A Drewry report examines the performance of 500 terminals globally, with North American and some European ports lagging behind.
The operational performance of the world’s container terminals shows wide variation depending on location, terminal size and traffic type, according to the Container Terminal Capacity and Performance Benchmarks report published by shipping consultancy Drewry.
The report analyzes the actual performance of a sample of around 500 terminals worldwide between 2011 and 2013, with a focus on three key aspects of container terminals: the quay line, the yard and the ship-to-shore gantry cranes.
“These analyses are deliberately distinct from typical service level-related measures such as crane moves per hour,” said Neil Davidson, senior analyst in Drewry’s ports and terminals practice. “Instead, they reflect the performance of the most important — and expensive — infrastructure and equipment assets in a modern container terminal. This is key information for operators and investors to be aware of.
“For example, an equipment manufacturer will tell you that a gantry crane can theoretically handle 250,000 TEUs per annum, and this is true. But our analysis shows that the reality is that, on average, the world’s gantry cranes actually only ever handle about half this amount per annum.”
Little surprise that terminals in Asia and the Middle East generally achieved higher figures than the world averages in all three areas. The difference is most marked in TEU-handled-per-hectare, Drewry noted, where the highest performing regions saw up to 70 percent more than the world averages. Regions that achieved lower figures than the world averages included North America and parts of Europe.
“There are a number of reasons for these regional differences,” Drewry said. “For example, the performance of large terminals is markedly higher than small ones. Average terminal size in Asia is much higher than in places such as Africa or South America.
“In addition, the performance of transshipment terminals is markedly higher than gateway ones — for several reasons, including larger vessel sizes and container exchanges per call, low container dwell times, and also because most transshipment terminals are much larger than most gateway ones.”
Choice of yard equipment also has a strong bearing on TEU-handled-per-hectare, and many Asian terminals have high-density rubber-tire gantry and rail-mounted gantry systems, the report said. Terminals with smaller throughputs have a greater tendency to use low-density yard-stacking equipment, and those with higher throughputs use denser yard stacking solutions.
The report also specifically examines the performance of the 25 fully and semi-automated container terminals that are operational today around the world. These automated terminals account for fewer than 5 percent of terminals globally, although the proportion is growing.
In 2013, they achieved TEU-per-meter-of-quay and TEU-per-crane measures of around 25 percent higher than the world average. However, this is due in part to fact that average throughput of the automated terminals in the sample was around 70-percent higher than the world average terminal throughput. Significantly, though, the TEU-handled-per-hectare for automated terminals was around 10-percent below the global average.
“Terminal automation is a high profile topic even though its deployment, for now, is relatively limited,” continued Davidson. “Our analysis suggests that its effect on the intensity of use of key container terminal assets is variable and so automation decisions need to be weighed up very carefully on a case-by-case basis.”
Drewry: Asia/Middle East terminals using space, assets more efficiently
