilbury
and Medway ports
on the road network around Medway and Tilbury ports
56
Figure 70: International HGV container ows from the Port of Southampton
Port of Southampton
Access to the port of Southampton is via the
A3024 linking to the M27 to the west, and the
A3025 which connects to the M27 in the east.
The M27 joins the M3 approximately 8 miles
north of Southampton, which provides the key
access to London and the midlands. The M27
joins the M25 approximately 55 miles to the
north.
57
of journeys on the road network around the
Port of Southampton
Figure 71 illustrates average delay
surrounding the Port of Southampton.
between 6am and 8pm on weekdays
on the road network surrounding the
Port of Southampton.
on the road network around Port of Southampton
58
Figure 73: International HGV container ows from Teesport
7.3.6. Road distribution Teesport
The A66 connects Teesport to the A1(M)
approximately 22 miles to the west. The A19
provides access to Newcastle approximately
40 miles to the north.
59
of journeys on the road network around Teesport
Figure 74 illustrates average delay
surrounding Teesport.
the road network surrounding Teesport
on the road network around Teesport
60
Vehicle Booking System (VBS)
VBS is an online booking system for HGV collections and deliveries of containers. It requires
hauliers to select a designated slot for delivery and collection to the port, aiming to spread
the load for vehicle calls throughout the working day, minimising congestion.
The system ensures that all necessary container information is present before the haulier
arrives at the port and allows ports to limit the number of vehicles throughout the day,
minimising peaks in demand and vehicle queues. Haulage and logistics operators are
required to factor in time to safeguard against road congestion, in order to predict an
accurate terminal arrival time. For this reason VBS can be seen by hauliers as an operational
overhead.
Most distribution centres only accept delivery of containers during normal working hours,
and typically require containers at 8am, allowing time to strip and sort container contents
before transporting to stores. This forces a peak in demand when hauliers are required
to collect containers in order to meet distribution centre demand. Hauliers can therefore
be constrained in the onward distribution stage of the journey by VBS upstream and the
distribution centres requirement for goods at 8am downstream, a constraint known as the
8am syndrome. Nevertheless VBS has delivered efciency improvements to the haulage
industry. The system ensures that the containers for collection are available and customs
cleared.
Operation Stack
Operation Stack is a trafc management system implemented when port stoppages (as
a result of, for example, adverse weather) result in a build-up of trafc. Initially, vehicles
are stacked in on-port holding areas. When these are full, Operation Stack is invoked and
vehicles are queued on key roads close to the ports.
Felixstowe Port operates such a system where HGVs are parked along the A45 near
Levington.
Operation Stack is controlled by a working group consisting of the port, police, county
council, district council and the Highways Agency.
61
7.4. Onward distribution by rail
7.4.1. Overview of UK rail freight
Figure 76 illustrates the average actual
weekday usage of the rail network by freight
trains in nancial year 2004/2005. The busiest
sections of the network used by freight trains
are set out in red. These sections see in
excess of 50 trains per day in each direction.
Figure 77 tabulates trends in tonne kilometres
of freight moved (weight of freight lifted
multiplied by the distance carried). Containers
are represented in the Intermodal category.
Source: Network Rail Freight Route Utilisation Strategy,
March 2007
Figure 76: Average daily freight trains in single direction
2004/05
Billion net tonne
km moved
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
Coal 4.8 6.2 5.7 5.8 7 8.6
Metals 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.2
Construction 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.8 3
Petroleum 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3
Channel Tunnel 1 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Intermodal 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.5 4 4.4
Other 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.3
Total 18.1 19.4 18.5 18.9 20.6 22.1
Source: Network Rail Freight Route Utilisation Strategy, March 2007
Figure 77: Amount of rail freight moved by freight type
62
7.4.2. UK container rail freight
Figures 78 and 79 show that the Midlands,
North West and Yorkshire are the dominant
destinations for container freight trains arriving
from UK deep-sea ports.
The total number of inland bound trains (only
collected in the month of January each year)
has increased from 176 in 1997 to 307 in
2006, an increase of 170%. The Midlands has
seen the largest gain, at 420%, from 15 trains
in 1997 to 78 trains in 2006.
Reliability is generally higher for containers
transported by rail as road hauled containers
can be susceptible to congestion on the
road network. Furthermore, increased fuel
prices have inated the cost of transporting
containers by road, making rail haulage more
attractive.
