Tambo Springs Intermodal Facility gets the Go-ahead

Tambo Springs Rendering

Tambo Springs Rendering – Transnet

The following abridged article was authored by Suren Naidoo, published in MoneyWeb on 6 June 2019.

Ports and logistics parastatal Transnet is moving ahead with plans to develop a new ‘inland port’ [terminal] in Gauteng and on Wednesday announced the winning bidder that will develop and operate the R2.5 billion Tambo Springs Intermodal Terminal in Ekurhuleni.

Transnet’s says the deal represents a major public-private partnership (PPP) that will see Southern Palace Joint Venture Consortium holding a 20-year concession for the new inland terminal, which will complement the container facilities at City Deep.

A wholly black-owned and managed diversified industrial holding company, Southern Palace is the lead concessionaire in the consortium. Its partners in the project include Italian state rail and infrastructure company Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane as technical partner and supply chain and advisory group Makoya as logistics and marketing partner.

The new terminal in Springs will have an initial capacity to handle around 225 000 TEU [20-foot-equivalent unit] containers in its first phase and ultimately grow to handle some 550 000 TEUs. City Deep, located near the Johannesburg CBD, has a capacity of 400 000 TEUs and has already reached almost 80%.

The new Springs terminal will boost efficiencies as a fully-fledged modern intermodal facility, directly connected to the Natal Corridor (Natcor) rail link between Durban and Johannesburg.

The PPP project will improve the rail freight system in the country and boost economic growth. Transnet has experienced challenges on the general freight rail side, which has been in systemic decline over the years.

The decline of general freight rail has contributed to the growth in the number of trucks on national roads, especially the N3 between Durban and Johannesburg. There is therefore some urgency to get general freight working again on rail. With time-sensitive cargo, rail can play a critical role as part of the intermodal mix.

The Springs terminal is expected to break ground by November and is anticipated to open in 2022.

It will be located on a 67-hectare (ha) site within the broader Tambo Springs Logistics Gateway development, which is being master-planned by the Tambo Springs Development Company on 607ha of land near the N3. Transnet has already purchased 35ha of land within the new development node, with another 32ha being negotiated.

The City of Ekurhuleni will provide major bulk services for the development. The terminal will be developed as part of a next-generation logistics gateway combining direct terminal handling facilities as well as back-of-terminal property development and related value-add logistics services and activities.

The existing Natcor dual directional freight rail line runs directly to the site of the [new terminal]. Transnet will therefore not incur significant additional costs for new rail infrastructure to connect to the new terminal, but rather, leverage off the existing infrastructure.

Once the terminal is developed, it is expected to spur surrounding industrial and commercial property development to the tune of around R20 billion from the private sector.

Southern Palace, told Moneyweb that Southern Palace has brought in international rail and container terminal specialist Italferr, which is part of the Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane group. The joint-venture consortium is also supported by Concor and engineering firm AECOM.

Southern Palace has raised around R7 billion to date through its various businesses, so the terminal will be largely “self-funded”.

See the unabridged article here!

Advertisements

Felixstowe to offer Container Weighing Service

Container_crane_and_spreader

Picture: Wikipedia

The Port of Felixstowe has confirmed that it will offer a container weighing service to ensure UK shippers are able to comply with the new SOLAS regulations that come into effect on 1 July 2016

The new SOLAS Chapter VI regulation requiring the shipper (or other named party in the Bill of Lading – normally a freight forwarder/NVOCC) – to supply the shipping line with a verified gross mass (VGM) declaration before the container can be loaded aboard the ship comes into force on 1st July. As widely reported, there is widespread concern that shippers will not be ready.

Commenting on the new service that Felixstowe will provide, Stephen Abraham, the port’s COO, said: “We have met with many customers and from their feedback it is clear that there is still a lot of uncertainty amongst exporters about the new rules.

“The rules have the potential to cause significant disruption to export supply chains. To help avoid this, we have decided to provide a service where export containers can be weighed at the port before being loaded. We will provide further details about how the weighing service will work in good time to ensure all exporters can be compliant by the time the new rules come into force.”

The service at the port will be available to containers arriving either by road or rail. This is important as, through its railheads, Felixstowe is the UK’s largest intermodal rail terminal; 40% of all laden export containers arrive at the port by rail.

