The Russian Transport Infrastructure Logistical Considerations
Moscow, 31st of March 2009
Innovative Logistics Consultancy –
Solutions for Your Success
Content
The Russian Transport Infrastructure – Logistical Considerations 1. Introduction
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them 3. Rail network challenges 4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency 5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Š TransCare AG
2
TransCare Facts Profile:
Management consultancy for logistics and transportation
Foundation:
1993
1. Introduction
Specialisation: Raising efficiency in logistics process chains 1) Rail transport
2) Supply chain management
3) Process-oriented infrastructure planning Approach:
Pragmatic concepts delivering tangible economic rewards
Facts:
> 1.000 successful projects with more than 250 customers
Team:
60 international experts in Germany, Russia, India and Spain
Š TransCare AG
3
TransCare References - Abstract Industries
Š TransCare AG
Ports
1. Introduction
Logistics Providers
4
1. Introduction
Full Cost Structures for Steam Coal Deliveries to ARA 2007 in US dollars/t 100
54 %
76 %
64 %
66 %
59 %
63 % x%
Share logistics costs Average Sea Freight Rates
80
Port & Rail Costs
60
Profit & ROC 40
Royalties / Levies
20
0
Other mine costs Wages Australia
China
Indonesia
Source: Global Insight, London 2008
Russia
S.Africa
Colombia
With an average share of logistics costs of 63.5 % coal business is logistics business Š TransCare AG
5
Content
The Russian Transport Infrastructure – Logistical Considerations 1. Introduction
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them 3. Rail network challenges 4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency 5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Š TransCare AG
6
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them
Overview of Coal Transport Flows in Russia 2007
North West Basin 43 mln t
Exported to CIS 10 mln t
55%
Total mined coal: 314 mln t 30%
11%
Total exported coal: 93 mln t
5%
84%
Exported overland 5 mln t
Exported via ports: 78 mln t 24% South Basin 16 mln t
21%
Transport nodes
Source: German Coal Importer Federation, Annual report 2008
Far East Basin 19 mln t
Main Coal Ports
Coal mining regions
Expected growth rates of 3 % in coal exports from Russia lead to challenges in the whole supply chain. Š TransCare AG
7
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them
Approaches to Handle Forecasted Volumes Port Infrastructure
• Layout of port facilities
• Floating cranes • Conveyor systems
Rail Infrastructure
• Axle load • Passing lanes • New lines
Rolling Stock
• Net-to-tare ratio
• (Un-)/loading techniques
An integrated solution using several approaches leads to logistics excellence © TransCare AG
8
Content
The Russian Transport Infrastructure – Logistical Considerations 1. Introduction
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them 3. Rail network challenges 4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency 5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Š TransCare AG
9
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them
Russian Railways Network and Investment Activities Murmansk
Ust Luga St.Petersburg
Archangelsk Vorkuta
Western
N. Urengoy
Moscow
UA Ports
Komsomolsk Amur
Ekaterinb.
Rostov/D.
Novorossiysk
Tyumen Omsk
Tuapse
Vanino
Krasnoyarsk Novosibirsk
Kazakhstan
Chita U-Ude
Mongolia
Khabarovsk
Vostochny
Transport nodes
Main Coal Ports
Coal mining regions
Investment focus
Russian Railways infrastructure investment program amounts to US $55,5 bln in period 2008-2030. Š TransCare AG
10
Back-up
Focus on Investment Activities I
3. Rail network challenges
I Hinterland connection Novorossysk/Tuapse
• New rail lines
• Modernization of existing rail lines
II Hinterland connection Ust-Luga
• New rail connection Ust-Luga / St. Petersburg
Murman sk
Ust Lug a S t.Petersbu rg Arch angelsk Vorkuta W estern
N. Urengoy
Moscow
UA Ports
Komsom olsk Am ur
Ekaterin b.
Rostov/D.
Tyumen
Novorossiysk
Omsk
Tuapse
Novosibirsk
Ch ita U-Ude
K az akh stan
Arch angelsk Vorkuta W estern
N. Urengoy
Moscow
UA Ports
Komsom olsk Am ur
Ekaterin b. Tyumen
Novorossiysk
Omsk
Van ino
K rasn oyarsk Novosibirsk
Ch ita U-Ude
K az akh stan
Mong olia
Khabarovsk
Vostochn y
Murman sk
Ust Lug a S t.Petersbu rg Arch angelsk Vorkuta W estern
Rostov/D. Novorossiysk Tuapse
N. Urengoy
Moscow
UA Ports
Komsom olsk Am ur
Ekaterin b. Tyumen Omsk
Van ino
K rasn oyarsk Novosibirsk
K az akh stan
© TransCare AG
Vostochn y
Murman sk
Tuapse
• New rail connection N. Urengoy - Vorkuta
Mong olia
Khabarovsk
Ust Lug a S t.Petersbu rg
Rostov/D.
