1 INTRODUCTION
TOTAL INBOUND
4.2 Containers
Definition of traffic
Containers are handled at the Royal Seaforth Container Terminal (RSCT) at the extreme north end of the Liverpool dock system. The RSCT, which is owned and operated by Peel Ports, can accommodate panamax deep sea container ships and any kind of short sea and feeder container vessel. The Port’s customers are the container shipping lines, which pay for the berthing of the vessels and the loading and unloading and storage of the containers.
To handle these types of call, the Port provides sufficient depth of water alongside the quay to accommodate the ships (up to panamax), specialised container cranes to load and unload the containers, a container storage area and a fleet of specialised vehicles (called straddle carriers) to transport the containers between the quay and the container storage area and between the storage area and road and rail vehicles for inland distribution; the port also provides a parking area for trucks that deliver and collect containers and there is also an intermodal rail freight terminal adjacent to the terminal for the transfer of containers to rail for inland distribution.
RSCT is one of three panamax container port terminals on the west coast, along with Bristol and Greenock (the latter also owned by Peel Ports).
Key customers
In late 2009 the Port had calls from the following shipping lines by type of service:
• Direct deep sea services that carry containers to and from other continents: three services making five calls per week (ACL, Hapag Lloyd/OOCL and Independent);
• Deep sea feeder services that carry containers in small feeder ships to and from deep sea markets via deep sea container hubs such as Le Havre and Southampton: two services making two calls per week, (MSC and CGM CMA to and from Antwerp and Le Havre respectively);
Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts – Final Report Page 25
• Short sea services that carry containers to and from European and Near East markets: six services linking the North West of England to Iberia, Ireland and the Near East operated by Coastal (owned by Peel Ports), MacAndrews and Gracechurch.
A full list of all the container services is provided in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1: Container services calling at the Port of Liverpool in December 2009
Carrier/Service Route Type Service frequency Ships Av. TEU Annual Deployment*
ACL EUR/SCAND/ECNA Deep sea 52 5 3100 161,200 HAPAG-
LLOYD/MSC/OOCL - SLCS 1 EUR/CAN
Deep sea
52 4 3230 167,960
INDEPENDENT EUR/USEC Deep sea 52 4 1548 80,470 CMA-CGM - FAS-UK WEST
COAST 1 FR/IRISH SEA
Deep sea
feeder 52 1 1651 85,852
COASTAL - 1 IRISH SEA Short sea 156 1 260 40,560
COASTAL - 2 IRISH SEA Short sea 156 1 262 40,872
MACANDREWS - PORT EUR/PORT Short sea 52 2 838 43,550
MACANDREWS - SP 1 EIRE/ENG/SP Short sea 52 1 750 39,000
MACANDREWS - SP 2 ENG/SP Short sea 52 1 750 39,000
MSC - LIVERPOOL FEEDER BELG/ENG
Deep sea
feeder 52 1 1850 96,200
GRACECHURCH EUR/NE Short sea 52 5 822 42,770
TOTAL 26 837,434
* TEU deployed one way
Source: MDS Transmodal Containership Databank, December 2009
The three direct deep sea services are all transatlantic services between NW Europe and the East Coast of North America, which has been Liverpool’s traditional market as a deep sea container port. The vessels operating on these services make a single call in GB en route to and from the NW European continent and for these services the containers are likely to be distributed throughout the British Isles.
Much of the growth in container traffic in recent years has come from deep sea feeder services between deep sea container ports such as Antwerp and Le Havre and Liverpool. These containers are being distributed to a super-regional hinterland – the North of England and the Midlands – rather than to a national hinterland.
Short sea services are between Liverpool and the rest of the Atlantic Arc and, in particular, Ireland. Coastal Container Line is owned by Peel Ports and has its own dedicated berth adjacent to the deep sea berths in Seaforth Dock.
Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts – Final Report Page 26
Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: 209061_wp1 final report
Historic traffic volumes and competition
Table 4.2 below provides an analysis of total GB container traffic in units since 1992.
