Qualitative Comparison: Document Status

Ref.
Ares(2015)4777613 - 02/11/2015
636158 – RCMS Report
Qualitative Comparison
Document Status
Report Lead Beneficiaries HPC
Report Type
Work Package 5
Reference Period
Date 02 November 2015
Dissemination Level Public
Version 0.1
Document History
Contributions V1- final draft sent to the Partners on October 10th 2015
V2-comments received from Partners by October 16th 2015
V3- version peer-reviewed by GTK and Sellhorn (October 23rd 2015)
Final version final version submitted on October 30th 2015
This project has received funding from the

European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant
agreement No 636158.
Pag. 1 a 35
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Abbreviations/Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Layout and System Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 9
3.1. Conventional RTG-System ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Schematic Layout............................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2. Quayside Operation......................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.3. Horizontal Transport........................................................................................................................ 11
3.1.4. Truck Handling ................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.5. Yard Operation ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.6. Gate Operation ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.7. Handling of Special Containers ........................................................................................................ 12
3.2. Automated RMG with Automated Horizontal Transport .................................................................... 13
3.2.1. Schematic Layout............................................................................................................................. 13
3.2.4. Truck Handling ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.5. Yard Operation ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.2.6. Gate Operation ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.3. RCMS.................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1. Schematic Layout............................................................................................................................. 17
3.3.4. Truck Handling ................................................................................................................................. 20
3.3.5. Yard Operation ................................................................................................................................ 20
3.3.6. Gate Operation ................................................................................................................................ 21
Criteria Definition / Description of Approach ......................................................................................... 22
4.1. Finance................................................................................................................................................. 22
Pag. 2 a 35
4.1.1. Investment costs.............................................................................................................................. 22
4.1.2. Operating costs................................................................................................................................ 23
4.2. Operations ........................................................................................................................................... 23
4.3. Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 25
4.4. Other.................................................................................................................................................... 25
Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................ 26
5.1. Finance................................................................................................................................................. 26
5.1.1. Investment costs.............................................................................................................................. 26
5.1.2. Operating costs................................................................................................................................ 27
5.2. Operations ........................................................................................................................................... 29
5.3. Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 32
5.4. Other.................................................................................................................................................... 34
Pag. 3 a 35
List of Figures
Figure 1: Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: RTG Layout..................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Handover Lane at RTG to/from Trucks or TTUs........................................................................... 11
Figure 4: RTG Reefer Racks ......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: RMG Layout ................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 6: RMG Truck Handover .................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 7: Reefer Rack Installation in RMG Yard .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Schematic RCMS layout ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 9: RCMS Cross-Section ..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: RCMS Balcony .......................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 11: RCMS Ground Floor ................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 12: RCMS Storage Cells .................................................................................................................. 21
Pag. 4 a 35
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison on Investment Costs ................................................................................................ 26
Table 2: Comparison on Operating Costs .................................................................................................. 27
Table 3: Comparison on Operations Criteria ............................................................................................. 29
Table 4: Comparison on Environmental Criteria ....................................................................................... 32
Table 5: Comparison on Other Criteria ..................................................................................................... 34
Pag. 5 a 35
Abbreviations/Acronyms
AGV Automated Guided Vehicle
HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH
IMDG International Maritime Code for Dangerous Goods
OCR Optical Character Recognition
OHBC Overhead Bridge Crane
OOG Out of Gauge (cargo)
RCMS Rethinking Container Management System
RMG Rail Mounted Gantry (crane)
RS Reach Stacker
RTG Rubber Tyred Gantry (crane)
SC Straddle/Shuttle Carrier
STS Ship to Shore (crane)
TEU Twenty feet Equivalent Unit
TOS Terminal Operation System
TTU Tractor Trailer Unit
Pag. 6 a 35
Executive Summary
The purpose of this document is to compare the RCMS-Rethinking Container Management Systems- a