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
n Midlands
n Yorkshire
n North-west
n South-east
2
0
0
6
1
9
9
7
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

t
r
a
i
n
s
/
w
e
e
k

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

e
a
c
h

y
e
a
r
n North-east
n Wales
n Scotland
n East Anglia
Source: Woodburn, Allan (2007) The role for rail in port-based
container freight ows in Britain, Maritime Policy &
Management, Issue 34:4
Figure 78: Container train arrivals at inland terminals
from deep-sea ports
Region 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 % change, 9706
Midlands 15 14 25 30 40 25 41 73 72 78 420
Yorkshire 26 26 31 31 36 38 40 46 51 71 173
North-west 61 56 66 76 86 67 79 86 97 92 51
South-east 17 11 10 10 20 10 15 20 10 20 18
North-east 10 5 10 10 12 12 11 11 12 11 10
Wales 11 15 20 15 10 10 15 16 13 10 -9
Scotland 36 41 36 35 35 25 20 20 20 20 -44
East Anglia 0 10 5 n.a.
Total 176 168 198 207 236 187 221 272 285 307 74
Source: Woodburn, Allan (2007) The role for rail in port-based container freight ows in Britain, Maritime Policy & Management,
Issue 34:4
Figure 79: Container train arrivals at inland terminals from deep-sea ports (no. of trains/week; January each
year)
63
Figure 80 outlines the increase in rail
container freight between 1998 and 2005.
Total container trafc increased 24% during
the period, whereas the number of trains
departing from deep-sea ports and arriving at
inland terminals increased by 44%.
Figure 81 illustrates the market share of
operators of rail container movements.
Freightliner is the largest container rail
operator in the UK, accounting for 79% of the
market for inland distribution of international
containers. At the time of privatisation in
1994, Freightliner was the only container
rail operator, EWS and GB Railfreight have
since gained a 11% and 9% market share
respectively.
Freightliner
79%
GB Railfreight 9%
EWS 11%
Fastline 1%
Source: Allan Woodburn, Westminster University, 2007
Figure 81: Estimated UK market for inland distribution
of international containers (volume of TEU
carried)
1998/99 2004/05 % change
UK container trafc (million TEU)* 6 8 24%
Domestic intermodal rail freight (billion tonne km) 4 4 14%
No. of loaded services per week** 470 594 26%
No. of departures per week from deep-sea ports** 184 265 44%
No. of container train arrivals per week at inland terminals** 198 285 44%
*1998 and 2004 calendar year gures; **January 1999 and 2005 gures.
Source: Woodburn, Allan (2007) The role for rail in port-based container freight ows in Britain, Maritime Policy & Management,
34:4, 311 330
Figure 80: Summary of key trends relevant to the containers-by-rail market, 1998/9 2004/5
64
7.4.3. Container freight rail routes
Figure 82 illustrates the volume of intermodal
19

freight carried on the UK rail network. This
gives an indication of the key rail routes used
to transport containers.
The current core rail freight route from
Felixstowe is via the Great Eastern Main Line,
North London Line and West Coast Main Line.
The Great Eastern Main Line which runs from
Felixstowe to London is gauge cleared to
take 96 containers on standard deck height
wagons, and is operating near to capacity.
This is the only electried route; an alternative
diesel-only route for freight from Ipswich
to the West Coast Main line at Nuneaton is
being developed via Ely, Peterborough and
Leicester, although this is currently capacity
constrained around the Leicester area and
both west and east of Peterborough.
Rail container freight from Southampton uses
the South Western Main Line to Basingstoke
then runs to Reading to join the Great Western
Main Line to Didcot. From there it runs north
via Oxford towards the West Coast Main Line
and the Midlands, the north of England and
Scotland.
A capacity pinch point for freight and
passenger trains exists at Reading where
revised layout options are being developed by
Network Rail, including grade separation.
Much trafc from Tilbury and London Gateway
(when opened in 2011) will be routed via
north London on the Barking to Willesden via
Gospel Oak route. This route is being gauge
cleared and additional signals are being
added in 2009.
7.4.4. Inland container rail terminals
As with the ports themselves, inland rail
terminals are an important node in the ow of
containers by rail. Figure 83 shows in green
the connections that exist by dedicated
container train services between key ports
and the inland terminals. The two main ports,
Felixstowe and Southampton, have direct
links to the majority of the 14 terminals,
while Tilbury and Thamesport have fewer
connections since their container throughput
is smaller resulting in fewer corridors where
volumes justify dedicated rail services.