Table 4.2: GB Container ports traffic 1992-2008
Thousand units
2002 2003 2004 2007 2008
% CAGR 2002-2008
Major South East Ports:
Felixstowe 1,715 1,585 1,711 2,063 1,939 +13% Southampton 791 846 880 1,110 959 +21% Thamesport 325 314 377 307 454 +40% London 374 397 506 493 556 +49% Sub-total 3,205 3,142 3474 3,973 3,908 +13% Other Ports: Liverpool 309 356 378 418 414 +34% Forth 103 111 125 151 162 +57% Hull 88 153 172 155 133 +51% Goole 51 18 27 36 37 -27% Greenock 33 45 36 43 34 +3% Tees 74 82 82 94 92 +24% Bristol 55 58 66 53 45 -18%
Immingham & Grimsby 61 46 50 86 97 +59%
Other 183 173 222 165 146 -20%
Total 4,162 4,184 4,632 5,174 5,068 +22%
Source: DfT Maritime Statistics; MDS Transmodal analysis
The recession has had the impact of reducing containerised imports and exports, as consumer demand and manufacturing output has fallen, and overall container port volumes fell by 2.0% in 2008; while the ports in the Greater South East lost 1.6% of their volumes overall in 2008, Liverpool’s container volumes fell by 1.0% over the same period. However, the relative success of Thamesport in 2008 led to the Medway port securing the No.4 spot from Liverpool in the ranking of GB container ports.
Growth between 2002 and 2008 through the Port of Liverpool was 5.0% on average, while growth for GB container ports as a whole in this period was 3.3%. The higher rate of growth is due to the growth of feeder services between Liverpool and continental deep sea container ports, allied to a lack of deep sea port capacity in the Greater South East. The port’s market share has grown from 7.4% in 2002 to 8.2% in 2008.
Key economic drivers
The GB container market is driven by the health of the economy in general and consumer behaviour (for imports) and manufacturing behaviour (for exports) in particular. Important within this context is the fact that Liverpool is close to manufacturers located in North West England and the Midlands that generate export cargoes and located close to major population centres for import cargoes, which attracts lines to make calls in the port.
Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts – Final Report Page 27
As well as offering shipping lines cargoes, Liverpool is well-located for the North Atlantic trades in terms of minimising shipping costs and is centrally located in GB for inland distribution to all the major population centres. It is less well-located for Far East trades because the shipping lines almost always call in GB en route between Gibraltar and the North West continental ports in Germany and Benelux; this means that the deep sea container ports in the Greater South East minimize maritime diversion costs for the shipping lines.
Peel Ports has received the relevant permissions for a Riverside Container Terminal outside the lock gates at Seaforth, which would allow the port to accommodate post-panamax vessels. The development of this new facility would, in part, be defensive in that east coast North American ports have been dredged to accommodate 14.5m draft vessels over wide tidal windows and so can accommodate post-panamax vessels that cannot be accommodated at present at Liverpool.
However it would also provide new opportunities for the Port of Liverpool as it provides the opportunity for the world’s largest ships to trade between the Far East and the East Coast of North America via the Mediterranean and NW Europe; the Panama Canal will be widened by 2014 and this will facilitate the use of post-panamax vessels on round the world services. As deep sea container shipping lines continue to make only a single call in GB and the British market may need to be served to “fill” the ships across the Atlantic on these round the world services, a west coast port is well- located to accommodate these calls on a reasonably direct route between Gibraltar and New York. Furthermore, Liverpool provides the most central location of any GB port for inland distribution by road and rail, thereby minimising inland distribution costs and is likely to be more cost-effective for a large shipping line than other west coast port.
Competition
Table 4.2 above shows that in 2008 the Port of Liverpool handled some 8.2% of GB port traffic in terms of units and was the fifth largest container port after Felixstowe, Southampton, London (Tilbury) and Thamesport. The four largest deep sea container ports, which collectively handled 77.1% of all GB containers, are all deepwater ports located close to the largest concentration of population in the UK (i.e. London and the South East), with locations that minimize the maritime diversion distance between Gibraltar and Rotterdam/Antwerp. They also enjoy good connections to the rest of GB by road and rail.
The major deep sea container port development projects are therefore in the Greater South East: Felixstowe South (an extension to the existing port at Felixstowe) is already under development; Bathside Bay is located at Harwich and has received the required permissions; London Gateway is a new container port and port-centric distribution park on the Thames, which has received the required permissions and some initial dredging work is being carried out; Southampton has proposals to expand its container port facilities within its existing footprint.
Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts – Final Report Page 28
Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: 209061_wp1 final report
Table 4.3: Deep-sea container port capacity in the Greater South East in 2009, including permissions for expansion
Deep sea port/terminal Existing quay length (metres) Existing capacity (MTEU)
Future quay length (metres)
Felixstowe 2,793 3.3 2,793
Southampton 1,357 (+ 250m feeder berth) 1.9 1,607
Thamesport 650 0.6 650
Tilbury Container Services 590 0.5 590
London Gateway - - 2,300
Bathside Bay (Harwich) - - 1,400
Felixstowe South - - 910
Total 5,640 6.3 10,250
Source: MDS Transmodal
In addition, the Port of Bristol Company has submitted a planning application for the development of its Deep Sea Container Terminal project, which would provide two post-panamax berths outside the lock gates at Avonmouth. There are no objectors and so it appears likely that the development will receive the relevant permissions.
The combination of trade growth and the tightness of capacity in the Greater South East has led to increased feedering of containers from Continental deep sea container ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp and Le Havre to regional container ports in northern Britain, including Liverpool. This is because a container feedering strategy to serve northern Britain is generally cheaper than distributing containers by rail from Greater South East ports, but leads to a longer transit time. Small container feeder vessels can be accommodated in the future at Port Salford on the Manchester Ship Canal. Liverpool is the major deep sea container port outside the Greater South East in terms of container volumes. Elsewhere on west coast only Bristol has any deep sea container services and that port has also made an application to develop a new riverside deep sea container terminal which (if built) would be the closest substitute to the Port of Liverpool in this market.
Inland distribution
Liverpool has an on-site intermodal rail freight terminal and also operates a barge service between Seaforth and Irlam on the Manchester Ship Canal. The modal split for containers for 2008 is set out in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4: Modal split for containers, 2008
Import/inwards Export/outwards Road 84% 83% Maritime feeder 15% 14% Rail 1% 2% Total units 203k 211k Source: MDS Transmodal
Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts – Final Report Page 29
Liverpool’s central location in GB means that it provides a competitive location for the distribution of containers to the whole of the country for a shipping line making a single call in GB – which means that the shipping line would be distributing containers to and from Liverpool to a national hinterland. However, this also reduces the potential for the development of sustainable distribution services from the port to some extent compared to ports such as Felixstowe and Southampton because the economics of rail and waterborne services generally require longer distances to be viable. In addition, many of the deep sea containers distributed via the Liverpool at the moment ports are feeder boxes that are only being distributed mainly to the North West region.
Based on inland road and rail costs alone (i.e. not taking into account shipping costs) and based on a national distribution of containers, we have estimated that for the inland distribution of deep sea containers Liverpool provides the most competitive location of any of the GB deep sea container ports because of its central location for the major GB markets.
Table 4.5: Average inland distribution cost per container for a national hinterland distribution
Port Cost/container Liverpool £ 264 Bristol £ 285 Felixstowe £ 302 Tilbury/London Gateway £ 283 Southampton £ 292 Source: MDS Transmodal
The analysis suggests that, on average, inland distribution of deep sea containers to and from Liverpool Docks is some 7% cheaper per unit compared to the next most competitive port for deep sea container distribution (existing and potential future ports on the Thames).
In Autumn 2009 there are no rail freight services for containers operating to and from the port because the only intermodal rail freight operator that served the port, Freightliner, has chosen for commercial reasons to transport containers between the port and its own terminal at Garston, rather than load and unload at the Port.
SWOT analysis
Strengths Weaknesses • Located in major container cargo generating
region (manufacturing for exports, major population centres for imports)
• Good location for minimising shipping costs for deep sea lines serving east coast N American market
• Good terminal facilities, including an intermodal rail freight terminal
• Well-located to serve whole of GB in terms of inland haulage, with availability of rail and waterborne transport for inland distribution • Well-located for feeders to serve Ireland and GB
• Requires significant diversion for deep sea vessels on existing Far East-Europe routes
• Insufficient depth of water to accommodate latest generation of deep sea container ships
• Locked port, with beam restriction preventing post-panamax vessels entering dock
Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts – Final Report Page 30
Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: 209061_wp1 final report
on same voyage
• Well-located for LoLo trade to Ireland, with no access restrictions for short sea and coastal vessels • Has consent to build post-panamax berths and
expand the footprint of the container terminal
Opportunities Threats • Development of two post-panamax berths outside
lock gates at Seaforth to accommodate latest generation of deep sea ships, with rail access • Development of additional LoLo capacity within
existing footprint of port to cater for organic growth in existing traffic
• Trade growth in the medium to long term, leading to organic growth in existing traffic
• Possible failure of GB ports in Greater South East to significantly increase capacity, leading to requirement for capacity elsewhere in GB.