project funded by the HORIZON 2020 Programme of the European Commission under the Grant Agreement
No. 636158 to other state-of-the-art container handling systems. This document provides a qualitative
comparison of criteria which are not rated based on numbers but on general knowledge and experience
with such systems. The systems that have been compared are on the one side a fully manually operated
RTG (Rubber Tyred Gantry) crane system, working together with TTUs (Tractor Trailer Units) as horizontal
transport vehicles and on the other side an RMG (Rail Mounted Gantry) crane system, which is fully
automated in stacking containers and works with AGVs (Automated Guided Vehicles) for the horizontal
transportation of containers between the STS (Ship to Shore) cranes and the storage area.
Figure 1: Analytical Approach
Source: HPC, 2013
As shown in Figure 1 the analytical approach in which the RCMS is compared to the other two container
handling systems is threefold. This document is the outcome of the first step, the qualitative analysis. In a
next step the three systems will be going through a typical terminal and operational planning phase, which
in this case will consist of a static planning and a simulation analysis. In the end the three systems will be
rated by a financial analysis, which as an input receives for example the number of equipment to be used
and the civil engineering effort required to build such container handling systems. For a more realistic
comparison, the three systems will be planned to be built in the Port of Gdansk and in the Port of Koper.
Whereas in Port of Gdansk the systems will be limited to a smaller given terminal footprint, a completely
new reclaimed area will be available for planning purposes in Koper.
The RCMS has been rated herein on a variety of criteria, which have been classified into finance,
operations, environment and other criteria. Finance has been again divided into investment costs and
operating costs. This qualitative comparison showed that the RCMS is expected to require high investment
costs for civil engineering and IT investment costs compared to the investments for the two other systems.
The RCMS received a very good rating, due to the high degree of automation, on the labour cost criterion.
On this criterion, systems receive a higher rating if their labour requirement is less than that of other
systems compared. In terms of safety and storage density, which belong to the operations class of criteria,
the RCMS received a very good rating. No other system is capable of storing more containers on the same
given footprint. The most important aspect and benefit from using a RCMS is the fact that containers can
be accessed directly without any shuffling or housekeeping moves. Shuffling and housekeeping moves are
necessary within the RTG or RMG systems, where containers are stacked on top of each other. Avoiding
these unproductive moves increases the overall productivity and service level of the system. RCMS
therefore received the highest rating on the service level criterion.
Within the class of criteria related to the influence on the environment, the RCMS receives again a very
good rating on the noise emission criterion. The noise emission of the RCMS is considered to be very low.
Pag. 7 a 35
Per the visual impact criterion, the RCMS receives a very low rating. The visual impact is going to be very
high. If the site of the building fits into the surrounding landscape or if the community can identify
themselves with such a technology, the bad reputation of a building that has a high visual impact might
turn into something the people living around that building can identify with.
The RCMS also received a very high rating for its degree of Innovation. The degree of innovation can also
have an influence on how people react to or view technology.
Even though the RCMS has a very high visual impact, the system is ideally suited for container terminals
where space is limited and expensive. To justify high costs, a terminal using an RCMS should be located
close to either a large consuming or producing market. Short transport distances to the origin or final
recipient in the hinterland will have a positive influence on the overall transport. The RCMS is not
necessarily well suited to be a transhipment terminal. Transhipment terminals could be located anywhere
else where cheaper ground is available. If cheap ground is not available, the RCMS system can again be a
good alternative.
In the cause of performing this qualitative comparison, HPC created a general comparison tool and made it
available to the project partners, for testing the RCMS system to other container handling systems on
potential customer’s hypothetical preferences. This tool can be used as a preliminary, internal tool before
moving forward to the next steps of this project, which consist of the static planning and the simulation
analysis.
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to compare the RCMS-Rethinking Container Management System
proposed technology to other state-of-the-art container handling systems. This document provides a
qualitative comparison of criteria which are not rated based on numbers but on general knowledge and
experience with such systems. The systems that have been compared are: (1). A system employing a fully
manually operated RTG (Rubber Tyred Gantry) crane system for stacking containers in the yard, working
together with TTUs (Tractor Trailer Units) as horizontal transport vehicles and (2). A system employing a
RMG (Rail Mounted Gantry) crane system, which is fully automated in stacking containers and works with
AGVs (Automated Guided Vehicles) for the horizontal transportation of containers between the STS (Ship to
Shore) cranes and the storage area.
The comparison of the RCMS with the RTG and the RMG systems is performed based on a high level
analysis. Since the RCMS has yet not been implemented and is still under development, the system could
only be rated upon the information available up to today. Depending on a potential terminal’s
environment, the evaluation might be different from results obtained here. Each container handling system
is individually rated on each criterion. An overhaul rating of the systems across all criteria is not performed
as the weighting of each criterion may differ for different terminal locations. The comparison in this
document reflects HPC’s long term experience in the field of terminal development and design.
For Koper we will assume that the different technical solutions would be built in a green field project on a
newly to be developed and partly reclaimed area. For Gdansk however, we will assume that the different
technical solutions would be replacing the existing equipment in the yard and all different layouts would be
limited to the current terminal area. The development project in Gdansk will be considered a brown field
development project.
Pag. 8 a 35
In the following, three different technical solutions are described and compared:
 Conventional RTGs (blocks arranged parallel to quay wall) with Tractor-Trailer-Units (TTUs)
 Automated RMGs (block arranged perpendicular to quay wall) with automated horizontal transport
 RCMS with Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs)
Layout and System Alternatives
3.1. Conventional RTG-System
3.1.1. Schematic Layout

