The first automated marine container terminal began operating 25 years ago. Automation got off to a slow start, kind of like a Saturn V rocket, moving slowly on a pillar of fire. We’re in the age of the Falcon rocket now, launching many new terminals each year.
Originally limited to a narrow choice of machine systems, there are now a dozen or more combinations of automated cranes and automated transport vehicles. Control systems and the hardware they reside on continue to advance, with new approaches, algorithms, and techniques explored with each new terminal development.
New systems are proliferating, with multiple manufactures now actively engaged in research, development, invention, prototyping, testing, licensing, and delivery. Developers now have choices in systems and suppliers, as well as access to sophisticated planning and analysis tools that support informed selection.
Many leading professionals in the maritime field believe that full automation of every marine terminal is the inevitable end state for all the world’s ports, reflecting better overall performance, capacity, efficiency, environmental footprint, safety, and operating cost.
And yet, after 25 years, only about 10% of the world’s terminals are automated, and new non-automated facilities are still being built. If automation is the perfect solution everywhere, it should be seeing universal application. Clearly, it is not the perfect solution everywhere. At least, not yet.
Now that we have achieved some level of maturity, consistency, and clarity about implementing automation, it is a good time to step back a bit, and to focus on those elements that can still be improved.
The most widespread manual system is based on rubber-tyred gantry cranes (RTGs), frequently combined with front-end loaders, with transport handled by trucks. The other dominant system relies on straddle carriers as both cranes and transporters.
On the automation side, facilities are either “semi-automated”, using robotic cranes supported by manned transport, or “fully-automated”, using robots as both cranes and transporters.
In between full- manual and automated systems lie the incremental improvements. These include remote control, automated process control, assistive technologies, blockchains, or other “smart” technologies to existing manual systems to benefit from selected advantages of automation.
If automation is going to replace manual systems, it has to compete across a wide range of key performance factors. Let’s see where we are:
The differences between these systems are not all in favour of automation. There is no pure “best” or “worst” system.
So, why do port developers still choose manual systems?
Manual systems are simpler to staff with both terminal workers and managers. They are more readily understood and managed by the available workforce in most port cities. Not every city is home to a Silicon Valley or a raft of sophisticated technical universities and a pool of trained robotic technicians.
Manual systems are more scaleable. They can be adapted to small and large terminals, and the deployment of resources can be more readily increased or decreased in response to volume changes. Not every port is a front-line port with a secure position in global trade lanes and confidence in future volumes.
Manual systems cost less up front. Most of the required capital is spent on civil works, usually funded by the local port authority using public funding or financing. Automated systems require a much higher investment in equipment. Not every terminal operator has access to plentiful, cheap, and enlightened private financing.
Manual systems are easier to deploy within existing, or “brownfield”, port complexes. They don’t require wholesale restructuring of infrastructure or the creation of a separate operating realm within the terminal. Not every port and terminal operator can afford to carry the capitalised cost of lost revenue during terminal remodeling, with confidence of future recovery.
If you have money, a greenfield site, a strong local technical workforce, and strong development capabilities, automation is great! You’ll get decent vessel service, great gate service, decent capacity, great safety, low pollution, low operating cost, and decent combined unit cost.
If you have an outstanding manual system, are short of capital, are modifying an existing terminal, don’t support a large freight market, or don’t have a sophisticated development team, you have to think about it. Maybe incremental improvement is the way to go? Yes, but then you have even more to think about! Fortunately, there are more and more vendors who are more than willing to help.
So, Falcons and Dragons and Atlases and Orions and Pegasi and Vulcans and New Shepards and more and more. But do you want to rocket into space? Or go to New York on a Dreamliner? Or just bop down to Rome on an A320? There is still a lot to think about, talk about and do in the realm of container terminal automation.
Tom Ward is Director of Maritime Planning at wsp, a global management and engineering consultancy firm focused on the built and natural environments. He has been involved in port and terminal design and planning since the early 1980s and is a regular advisor and contributor to TOC events around the world. At TOC Europe 2019, 17-19 June, Rotterdam, Tom will be joined by Yvo Saanen of TBA Group and Rob van Eijndhoven of RVE Management to review current terminal automation systems and discuss the road ahead
Why are ships so much slower than either planes or cars?