March 2007
Figure 82: Intermodal trains per day in 2004/2005
19 Intermodal freight transport is the transportation of freight in a container or vehicle, using multiple modes of transportation
(rail, ship, and truck).
65
20 3 separate terminals within Manchester (Trafford Park)
Terminal Region
Regular connection to/from:
Felixstowe Southampton Tilbury Thamesport
Daventry East Midlands
Wilton North East
Ditton North West
Liverpool North West
Manchester
20
North West
Coatbridge Scotland
Cardiff Wales
Birch Coppice West Midlands
Birmingham West Midlands
Hams Hall West Midlands
Doncaster Yorks. & Humber
Leeds Yorks. & Humber
Selby Yorks. & Humber
Wakeeld Yorks. & Humber
Source: Based on research for Woodburn, Allan (2008) Intermodal rail freight in Britain a terminal problem? Planning Practice
and Research, Issue 23:3
Figure 83: Inland container rail terminals and their regular connections with the key ports, 2008
Figure 84 illustrates the same data on a map.
The three distinct destination regions of
the Midlands, North West and Yorkshire are
visible.
Many of these terminals solely handle
containers being imported to or exported
from the UK, while others handle a mixture of
containers, other unit loads and other types
of ow, including domestically and trafc
passing through the Channel Tunnel to and
from mainland Europe.
In addition, containers are carried along with
other types of freight ow on shared-user
trains. Examples include from Immingham,
Pureet, Southampton and Tilbury to South
Wales, from Pureet to Manchester and from
Teesport to Scotland. These ows are small in
comparison to the dedicated ones, but have
been developing in recent years as a way of
using rail when volumes are insufcient to
justify an entire train direct from a port to an
inland terminal.
66
The larger terminals have xed gantry
cranes. By contrast many of the other
terminals rely on mobile reachstackers to
transfer containers between rail, road and
storage facilities. Most of the terminals have
considerable on-site storage.
Customers are rarely located on the same site
as the rail terminal, so road hauliers provide
onward transfer of containers to customers
locations and deliver containers to the
terminals for rail movement to the ports.
Source: Based on research for Woodburn, Allan (2008) Intermodal rail freight in
Britain a terminal problem? Planning Practice and Research, 23:3, 441
460March 2007
Figure 84: Rail terminal connections from Felixstowe, Southampton, Tilbury
and Medway ports
67
Length Height Width
Minimum gauge required
on standard height
wagon
Deep-sea containers
20ft 8ft 6in 2.44m W8
40ft or 45ft 8ft 6in 2.44m - 2.5m W8
40ft or 45ft 9ft 6in 2.44m - 2.5m W10
Short-sea containers
40ft or 45ft 9ft or 9ft 2in 2.5 2.55m W10 W12
40ft or 45ft 9ft 6in 2.5 2.55m W10 W12
40ft or 45ft 8ft 6in or 8ft 9in 2.5 2.55m W8 W9
Source: Network Rail Freight Route Utilisation Strategy, March 2007
Figure 85: Gauge requirements for container sizes
7.4.5. Gauge clearance
Figure 85 shows the rail gauge clearance
required to transport typical deep-sea and
short-sea containers. Gauge clearance of
tunnels and overhead restrictions enables
high-cube containers along the line. This is
illustrated in Figure 86.
Figure 87 is the UK rail network map in
2004/05 with indicative gauge clearance by
route. A review of gauge capability is being
undertaken that will verify the accuracy of
published data for this measure.
March 2007
Figure 86: Required gauge envelopes and container
sizes
March 2007
Figure 87: 2004/05 gauge clearance map
68
7.5. UK coastal shipping
Coastal, or domestic, shipping is the
movement of freight between UK ports.
Containerised goods only account for a small
proportion of coastal shipping (around 3%
of goods lifted). Much of this is feeder trafc
being moved from the largest container ports
to regional ports on smaller vessels, but there
is also trafc between the islands of the UK.
Figure 88 indicates the split between coastal
shipping domestically within the UK and
internationally by TEU and weight in 2007.
Figure 88: Foreign and domestic (coastal) shipping of UK containers (TEU)
21
Thousand units Thousand tonnes of goods
In Out All In Out All
Foreign container trafc 2,571 2,448 5,019 35,032 22,090 57,123
Coastwise container trafc 159 173 333 1,491 1,896 3,387
21 Coastwise trafc is double counted where it was both loaded and unloaded at a major port (one handling more than 1 million
tonnes of all cargo types per year).