As shown in Figure 2 an RTG layout is characterised by the orientation of the storage blocks. RTG storage
blocks are usually aligned parallel to the quay wall. In between the RTG blocks, Tractor Trailer Units (TTUs)
and external trucks travel in the same direction resulting in a circular traffic flow, which avoids crossing
traffic to the extent possible. TTUs are the only mode of horizontal transport operating at the quay side,
where STS cranes hand over containers to TTUs or vice versa pickup containers from TTUs. The storage area
consisting of all the RTG blocks can be entered by both the TTUs and external trucks for delivery or pickup
of containers. RTGs can travel from one block to another. The gate and the rail terminal are usually located
on the opposite side of the quay wall on the landside of the terminal. The rail terminal is also served by
TTUs, which transfer containers between the lift equipment used on the rail side and the RTGs within the
storage area.
Figure 2: RTG Layout
Source: Kemme, 2013

Pag. 9 a 35
In order to save space, RTGs blocks are arranged in a so called back to back setting. As can be seen in Figure
2, trucks picking up or delivering a container share one bypass lane in between two RTG blocks. To the right
and left of this bypass lane an RTG travel lane follows. Next to these lanes, a handover lane is located
underneath the RTG right next to the container stack. On the opposite side of the stack two RTG travel
lanes meet again. On this side of the RTG block, trucks cannot enter and additional lanes are therefore not
required.
Typically containers are stacked 5 high in RTG terminals. Stacking heights can however vary between 4 and
7 high. The typical width of a container stack underneath a RTG is 6 containers wide. Container stacks of a
width of up to 8 containers wide have also already been put into operations with RTGs.
The higher and wider container stacks underneath the RTGs are, the higher is the container density on the
terminal and leads to higher storage capacities. Higher stacks however lead to a higher effort in so called
shuffling and housekeeping moves, where containers are moved within the stack by RTGs in order to access
and get the actually required box that is located somewhere in the lower layers out of the stack.
3.1.2. Quayside Operation

Quayside operation is executed by means of quay cranes. For all brown field development projects, we
assume that STS cranes would be reused as far as possible. In all green field development projects we
assume that new single trolley STS cranes with lashing platforms will be acquired. For a layout using RTGs, a
lashing platform is not necessarily needed. Twist lock handling could also be performed right before the
container is dropped onto the bombcart or even on the chassis if the corner castings are accessible (A
bombcart is a trailer pulled by a terminal tractor, which does not require any fixation of the container on
the trailer by twist locks). For means of comparability, we will however assume the installation of a lashing
platform in the portal of the STS cranes.
The lashing platform would usually be installed on the front leg of the STS cranes. If a container is coming
from a vessel, it is transported to the lashing platform. The container is hold in position as long as the
lashers detach the twist locks form the container. Once the twist locks are removed the crane driver
delivers the container to the handover position with the horizontal transport vehicle. The process works in
the same way in reverse direction for loading of containers, whereby the twist locks are attached to the
container on the lashing platform.
There are ideas and prototypes of equipment which could automate the lashing process but are still not
proven to work reliably. As invariably there is manual interference in the state-of-the-art arrangement,
automated lashing shall for now not be considered for any of the different operating systems discussed
here.
In front of the waterside crane rail an area for external traffic (vessel suppliers, authorities, visitors etc.) is
foreseen. This is the area which is covered by the lashing platform underneath STS cranes. The external
traffic lanes shall be clearly separated optically from the quay crane rail and the handling area. The
remainder of the space in between the crane rails shall be used for handing over containers to the TTUs or
picking them up from TTUs and lifting them onto the vessel. Hatch covers are stored under the back reach
of the STS crane.
In the RTG layout, TTUs will be used for the horizontal transport, as described in the following sections.
Pag. 10 a 35
3.1.3. Horizontal Transport