To provide the weighing service, Felixstowe will use a spreader twistlock-based system, although the supplier of the system and the number of RTG and intermodal RMG spreaders that will be equipped with it has not been confirmed.

The UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), which is the responsible authority for the VGM as regards UK containerised export shipments, requires all weighing equipment used to provide a VGM, whether by Method 1 or Method 2, to be calibrated to within +/- 0.1% of the true mass of the loaded container (Method 1) or by calcuation based on the sum weights of the individual cargo items being packed and associated dunnage, lashing chains, etc (Method 2).

When, at the end of 2010, the International Chamber of Shipping first launched its campaign for all containers to be weighed before ocean carriage, it was assumed that the weighing would take place in ports – naturally, as ports are where most container lifting equipment is based.

However, port operators – including, and not least, Felixstowe – successfully resisted this, which ultimately resulted in IMO formulating Method 2. While the road to IMO arriving at Method 1 and Method 2 is “history,” the key point is that port operators, freed of a legal obligation to weigh loaded export containers, are thereby free to offer a Method 1 weighing service on a commercial basis.

Irrespective of the technology employed, there are several issues around port weighing. What happens if, for example, when the port [any port, not just Felixstowe] weighs the export container for the purpose of providing the VGM and finds that the weight made the container illegal for road carriage to the port? Does the port have a legal obligation to inform the road traffic authorities [the police in the UK]; or is the onus on the shipping line, whose customer the “offending” shipper/NVOCC is?

That information is also “historic,” in the sense that in order to weigh the overloaded container in the port, it must be assumed that the truck arrived safely at the port, and that particular (unique) illegal truck trip to the export port has gone forever. The remaining problem, however, is that the VGM provided by the port may indicate that the weight of the container makes it illegal for on-carriage by road or rail in the port of unloading.

Asked to comment on this by WorldCargo News, Paul Davey, Head of Corporate Affairs, Hutchison Ports (UK), made a crucial point. “As regards legality for road carriage in all possible overseas destinations, we [at Felixstowe] would not know, for example, whether the container will leave the port of destination or is unstuffed in the port. If it leaves the port [without being unstuffed] we won’t know whether the on-carriage would be by road, rail or any other mode, so there is nothing we could do.”

This is key as it throws the real responsibility for enforcing the VGM on the carriers, who demanded compulsory weighing in the first place. They will be under a legal obligation not to accept a loaded container unless it has VGM documentation.

It follows logically that carriers know the VGM mass of all loaded containers they ship. If, on the way to destination from the port of import, due to gross overloading of the container, the truck jackknifes or overturns, with all the safety risks that entails, the carrier could be liable and open to criminal prosecution.

Thus, there can be no question of “shipper appeasement,” but it could end up in a lawyer’s free-for-all involving anyone providing the VGM if it transpires that the VGM data were incorrect. Suppose, for example, the carrier relied on VGM data provided on a commercial basis by the port of export and it transpired, following a road accident investigation in the country of import that the real weight exceeded the VGM and likely caused the accident.

As to the commercial possibilities for ports providing a VGM service, Felixstowe has not given any information on the price it will charge, but (by way of example) Yarimca in Turkey is advertising US$12 to weigh a container, according to its tariff notice.

Policy responses by port operators will vary enormously according to local context and assessment of risk and benefit. In New York/New Jersey – where loaded containers are mosly imports – Maher Terminals has advised customers that loaded export containers will not be accepted after the July 1st deadline whitout a VGM in advance, as part of the booking process.

PSA Antwerp, which is also offering a VGM service, has stated that it may, at its discretion, “strip and restuff a container so that it complies with the SOLAS requirements. The customer will pay an appropriate compensation to PSA for any such stripping/restuffing of a container and/or determining its VGM.”

The new SOLAS Ch VI imposes no obligation on terminals to weigh containers they unload. All the same, as regards imports, PSA Antwerp says: “If PSA loads a container onto a truck, it can never be held liable for additional expenses and/or fines associated with the (excess) weight of the container/truck combination.

“Any such additional expenses and/or fines will never be borne by PSA and the customer will pay an appropriate compensation to PSA for any such additional expenses and/or fines incurred by it and/or for determining the weight of the container/truck combination.” Source: WorldCargoNews

Related articles