Figure 89 shows the top ten ports for
domestic container trafc in 2007. Overall,
domestic trafc accounts for only a small
proportion of all container trafc, the main
exceptions being ports providing inter-island
services (e.g. Belfast, or Aberdeen which
serves Shetland and Orkney) or participating
in feeder services with the major UK terminals
(e.g. northern east coast ports operating
feeder services with Felixstowe).
The UKs major ports give lower priority to
coastal shipping than to direct calls, as it is
more commercially viable to sell slots to direct-
call deep-sea vessels than to coastal shipping
vessels. Furthermore, a charge is levied by the
port for containers being moved by coastal
shipping from the port, in comparison to road
and rail modes of onward travel which do not
incur a charge from the port.
Domestic
All
routes
Domestic
as % of
total
Felixstowe 93 3,343 3%
Belfast 92 264 35%
Forth 76 256 30%
Southampton 53 1,869 3%
Liverpool 53 675 8%
Portsmouth 28 77 36%
Aberdeen 27 28 98%
Tyne 18 53 34%
Tees and
Hartlepool
14 154 9%
Orkney 12 12 100%
Other major ports 45 2,146 2%
All UK major ports 510 8,874 100%
Figure 89: Coastal shipping of containers from top
ten UK container ports (thousand TEU)
69
This section sets out the many improvements
in progress or in the pipeline that will improve
the container freight end-to-end journey.
8.1. Getting through the port
Harwich International Bathside Bay
In October 2000, Hutchison Ports (UK)
Limited, owner of Harwich International Port,
announced that it had agreed to purchase
Bathside Bay, a 101 hectare site adjacent to
the existing port operation.
The 300 million container terminal scheme
will make Harwich International Port the
second largest container port in the UK,
almost doubling the total quay length to
3,000 metres, and enabling the port to
handle up to four deep-sea container vessels
simultaneously. Road and rail infrastructure
is already in place, servicing the present
Harwich International Port. A new rail terminal
will be an integral part of the proposed
developments.
In addition to the container terminal, an area
of around 45 hectares to the south and east
of the site will be landscaped or developed for
mixed amenity and appropriate commercial
use related to the port development. The
development of these areas is subject to
stringent local authority planning procedures,
which recognise the need for an integrated
approach to meet the needs of the locality
and encourage economic growth.
Felixstowe South Reconguration
Felixstowe South Reconguration
redevelopment proposals comprise the
construction of a new container quay
(approximately 1,350 metres), quayside berths
(providing 4 deepwater berths) supported by
quayside cranes/rubber tyred gantry cranes,
a container stacking area/yard of 65 hectares,
HGV roadways and parking.
The development will provide an additional
910m of deepwater quay face bringing the
total length of quay at the Port to 3,828
metres. When fully developed the terminal will
be equipped with thirteen ship to shore gantry
cranes and fty rubber tyred gantries.
The development will increase the handling
capacity of the Port by 1.56 million TEUs per
annum.
The planned Northern Gateway Container
Terminal will increase container handling
capability from current 350,000 boxes per
year to up to 1.5 million containers per year in
2020.
To allow deep-sea vessels from the Far East
to berth, the channel will be dredged from
10.5 to 14.5 m.
Felixstowe ultra post-panamax
cranes
Felixstowe Port is serviced by 27 ship-to-
shore gantry cranes from Panamax to ultra
post-Panamax with ve new ultra post-
Panamax cranes due for delivery in early
2008. These cranes will the largest at the
Port, with an outreach of 22-containers wide,
and are equipped with twin lift capability, and
heavy lift capacity of 85 tonnes.
DP World Southampton ultra post-
panamax cranes
In 2008 DP World Southampton took delivery
of two new super post-panamax gantry
cranes each with an outreach of 22 containers
wide. An order for a further two new super
post-panamax gantry cranes has been placed.
These cranes will be the same specication
8. Improvements to the container end-to-end journey
70
and manufacture and will be delivered into
operation in August 2009.
London Gateway
The construction of a major new deep water
port commenced in 2008, with container
operations to begin in late 2010. The
development, being undertaken by DP World,
will have capacity for the largest container
ships currently in operation, will include a
2,300m long quay and, when fully developed,
a capacity of 3.5 million TEU.
The port development will also include a
distribution park of over 300 hectares and
warehousing of over one million square feet.