The horizontal transport is performed by TTUs (Tractor-Trailer-Units) which constantly cycle between the
STS cranes on one side and the RTG stacks on the other side. As already described for the quayside
operations (see Section 3.1.1), the crane and the TTU have to perform a synchronous handover of the
container, where one equipment has to wait for the other equipment. Once an import container has been
dropped onto the bombcart, the TTU delivers the container to a stack and there again has to wait for an
RTG to get the container unloaded.
Usually, TTUs are assigned in a fixed number of TTUs that are especially dedicated to one STS crane, which
is called a gang structure. From an operational planning perspective the challenges lie in finding the best
number of TTUs that are on the one side not underutilised and on the other side do not cause any delays or
waiting of the cranes at the waterside.
TTUs will also be used to handle all special containers like OOG, tank Containers, IMDG containers and
Reefers, that might have to be delivered to specific areas within the terminal.
3.1.4. Truck Handling

Internal and external truck handling takes place in a dedicated handover lane within the portal of the RTG.
TTUs as well as external trucks are handled in the same lane. Once the truck is in the correct handover
position the transport order for the yard crane is initiated. The dispatch onto/off the chassis is a fully
manual process. Figure 3 illustrates the handover position as described above.
Figure 3: Handover Lane at RTG to/from Trucks or TTUs
Source: HPC, 2009
Pag. 11 a 35
3.1.5. Yard Operation

Yard stacking is executed by means of diesel-powered Rubber Tired Gantries (RTGs). They are manually
operated by a driver in the RTG cabin. The RTG travels on a concrete path off-limits of any external power
supply and hence fully flexible with regard to the block in which it is operated. Automation is to a limited
extent installed in common RTGs. Nonetheless state-of-the-art RTGs are equipped with systems assisting
the RTG driver. These systems automatically execute long travels and automatically position the RTG in an
approximate handling position. Further, laser detection and camera systems provide the driver with
information from blind areas thus increasing work safety.
There are fully automated and electrically powered RTG solutions available on the market but have only
limited experience in real operations. For the productivities of the RTGs in this study we will assume that
RTGs are purely manually operated, diesel driven with limited automation assistance.
Laden horizontal movements shall exclusively be executed by horizontal transport. The RTG shall solely be
used for stacking and will invariably travel empty between the bays or blocks.
3.1.6. Gate Operation

All external trucks enter and leave the terminal at the gate, using OCR technology (optical character
recognition). Gates can be equipped with an automated gate system including a vehicle booking system,
allowing a levelling of the number of trucks per hour on the terminal.
3.1.7. Handling of Special Containers

Empty Container
Empty containers are mostly stacked in a dedicated empty container yard, which is operated by manual
empty container handlers. It is expected that empty containers will be stacked in the empty container yard
as much as possible.
Out of Gauge
Out of Gauge Cargo units can be stacked in either end of the block, allowing a Reach Stacker to access the
OOG units in case the RTG cannot pick them up. However, in addition to these positions, additional storage
areas for OOG by far exceeding the common dimensions are to be installed. These are located in areas easy
to access to external trucks to allow for a smooth handover of the units. Within the dedicated OOG areas
Reach Stackers are used for the handling. Transport of such cargo from/to the quayside is executed by
means of TTUs.
Reefer Containers
Reefer containers will be stacked in the common RTG yard on reefer racks which are equipped with power
supply provided via reefer racks which also enable the reefer mechanics to enter the reefer area safely.
Reefer positions shall in analogy to the OOG positions be at the end of the RTG block to assure maximum
work safety for and minimal operational impacts from the reefer mechanics. The below figure illustrates
the installation of such reefer racks within an RTG block.
Pag. 12 a 35
Figure 4: RTG Reefer Racks
Source: HPC, 2009
The reefer mechanic receives notification from the system to plug/unplug specific containers. Containers
can only be removed from the stack if the reefer mechanic has informed the system about successful
unplugging of the reefer container to avoid any possible damage.
IMDG Containers
In general, IMDG containers are handled like standard containers with the exemption that the terminal
control system must be able to identify predefined adequate storage positions in accordance with actual
IMDG segregation rules. The ground has to be made of impermeable surface to avoid that any leakage drips
into the ground for certain IMDG classes.
3.2. Automated RMG with Automated Horizontal Transport