In this video, we explore what it is that makes shipping a relatively slow means of transport in comparison to other methods we use for transportation.
Support Casual Navigation: https://www.patreon.com/CasualNavigation
Computer generated graphic of Maersk EEE Class. Maersk Line [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)].
Image of OOCL Hong Kong. Kees Torn [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)]
All content on this channel is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although every effort has been made to ensure the content is accurate and up to date, it remains the responsibility of the viewer to determine its accuracy and validity. The content should never be used to substitute professional advice or education.
After being left adrift, abandoned off the Tunisian coast without wages, food and fuel, 12 seafarers on board the Qaaswa have been sent home after 13 months marooned off the Port of Sfax.
This is the latest instalment in one of most notorious cases of abandonment that the ITF has seen in years, and the third crew onboard the UAE-flagged tanker that have been successfully repatriated after being abandoned at sea by Alco Shipping Services.
The crew of 12 from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar flew home on May 31, 2019, each with thousands of dollars in unpaid wages, totalling USD$130,952 for the eight months that they were owed.
The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has continued to intervene over the past three years to assist, repatriate and recover wages for seafarers stranded on the Qaaswa, and provided the crew with provisions and drinking water.
“We’re thankful that this crew have been successfully repatriated to their home countries. They have suffered and starved, while Alco Shipping Services has acted with impunity. Today these brave seafarers finally have a resolution and are at home with their families,” said Steve Trowsdale, ITF inspectorate coordinator.
“We are going home after 13 months,” said one of the seafarers before flying home. “Thanks to ITF and special thanks to Mohamed Arrachedi and Captain Majed for your assistance. We are going home with our wages. Thank you very much.”
ITF inspector and Arab World contact network lead Mohamed Arrachedi congratulated the Tunisian union and UAE authorities for their actions in support of the seafarers.
“The ITF family extends our sincere thanks to our affiliate, the Federation Nationale des Transports/UGTT, and to the UAE FTA for their collaboration and support during these long, difficult months,” he said.
Abandonment causes immense problems for seafarers and their families. Not only do the crew in question find themselves stranded in a foreign country with no money or food, but they lose the ability to support their families, send their children to school and pay their mortgages, and are also more likely to suffer mental and physical health problems.
In 2014, the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) was amended to introduce a financial security system to cover the costs of repatriation, four months unpaid wages and essential supplies for abandoned seafarers. These amendments came into force in January 2017. Since then, the ITF has been monitoring cases of abandonment around the world.
“Alco Shipping Services’ practices have no place in a modern maritime industry. No seafarer should have to go through the experience that the crews aboard the Qaaswa have endured. We vow to remain vigilant, to remain alert to cases like this. The abandonment of seafarers is a cancer of the maritime industry that all actors in the industry must work together to eradicate,” said Arrachedi.
In the early morning, a general cargo vessel came starboard side to the berth to load steel and project cargo. To prepare the holds for loading, the crew needed to remove the stored pontoons and place supports so that the tween decks could be positioned inside the hold later on.
The supervising officer stood on a hatch coaming ladder to guide the operation using hand signals and portable VHF.
As the pontoon was positioned above the hatch coaming, the supervising officer instructed the crane operator to swing the pontoon to the left and then slowly lower it. A short time later the seaman near the gangway noticed someone had fallen overboard amidships, between the quay and the vessel. The seaman raised the alarm on his VHF, grabbed a lifebuoy and ran to the position where he presumed the victim – the supervising officer – had fallen into the water.
The victim remained afloat even though he was not wearing a lifejacket. The seaman who had rushed to help was unable to bring him to safety from the quay with a lifebuoy. The victim appeared to lose consciousness shortly afterwards. Using a rope ladder, a crew member climbed down and, with half of his body submerged in the water, attempted to get the victim into the lifebuoy. However, he soon had to cease his rescue attempt due to the cold.
A second attempt succeeded in placing the victim on to a stretcher and he was lifted out of the water by the shore crane. Unfortunately, he was later pronounced dead and the autopsy found that he had died as a result of internal bleeding.