Bristol Port deep water container
terminal
The Bristol Port Company has initiated
development work on a new deep water
container terminal in the Bristol Channel. The
new terminal would, if consented and built,
give the port the capacity to handle 1.5M TEU
per year, and fteen post-panamax cranes will
be installed to service the vessels. The new
terminal would be outside the locks and offer
a draft of up to 16m.
The development is designed to service
the largest container vessels currently in
circulation as well as successive generations
of Ultra Large Container Ships up to 14,000
TEU and 16 metres draft, as and when they
enter service.
The proposal has been subjected to detailed
investigation in a series of Bristol Port
Company studies of its economic need
and benets, environmental impacts and
engineering requirements.
An application has been made to the DfT for
a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) to enable
construction of the terminal to start.
Port of Liverpool
Port of Liverpool is planning a second
container terminal to be built in the River
Mersey at a cost of 100 million and able to
simultaneously accommodate two of the new
generation post-Panamax container ships.
The new facility, capable of handling 500,000
TEUs a year, will almost double Liverpools
container capacity to nearly 1.5 million TEU.
8.2. Road improvements beneting
key container freight routes
A14
The DfT and the Highways Agency are
addressing the difcult challenge of
accommodating an increase in container
trafc and tackling congestion on the A14,
particularly through South Cambridgeshire,
where heavy goods vehicle movements
coincide with local travel to work. The
Highways Agencys Ellington to Fen Ditton
improvement scheme addresses the road
capacity issue and is expected to enter
construction (subject to public inquiry) in late
2010. The HA is also delivering technology
improvements on the route, such as variable
message signs.
M25
To manage ows better on the M25 it is
proposed to enhance capacity on almost all
the remaining three-lane sections, with work
scheduled to begin on widening the north
west quadrant from junctions 16 to 23 in 2009,
and options are being explored for locking in
the benets of this additional capacity through
integrated trafc management of the access
to the motorway. The Highways Agency
is looking at proposals for improvements
at junction 30 of the M25, to facilitate
development at the London Gateway Port and
in the Thames Gateway.
71
M27
The M27 is being widened between junction 3
(M271 to Southampton) and junction 4 (M3),
work began on this project in February 2008.
In addition, the Highways Agency opened new
climbing lanes on the uphill sections of the
M27 eastbound from junction 11 (Fareham)
and westbound from junction 12 (M275
Portsmouth) in September 2008.
The M27 between junction 4 (M3) and 11
(Fareham) is being considered for hard
shoulder running.
M4 and M5
Current works on the M4 and M5 motorways
include upgrading communication
equipment, bridge replacements and junction
improvements. Proposals for managed
motorways with hard shoulder running for
junctions 19 to 20 (M4) and junctions 16 to 17
(M5) around Bristol are being investigated.
Further improvements to the strategic road
network are detailed in the Highways Agency
Business Plan (available on the website at
http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/18403.
aspx ).
High-value international gateway
schemes
In November 2008 the Government
announced 300m of investment to support
international gateways. These included:
N A12 (Highways Agency, regional
scheme) a large-scale package of trafc
management measures on the A12 to
address reliability, congestion and safety
issues on the freight route to the Haven
Gateway Ports.
N The A160/A180 (Highways Agency,
regional scheme) will deliver additional
grade separation on the main access route
to Immingham Port.
8.3. Rail improvements
Felixstowe branch line
In July 2008 the Secretary of State granted
Felixstowe Branch Line and Ipswich Yard
Improvement Order. The Order seeks to
increase the capacity of the Felixstowe branch
line through the dualling of a stretch of the
existing single-track line between Trimley
Station and a point west of Levington Bridge,
to construct three additional 24-wagon sidings
within the existing Ipswich marshalling yard,
and to undertake some modications at
Westereld level crossing.
The capacity enhancement will allow up
to 40 freight trains per day to run in each
direction by the year 2020, and will help
Port of Felixstowe to achieve a rail modal
share of 26% taking a total of 500,000 lorry
movements off the roads.
In parallel with these local rail improvements,
HPUK is working closely with Network Rail to
fund gauge and capacity improvements to the
route between Ipswich and Peterborough and
the East Coast Main Line, and its diversionary
routes to south Yorkshire.
Southampton to West Coast Main
Line rail gauge clearance
To further promote modal shift to rail, access
is being improved between Southampton
and the West Coast Mainline (scheduled to
begin in 2010), by increasing the gauge and
by grade separation with the Great Western
Mainline at Reading.