State-of-the-Art RMG systems are aligned perpendicular to the quay wall (see Figure 5). The horizontal
transport of containers between the STS and the storage area is clearly separated from the external truck
traffic and traffic between the rail terminal and the storage area. This facilitates the complete automation
of horizontal transport at the waterside. The rail terminal and the gate facilities are again on the opposite
side from the quay wall, on the landside of the terminal. TTUs will transfer containers between the landside
of the RMG stacks and the rail terminal.
Pag. 13 a 35
Figure 5: RMG Layout
Source: Kemme, 2013
Currently there are a number of different RMG settings concerning the number and type of cranes used in
the storage area. For the remainder of this study we will assume that each RMG block is equipped with two
RMGs of same size, which are not nested and therefore cannot pass each. This setup is most common for
ASC terminals and referred to as the so-called ‘twin system’.
Pag. 14 a 35
Figure 6: RMG Truck Handover
Source: HPC, 2009
The stacks underneath the RMGs have a varying size. For this study we will assume that containers can be
stacked a maximum of 5 high in 10 wide bays. The length of the terminal will be determined according to
space available and operational requirements but can be as long as 60 TEU.

Quayside operation is executed in a similar way as described for the RTG layout in Section 3.1.2. Main
difference for the RMG systems is, that containers are handed over in the back reach of the STS crane and
all OOG and special container are handed over in between the legs of the STS. Additionally, hatch covers
are placed also in between the legs of the STS crane.
As it is foreseen to have a full automated horizontal transport of containers between the STSs and the
RMGs in the storage area, horizontal transport with automated vehicles needs to be clearly separated from
areas where manual driven vehicles or workers are operating.

There are again a number of different automated horizontal transport vehicles available on the market. The
most recently build fully automated terminals in Europe are equipped with automated Guided Vehicles
(AGVs), which either have a lifting mechanism or not. For this study we are assuming to use so called Lift-
AGVs. These Lift-AGVs have the benefit of being able to lift containers onto a rack in front of the RMG
stacks. RMGs can pick up or deliver containers on these racks without having to wait for an AGV and vice
versa. Another automated transport solution available are automated Shuttle Carriers (SCs). These are, due
to their design, technically more complex and therefore more expensive. There benefit is being able to drop
or pickup containers to and from the pavement, without any rack system required and still being uncoupled
from both the RMG and STS operation.
Pag. 15 a 35
Automated horizontal transport equipment is usually operated in a pooling scheme, which means that
transport machines are not fixedly assigned to a STS crane, but the Terminal Operating System (TOS) selects
the best available machine to carry out a particular transport job for all active STS cranes based on
optimization considerations. Compared to the strict “gang”-wise assignment of transport machines to
dedicated STS cranes, as typically applied for RTG terminals, this approach leads to higher equipment
productivities.

External trucks and TTUs transferring containers between the RMG stack and the rail terminal are served
on the landside of the RMG stacks. Both external trucks and TTUs back in on the head end of the stack.
Depending on the rail share, dedicated handover lanes can be reserved for TTUs serving the rail terminal. In
that case, TTUs can uncouple their trailer and leave the trailer underneath the RMGs for loading or
unloading. The handover of containers for these trailers could then also be fully automated. The handover
of containers from the RMG to external trucks or vice versa, has to be performed by Remote Control
Operators (RCOs). The container handover to an external truck can only take place with the truck driver
standing outside his truck and supervising the handover process.

In the yard, containers are stored in blocks which are oriented perpendicular to the quay wall. Two fully
automated rail mounted gantry cranes serve each block. These cranes are of same height and width and
they are mounted on the same pair of crane rails so that they cannot pass each other. Accordingly, one
crane can handle only the quayside and the other only the landside of the block.
The entire automated area (automated storage area) is surrounded and protected by a fence with very few
access gates. For safety reasons, access to the automated areas is restricted and requires special
permissions and procedures.
Hand-over of containers between AGVs and the storage area takes place at the quayside head of the blocks
and between external trucks or internal chassis at the landside head of the blocks.
The quayside handover serves as a buffer zone decoupling the logistical subsystems yard crane and
horizontal transport on the terminal. The handover area allows for the simultaneous storage of 2 TEU per
handover lane, of which, depending on the block width, a total of up to five are available, which adds to a
total of 10 buffer slots per block.

External trucks entering or leaving the terminal will be handled in the same way at the gate as described for
the RTG layout in Section 3.1.6.