• Increases in deep sea container port capacity in SE England, allied to rail freight services to rail- connected distribution parks in NW England. • Development of post-panamax container terminal
at Bristol
• Dredging of North American ports to handle post panamax ships and increase in size of Panama Canal means that the new size of vessel transiting the Panama Canal will no longer be able to be accommodated through Gladstone Lock.
Forecasts to 2030
The key issues in relation to the forecasts for container traffic for the Port of Liverpool up to 2030 are: • The extent to which GB container traffic growth will return to the historic trend following the
end of the economic recession.
• The extent to which deep sea capacity will be expanded in the Greater South East and at Bristol up to 2030.
• Whether deep sea shipping lines will adopt innovative strategies to serve GB (making only a single call at a west coast port en route between Gibraltar and east coast North America), given the dredging of North American ports and the planned deepening of the Suez Canal. MDST’s forecasts for government in 2005, updated in 2007, suggested a national container growth rate of 3.6% per annum from 2005 to 2020. MDS Transmodal has produced forecasts for Liverpool Docks for this study that take account of the current global recession and consequent downturn in container throughputs being experienced by most container ports in the UK to varying degrees. Table 4.6 provides the Central Forecast and the High and Low Scenarios for containerised traffic to 2020 and 2030.
Table 4.6: Forecast container traffic for Liverpool Docks to 2030
Thousand units 2008 2020 2030 Growth 2008-30 CAGR 2008-30 Central Forecast 414 756 975 +136% +4.0% High Scenario 414 908 1,170 +183% +4.8% Low Scenario 414 605 780 +88% +2.9% Source: MDS Transmodal
Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts – Final Report Page 31
The Central Forecast has been produced by growing the GB container market using the MDST World Cargo Database, which is a harmonised database of country-to-country trade flows by volume, value and TEU for the whole world and contains 3,000 different commodity classifications. Forecasts are based on trend-based relationships for all these country-country-commodity relations for a time series since 1996, which is up-dated on a quarterly basis. The WCD includes an algorithm that gives greater weight to recent trends, thereby taking account of the economic downturn in 2007-09. The potential market share for Liverpool Docks was assumed to increase by 50% up to 2020 (from 8.2% in 2008 to 12.3% in 2020) and then to remain stable up to 2030. This assumes that the post-panamax berth is developed by Peel Ports and the increased depth of water, changing ship liner strategies and its geographic position Liverpool Docks would be able to secure some additional market share up to 2020 and 2030. The forecast is for 4.0% average annual growth over the period 2008-30.
The High Scenario assumes that traffic volumes are 20% higher than the Central Forecast in 2020 and 2030. This could be due to Liverpool winning additional market share from the deep sea container ports in the Greater South East than is assumed in the Central Scenario. The forecast is for 4.8% average annual growth over the period 2008-30 and implies a 14.7% market share in both 2020 and 2030.
The Low Scenario assumes that volumes at all points are 20% lower than the Central Forecast. This could be due to Liverpool losing market share to the deep sea container ports in the Greater South East – perhaps because Peel Ports does not develop the post-panamax berths and so has insufficient capacity. The forecast is for 2.9% average annual growth over the period 2008-30, which implies a slight increase of market share to 9.8% in 2020 and 2030.
4.3 Roll on Roll off (RoRo) Freight
Definition of traffic
The two RoRo terminals in Liverpool Docks are owned by Peel Ports but leased to the RoRo shipping operators. The terminals have access to deepwater inside the lockgates and the services operate to a fixed schedule. The terminals provide parking for HGVs and access to the ferries via a special ramp between the quay and the ship.
Peel Ports has received all the required permissions to develop a RoRo terminal outside the lockgates at Langton Dock.
The two Roll-on Roll-off (RoRo) terminals in Liverpool Docks are:
• Seatruck Ferries at Brocklebank Dock, with its own port access onto Miller’s Bridge • P&O Ferries at Gladstone Dock, which mainly uses the Seaforth Gate.
The RoRo services provided by the two operators (P&O Ferries and Seatruck) mainly handle freight, of the following types:
• Accompanied trucks, where the driver and cab unit travel with the trailer carrying the goods; • Unaccompanied trailers, where only the trailer is transported on the ship.