North London Line capacity
improvements
The North London Line Freight Enhancement
(Network Rail) to increase the long-term
capacity of this key rail link to the Thames
Gateway and the London Ports.
72
This will include improvements to signalling
and track layout to allow additional freight
trains to operate on the network, set to
complete in 2014.
East Coast Main Line improvements
The Departments 2007 High Level Output
Specication set out the outputs the
Government wish to purchase from the rail
industry between April 2009 and March 2014.
This included over 500 million investment in
the East Coast Main Line, and a parallel route,
to provide additional passenger and freight
capacity by 2014.
Haven Ports to Midlands rail gauge
clearance
The rst phase of work to increase the
gauge of the rail-link from Haven Ports to
the Midlands (so that it can handle 96
containers) has been completed, and
the second phase (gauge and capacity
enhancements facilitating rail freight
movement from Ipswich via Peterborough
through Nuneaton) is funded by the
Government and is in Network Rails
investment programme for 200914.
73
This document has laid out some of the quantitative and qualitative data that gives a picture
of the end-to-end journey. This section draws out some of the ndings from each stage of the
journey analysis, and highlights where the evidence points towards areas where the DfT could
carry out further analysis, or where additional data may be required, to inform the generation of
a range of solutions to meeting the challenges.
The consultation document Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS), (published 25
November 2008) set out the timetable and the Departments intentions to adopt a whole journey
approach to inform future policy interventions for international networks.
It is likely that investment decisions for the period 201419 and beyond will be taken in stages
leading up to 2012. Between now and 2012 the Department will need to consider a range of
high level options. The analysis in this document will inform that process. Our wider approach
to ensuring that the needs and impacts are reected fully in this decision making process is
outlined in Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: The Logistics Perspective published in
December 2008.
During 2009 the Department will also be consulting on a National Policy Statement for ports in
England and Wales for designation under the Planning Act 2008. The Statement will set out the
Governments strategy on nationally signicant sea port infrastructure, and guide those involved
in applications for the development of such infrastructure.
Onward distribution within the UK
1 Rail access: Stakeholders have identied the potential to make further use of rail in the
container market. But there are a number of barriers to taking this further. These include:
N Lack of commercial incentives at a time when road transport is still seen as having a price
and exibility advantage over rail freight;
N Lack of intermodal connectivity to key locations including distribution centres;
N A shortage of capacity at intermodal terminals at some ports; and
N Understanding how to make a rail service work in practice including who to approach and
what Government support is available.
There are also issues concerning:
N the comparatively short distances that some containers travel from ports, which make them
less likely to be suitable for rail transport given the handling costs imposed; and
N the need for further gauge clearance of routes including improvements currently planned and
funded by the Department through Productivity TIF funding.
2 Road access: The analysis in this document helps identify the key road pinch points on the
core distribution routes from container ports. For some ports the problems are most acute on
9. The container freight end-to-end journey: emerging issues
74
roads in close proximity to the terminal. However, in other cases, congestion is more severe
on core routes near distribution centres.
Further, many ports experience signicant peaks and troughs with most hauliers wanting
their boxes picked up from the ports at around 8am. A more effective spread of demand would
impact on the capacity of the surrounding infrastructure, easing congestion and improving end-
to-end journey reliability.
As part of the DaSTS option generation phase we will work with stakeholders to understand
the challenges in road and rail surface access to our key container ports in more detail. We will
ensure that the needs of container trafc are considered fully in reaching decisions on the 14
strategic national network corridors as part of our wider work, including analysis of freight ows
on the corridors.
3 Transhipment and reducing congestion and carbon emissions: Port capacity constraints
in the Greater South-East are likely to mean an increase in transhipment of containers into
ports in the rest of the UK via transhipment hubs on the Continent such as Rotterdam. The
net effect of this could be a relatively small reduction in lorry miles, bringing environmental
benets, but evidence suggests these would be outweighed by a net increase in handling
costs.
With a greater focus on reducing carbon emissions agged in the DaSTS publication, there
is scope for further examination of what opportunities exist to reduce congestion and carbon
emissions from container freight distribution. The Department would welcome further evidence
to better understand transhipment benets.