Empty Container
Empty containers are mostly stacked in a dedicated empty container yard, which is operated by manual
empty container handlers. In the RMG stacks, empty containers are usually stored as short as possible,
channelling them through from quay to empty yard and vice versa. Empty containers that are planned to be
loaded onto a vessel, can be transferred from the empty yard to the RMG stacks for intermediate storage
prior to vessel arrival to speed up vessel loading operations.
Pag. 16 a 35
Out of Gauge
Cargo units exceeding the standard container dimensions, - Out Of Gauge (OOG) cargo – will be stored in
dedicated OOG areas by means of Reach Stackers. Transport of such cargo from/to the quayside is
executed by TTUs. Theoretically, OOG containers can be handled in the automated area up to a certain
extent (max. over width on each side = 0.5 m, max. over height = 1.8 m, no over length). However,
operational experience made with OOG units in the fully automated yard, especially with regard to yard
utilization and productivity nowadays deny the storage of OOG units in the RMG yard.
Reefer Containers
Reefer containers will be stacked in the automated yard area in dedicated reefer slots, which are equipped
with power supply provided via reefer racks which also enable the reefer mechanics to enter the reefer
area safely.
Figure 7: Reefer Rack Installation in RMG Yard
Source: HPC, 2009
The reefer mechanic receives notification from the system to plug/unplug specific containers. Containers
can only be removed from the stack if the reefer mechanic has informed the system about successful
unplugging of the reefer container to avoid any possible damage.
IMDG Containers
IMDG containers are stacked in the automated yard area in a position where they are easy to access,
especially for the fire fighters in case of an accident. The ground is made of impermeable surface to avoid
that any leakage drips into the ground. Further, IMDG containers are separated from each other by classes
according to the regulations.
3.3. RCMS

The RCMS building will be located right behind the STS cranes in parallel to the quay wall as shown in Figure
8. The building is expected to spread wider along the length of the quay wall than it extends into the
Pag. 17 a 35
landside direction. This way the travel distance of the AGVs within the building can be kept at a minimum
while being accessible to the STS continuously along the entire building. On the landside of the RCMS
building the handover of containers to external trucks and TTUs serving the rail terminal will be performed.
The gate facilities and the rail terminal will be located on the opposite of the quay wall on the landside of
the terminal.
Figure 8: Schematic RCMS layout
Source: HPC, 2015
Figure 9 shows an example cross section of the RCMS building and the STS cranes. All regular loaded
containers are directly transferred by the STS between the balconies of the RCMS building and the vessel.
On its way to and from the vessel, the STS crane shortly lowers the container over the lashing platform for
attaching or detaching the twistlocks. All other OOG, IMDG, empty and Reefer containers are handed over
to TTUs in the portal of the STS cranes and are not handled and stored in the RCMS.
Figure 9: RCMS Cross-Section
Source: IAI, 2015
The handover of containers to TTUs and external trucks is on the landside of the RCMS building.
Pag. 18 a 35

Quayside operation is executed in the same way as described for the RMG layout in Section 3.2.2 with the
assumption that all STS Cranes can reach both balconies.
Due to the handover of containers between the storage area and the STS via balconies, a clear separation
to manual driven vehicles or workers is given.

The horizontal transport of all containers that do not enter the RCMS building is performed by TTUs. All
loaded containers that are stored within the RCMS building are transported by special design AGVs. These
AGVs take over the container on one of the two balconies before taking the container into the RCMS
building. There they take an elevator to get to an assigned storage slot. On each balcony dedicated two
handover lanes, which are aligned in parallel to the quay wall, are used for the handover of containers from
the STS to the AGVs. An additional parallel lane is used as bypass and waiting lane. As shown in Figure 10,
AGVs do not need to turn (they can spin on their axis) but can, due to their omni wheels, drive in x- and y
directions. An AGV therefore keeps its direction parallel to the quay wall at any time.
Figure 10: RCMS Balcony
Source: IAI, 2015.
The handover of the containers between external trucks and TTUs serving the rail terminal is performed on
the ground floor of the RCMS building. In order to handover the container to external trucks or TTUs, the
AGV leaves the RCMS building on the landside and enters into one of three lanes. The lane in the middle is
used as a travel lane to bypass other AGVs that are currently loaded or unloaded. The two other lanes are
handover lanes from where the overhead RMGs can take the containers.
Pag. 19 a 35
Figure 11: RCMS Ground Floor
Elevator Elevator
400
400
0.4m 0.4m
200
200
0.4m
400
400
400
400
2650
2650
2650
2650
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
0.4m 0.4m 0.4m 0.4m 0.4m
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
112m
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
201
400
400
Elevator
400
400
1.2m
Source: IAI, 2015.

The truck handover positions are perpendicular to the AGV handover lanes on the landside of the RCMS
building. The OHBC (Overhead Bridge Crane) serving the external trucks and TTUs therefore has to turn the
container by 90°. The handover of the container can again be automated as far as possible. For this study
we will assume that again RCOs will perform the final handover of containers to the external trucks. All
other safety requirements are supposed to be comparable to those as described at the truck handling
between RMGs and external trucks in the automated RMG layout in Section 3.2.4.