III Connectivity North Ural to Northwest ports
Van ino
K rasn oyarsk
Ch ita U-Ude
Mong olia
Khabarovsk
Vostochn y
11
Back-up
Focus on Investment Activities II IV Capacity extension in Siberia
• Modernization of existing rail lines • Extension of existing rail lines
3. Rail network challenges Murman sk
Ust Lug a S t.Petersbu rg Arch angelsk Vorkuta W estern UA Ports
planned (Old route: 37,6 km, new route: 27 km)
Tyumen
Novorossiysk
Omsk
Tuapse
Van ino
K rasn oyarsk Novosibirsk
Ch ita U-Ude
K az akh stan
Mong olia
Khabarovsk
Vostochn y
Murman sk
Ust Lug a S t.Petersbu rg Arch angelsk Vorkuta W estern
N. Urengoy
Moscow
UA Ports Rostov/D. Novorossiysk Tuapse
• Capacity extension Kmsomolsk-na-Amure - Vanino
© TransCare AG
Komsom olsk Am ur
Ekaterin b.
Rostov/D.
V Hinterland connection Vanino
• Construction of new rail line and tunnel
N. Urengoy
Moscow
Komsom olsk Am ur
Ekaterin b. Tyumen Omsk
Van ino
K rasn oyarsk Novosibirsk
K az akh stan
Ch ita U-Ude
Mong olia
Khabarovsk
Vostochn y
12
3. Rail network challenges
Comparison of Rail Infrastructure Investments Total annual investments [US $ mln]
Investments per track-km [US $ ths]
9.000
700
8.000
600
7.000
500
6.000 5.000
400
4.000
300
3.000
200
2.000
100
1.000 0
Germany
Total annual investment
Spain
Investment per track-km
Russia
0
Source: German transport infrastructure investment program (BVWP), Spanish transport infrastructure investment program (PEIT), OAO RZD Investment Program 2008-2030
Planned rail infrastructure investments are insufficient compared to other countries
Š TransCare AG
13
Content
The Russian Transport Infrastructure – Logistical Considerations 1. Introduction
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them 3. Rail network challenges 4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency 5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Š TransCare AG
14
4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency
Overview: Port Handling Costs for Coal Worldwide in US $/t
Baltic Sea Ventspils [9,40]* Riga [8,00]* Tallin [6,50]* St.Petersburg [5,20] Vysotsk [5,20] Ust-Luga [6,5]
Murmansk [4,50]
Rotterdam [2,00]
Vanino [6,50]
Black Sea Yuzhny [3,00] Tuapse [4,00] Puerto Bolivar [2,80]
Vostochny [10,50]
Paradeep [4,40]
Ennore [4,80]
Balikpapan [1,90] Tanah Bara [1,40]
Main Coal Ports
Richards Bay [2,00]
Gladstone [2,50]
Abbot Point [2,10] Dalrymple Bay [2,20] Kooragang [2,40]
*including rail transit
The worldwide benchmark for coal loading/unloading is about 2-3 US dollars/t, Russian ports are far above
Š TransCare AG
15
4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency
Overview: Coal Handling Volumes 2007 Worldwide in mln t
Baltic Sea Ventspils [5,5] Riga [10,4] Tallin [3,7] St.Petersburg [2,3] Vysotsk [5] Ust-Luga [6,4]
Murmansk [12,5]
Rotterdam [25]
Vanino [0,7]
Black Sea Yuzhny [10] Tuapse [3,5]
Vostochny [14,5]
Paradeep [20]
Puerto Bolivar [35]
Ennore [16]
Balikpapan [5] Tanah Bara [20]
Richards Bay [72] Main Coal Ports
Gladstone [64]
Abbot Point [12] Dalrymple Bay [56] Kooragang [40]
Russian coal ports are not among the international top players Š TransCare AG
16
4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency
Correlation Volume/Handling Costs
Handling costs [US $/t]
Volume [mln t] 80 70
Australia
India
Other
12
Russia/Ukraine FE Basin
60
NW Basin
10
S Basin
8 50 40
6
30 4
cost-price corridor
20
2
10 0
0
t y ng ep in ne Ba to ga de Po s e a a l t d r p or la bo m Pa G Ko ry Ab l Da
r no n E
e
ic R
r ha
ds
B
ay n Ta
ah
ra Ba B
a ikp al
n pa er Pu
to
ar liv o B
o R
am rd e tt
no ni a V
oc st Vo
y hn M
m ur
sk an
sk ot s Vy
bu rs e et .P t S
rg tL Us
a ug
se ap u T
ny zh u Y
Russian handling costs cannot be justified by economies of scale Š TransCare AG
17
4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency
Best Practice: EMO Rotterdam
EMO operates Europe’s main bulk iron ore and coal terminal in the port of Rotterdam.