4 Port-centric Logistics: The requirement to minimise end-to-end supply chain costs and
a heightened focus on climate change issues has seen increasing interest in and use of the
practice of port-centric logistics. In pure form, this means holding goods at warehouses
in close proximity to the port of entry, sometimes directly accessible by specialised port
handling equipment. Variants already exist (e.g. Asda at Teesport, B&Q at Immingham) and
a major logistics centre at London Gateway port (Shellhaven) is planned. There are potential
benets, such as possible elimination of a road leg to the distribution centre and reduction in
lorry mileage by avoiding trips back from the distribution centre or retail outlet nearer the port
itself. However, stakeholders have also identied potential disbenets including the potential
for increased HGV trafc in the vicinity of ports and impacts on the opportunities for use of
modes other than road for inland distributions potentially leading to overall increases in
carbon.
Further evidence is needed, so as to better understand the role port-centric logistics can play in
addressing the key challenges facing container ports and their net impact on carbon emissions.
Origin and destination data: Understanding the routes taken and modes used in transporting
goods to their nal destination is important if we wish to tackle pinch points, address resilience
in the journey and understand the efciency of the land leg from a cost and environmental
perspective. Data exist on the general destination of goods (though not if they have been
transported via multiple journeys) and the volume of goods trafc on the national road and
75
rail networks. However, we have gaps in our evidence base concerning how these pieces of
information t together.
Information on the origin and destination of containers, their onward movement to distribution
centres and retailers and rail utilisation would help answer these questions recognising that
much of this data is held by our strategic stakeholders across the end-to-end journey. However,
we will need to consider carefully how this could be gained without imposing excessive burdens
on business.
Getting through the Port
5 Potential efciency improvements: This analysis has indicated that in the context of
improving the efcient movement of goods through the container port, opportunities may exist
to improve:
a. Information sharing and consistent recording of information to minimise delays as
containers move from ship to destination;
b. Customs processes and border controls;
c. The provision of port hinterland distribution centres;
d. The smoothing of trafc ow into and out of ports.
As part of the DaSTS option generation phase we will work with stakeholders to understand
the challenges in getting through the port and the potential options available to address them,
recognising that the Government only has a role to play in delivering these solutions in some
parts of the end-to-end journey.
6 Performance metrics: Making better use of existing assets was identied as a key priority
by the Eddington Transport Study. There is little consistent, publicly available performance
information to understand the efciency of making use of our container ports. Information
on getting through the port is currently drawn primarily from each ports own operational
information, which is tailored to that ports requirements. Understanding how UK ports
benchmark with each other and with European and international ports in terms of efciency
and performance can inform policy analysis, for example in striking the right balance between
the regulation of border controls (customs/security etc) and facilitating trade.
Data on the timings containers spend travelling through ports would enable a better comparison
of the proportion of time spent in each stage of the end-to-end journey. This would provide the
basis for a more accurate understanding of the durations associated with each stage of the
journey.
Further work is required to understand whether there are any further performance metrics or
new data sources that could be used to allow better comparison between container ports and
to understand the constraints in getting through the port.
76
Annex A Goals and associated challenges identied for
international networks
To support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering
reliable and efcient transport networks
Reduce lost productive time on international networks by maintaining or improving
efciency, predictability and reliability of international end-to-end journeys.
Ensure passengers and freight have access to globally competitive levels of international
connectivity.
Ensure international networks are resistant and adaptable to shocks and impacts such as
adverse weather, accidents, terrorist attacks and impacts of climate change.
To reduce transports emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change
Ensure forecast growth in international aviation emissions is matched by equivalent
transport reductions or offset by reductions in other sectors.
Increase the carbon efciency of international shipping. Forecast growth to be offset by
reductions in other sectors.
To contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life-
expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from
transport, and by promoting travel modes that are benecial to health
Reduce the risk of death or injury due to transport accidents
Reduce the social and economic costs of transport to public health, including air quality
impacts.
Work internationally and nationally to reduce vulnerability of international networks to
terrorist attack.
To promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired
outcome of achieving a fairer society
Improve accessibility for persons of reduced mobility on international networks.
Contribute to the reduction in the gap between economic growth rates for different regions.
77
To improve quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and
to promote a healthy natural environment
Limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK signicantly affected by
aircraft noise.
Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape and
seek solutions which deliver long-term environmental benets.
Improve the experience of end-to-end journeys for international transport users.
Published by the Department for Transport
Crown copyright 2008
Printed in December 2008 on paper
Containing 75 per cent post consumer waste and
25 per cent ECF pulp.

UK Containerfreight

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

UK Containerfreight

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The container freight

También podría gustarte