All yard operations for the RCMS layout are related to AGVs handling containers within the RCMS building.
As shown in Figure 12, a single cell within the RCMS building is capable of handling either two 20’
containers or one 40’ container. The AGV is moving underneath the supporting beams, which hold the
containers in the cell and lifts these containers up to remove them from the cell.
Pag. 20 a 35
Figure 12: RCMS Storage Cells
Source: IAI, 2015.
Within the RCMS building, the AGV will navigate to the designated cell of a container and position itself
accurately in parallel to the cell. The AGV will raise the lifting platform and move into the cell. Then the AGV
will lower the lifting platform until the container is supported on the supporting beams. After this, the AGV
will continue to lower the platform to its minimum position, fold the edges of the lifting platform and exit
the cell empty.
For a 40’ container transport, two AGVs will be coupled together. The coupling will be done both by
software and mechanically. One AGV will then takeover the control functions over the second and they will
act like a single unit. The coupling of the AGVs will take place as late as possible either right before being
loaded at the balcony or before lifting a container in a cell. As soon as the container has been delivered and
taken off the AGVs, the AGVs uncouple again and act again as single units. Only before entering a cell the
mechanical coupling has to be removed. Vice versa when leaving the cell already coupled by software, the
mechanical coupling has to take place outside the cell.

External trucks entering or leaving the terminal will be handled in the same way at the gate as described for
the RTG layout and RMG layout in Section 3.1.6.

Empty Container
At the current state of this study it is anticipated, that empty container will be purely handled by manual
empty container handler at a dedicated area for empty containers. From an operational standpoint, empty
containers could however be also stored in the RCMS building at any time. Due to the fact, that empty
containers are always stored together with their akin, the density of stacking empty containers in a
dedicated empty container yard is a lot higher and efficient than storing them inside the RCMS building.
Pag. 21 a 35
Out of Gauge
Due to the limited height and width within the RCMS building, any OOG cargo will be stored at a dedicated
area for OOG cargo and be lifted with Reach Stackers. OOG cargo will be transported on TTUs from the STS
to the OOG area. The handover between the STS and the TTU is taking place in between the STS crane legs.
Reefer Containers
Reefer containers will also be stored in Reefer Racks outside the RCMS building. This way, any necessary
human interaction with containers of any kind is taking place outside the RCMS building. Automated areas
shall not be entered at any time by human beings or manual driven equipment.
IMDG Containers
Again, at the current state of the study, IMDG containers are anticipated to be stored in dedicated storage
areas outside of the RCMS building. This eases access especially for the fire fighters in case of an accident.
The ground is made of impermeable surface to avoid that any leakage drips into the ground. Further, IMDG
containers are separated from each other by classes according to the regulations.
Criteria Definition / Description of Approach

The evaluation of the three layout/system alternatives, as previously described in Section 3, will be
separated into different categories. The first category on which the three alternative designs are
qualitatively judged is finance. Finance will again be divided into investment costs and operating costs. Next
to finance, operational aspects and environmental influences will be analysed. All remaining criteria are
subsumed in section Others.
The different systems will be compared, assuming equal framework conditions.
4.1. Finance
4.1.1. Investment costs

Civil Engineering (infrastructure requirements)
An alternative receives a better rating on this criterion, if it has less expected investment costs compared to
the other alternatives regrading civil engineering. As the quay side with the STS cranes, the landside with
the gate and the rail terminal will be similar or identical in all three different container handling systems,
the main difference will result from the way of storing and transporting containers on the terminal.
Equipment
Again the higher the expected investment costs into equipment are going to be, the lower the rating of this
alternative will be. As explained before, mostly the terminal yard including container storage and transport
system will differ between the three systems compared; the comparison will look at equipment used for
container storage and transport on this criterion. These will be lift equipment and horizontal transport
vehicles.
IT
This criterion will be rated according to expected effort required to implement an IT system, including
Terminal Operating System (TOS) and different equipment control and management systems, if required.
All three compared alternatives will use some kind of Terminal Operating System (TOS), which usually has a
Pag. 22 a 35
modular architecture. For this comparison it is assumed that all systems will use the same TOS with the
same core modules and thus identical investment costs. However, automated terminal systems will require
additional modules for controlling and managing the automated terminal equipment, interfacing the
previously mentioned equipment control and management systems. Control Systems for automated RMGs,
automated support for RTG drivers or automated guided vehicles are assumed to be delivered together
with the equipment and therefore included in the equipment investment costs. The equipment
management system, sometimes also referred to as fleet management system, will be provided by the
equipment manufacturer or other specialised IT companies at extra costs. Finally, additional costs will arise
from the implementation and integration of all IT system components (including project management,
testing and quality assurance), which usually are higher the more complex the system is and the more
different components have to be integrated.
4.1.2. Operating costs