• 35 mln t iron ore and coal handled per year • 1.280m quays • 23m draught • 4 unloading bridges (160.000 t/day)
• 1 barge loading station (100.000 t/day) • 2 train loading stations
• 1 cleaning and screening station (3.000 t/day) • 160 Ha of ground storage space (6 mln t) • Operations 24 hours a day, 360 days a year EMO is supposed to be the most efficient bulk terminal in Europe © TransCare AG
18
4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency
State-of-the-Art Techniques
• Loading
Track hoppers for wagon unloading Stackers
Re-claimers
Ship loaders
• Unloading
Conveyor system
Shore-based gantry type grabs Mobile hoppers
Mechanized wagon loading equipment
Mechanized coal handling leads to increased productivity and decreases spillage of coal © TransCare AG
19
Content
The Russian Transport Infrastructure – Logistical Considerations 1. Introduction
2. Key transport bottlenecks and how to tackle them 3. Rail network challenges 4. Analysis of port costs and challenges for optimal efficiency 5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Š TransCare AG
20
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Benchmarking Germany
Poland
Russia
India
Australia*
Max. train length [m]
700
600
1.050
680
2.500
Average speed [km/h]
35-40
30-35
10-15
20-25
n.a.
Max. Axle load [t]
22,5
20
22,5
22,5
40
*Fortescue Metals Group railway line in Pilbara region
The technical framework for rail transport in Russia is quite good, but there are problems in operations Š TransCare AG
21
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Best Practice: Fortescue Metals Group
• Construction of dedicated railway line for
260km iron ore transport in the Pilbara region
Investment: 1,6 bln US dollars Axle load: 40t
3 passing loops (each 3km length) Eight bridges
• Optimized operations
2.5km long trains with 240 wagons (23t tare weight, 137t carrying capacity) 2 GE Dash 9-4400CW diesel locomotives Trainloads of ca. 30.000 t
Train unloading with a twin-cell rotary dumper (80 wagons per hour)
Fortescue Metals Group sets the benchmark for further dedicated lines by integrating all necessary components for efficient rail transport
© TransCare AG
22
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Rail Tariffs for Main Bulk Transport Flows* in US $/t 45
India
40 35
Russia
30
Eastern Europe
25
Western Europe
20 15 10 5 0
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
Distance [km]
4.000
5.000
* Transport Flows with >500.000 t/year (Iron ore, coal, cement) Source: TransCare Projects
Macro-level analysis indicates that Russian rail tariffs are much higher than European ones, but still below Indian tariffs Source:
Š TransCare AG
OAO RZD Tariff - average (2009)
23
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Rail Tariffs for Main Bulk Transport Flows* in US dollars/t 14
Russia
12
Eastern Europe
10
Western Europe
8 6 4 2 0
0
200
400
600
Distance [km]
800
1.000
* Transport Flows with >500.000 t/year (Iron ore, coal, cement) Source: TransCare Projects
Russian rail tariffs are ca. US $2/t higher than in Eastern Europe and US $ 4/t than in Western Europe
Š TransCare AG
24
Train Length and Weight
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Max. train weight [t]
Restrictions
Increase axle load
4.500
1
3
Upgrade locomotive
2 Expand train length
1.050 useable
non-useable
1
Limited by loco power, brakes, etc.
2
Limited by infrastructure (signaling, passing lanes, etc.)
3
Limited by axle load
Max. train length [m]
optimization approach
Optimization of train length and weight requires high investments and cannot be done in short term period Š TransCare AG
25
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Capacity Utilization 100 % 80 %
Max. train weight [t]
60 % 40 % 20 % 0%
0%
20 %
40 % 60 % Max. train length [m]
80 %
100 %
Optimization of capacity utilization can be done without any or with small investments Š TransCare AG
26
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Comparison Railcars
Auto Flood III
Falns
Poluwagon
Tare weight [t]
22,4
25,5
24,0
Max. Gross Rail Load [t]
129,8
90
100
Max. Carrying Capacity [t]
107,4
64,5
76
Max. Axle Load [t]
32,45
22,5
25,0
Net-to-Tare ratio
4,8
2,52
3,17
Length [m]
16,2
13,29
12,1
Height [m]
4,06
4,0
3,95
Š TransCare AG
27
5. Optimization of rail transport concepts
Overview State-of-the-Art Railcars
Aluminium Quad Hopper
Auto Flood II
BethGon II
Tripple Hopper
Auto Flood III
Source: Freightcar America Š TransCare AG
28
Thank you for your attention
Š TransCare AG
29