Energy
High energy consumption for horizontal transport and lift equipment is rated low. RTGs and TTUs are, for
this comparison, assumed to be powered by diesel engines, although electrical alternatives are available,
which, however, are so far only rarely used in operation. All AGVs, RMGs, elevators and other cranes used
at the RCMS are assumed to be electrically driven.
Maintenance
Based on experiences with RTG and RMG operated terminals and estimated maintenance effort for the
RCMS, maintenance costs of the three systems are compared to each other. Of course fewer costs will
receive a higher rating.
Labour
This criterion is going to be rated based on the number of employees needed for the horizontal transport,
storage and external truck handover. Larger number of employees involved will lead to higher labour costs
and therefore receive a lower rating.
4.2. Operations
Operational flexibility
Operational flexibility is a criterion, which assesses the potential of a system to be adapted according to
required changes in the operating processes and to flexibly react to unforeseen events. The better the
system can be modified and is able to be easily changed and flexibly react, the better its rating is going to
be.
Exception handling
Exceptions can be any oversized cargo, overlanded containers or a misrouted container. The easier an
oversized cargo can be handled or a misrouted container can be put in the right spot, the better a systems
rating will be.
Technological maturity
Each new system has its own adaptation problems, malfunctions etc. After a while – can be months or few
years depending on the system- the system reach stable state in terms that everyone knows how it's
working and it is optimized. On this criterion, the systems are compared to their maturity. The longer the
Pag. 23 a 35
technology has been in use the better it is assumed to work without malfunctions and therefore receives a
higher rating
Ease of Maintenance
Maintenance is understood to be required as schedule preventive maintenance. The easier the equipment
can be repaired and the less time is required for such a repair, the better rating a system receives.
Safety
The better operating areas for workers, truck drivers or vessel crews are protected against any thread of
accident, the better the rating. As only the storage area and horizontal transport differs between the three
systems, only the safety in the storage area will be assessed.
Equipment Scalability
The easier additional equipment can be taken into operation in order to increase handling productivity
and/or capacity, the better a systems rating.
Peak performance/robustness
Based on this criterion, the three different systems are rated according to their ability to react on peak
container handling requirements. Usually peaks can occur over the day and over the year. In many ports
external trucks tend to show up in high numbers around noon time. Therefore the container handling
requirements are highest around that time. Some operating systems perform particularly well under evenly
distributed workloads, while others can easily react to peak workloads. The better the system can react on
such peaks, the better its rating.
Service Level
The service level of a terminal could be measured at the waterside, the truck handover and the train side.
The service level depends on the reliability and speed of service (i.e., if agreed handling times are met). The
service level is also directly dependent on how fast a container can be retrieved from the storage area and
how many shuffle moves are necessary in order to reach a specific container. The better the reliability and
speed of service the better the rating.
Storage density
The higher the storage density of a system, which is usually measured in terms of TEU storage capacity per
hectare, the better the rating of a system is going to be.
System complexity
For this criterion the systems will be rated according to their complexity. The more complex the system, the
more difficult it is to operate efficiently and the higher the requirement for qualified personnel. Systems
with a high manual operations share are considered to be less complex and will therefore receive a higher
rating than highly automated and new developments, which usually come along with high IT involvement
and requirements for highly qualified employees that are capable of maintaining such IT-systems. This
criterion is looking at the IT-system complexity and not at the complexity of interacting with the IT-system
for crane operators or TTU driver.
Pag. 24 a 35
4.3. Environment
Noise
The noise level of a system is going to be mainly based on how the equipment is powered. Diesel driven
vehicles and cranes are considered to be louder than electrically driven equipment. Noise also occurs when
dropping containers on top of each other. Automated cranes can be more precisely controlled than
manually driven cranes. With automated cranes the containers will hit each other at lower speeds than
expected for manually driven cranes and therefore produce less noise (i.e. soft touch handover).
Exhaust Emission
The exhaust of a container handling system depends mainly on the way of powering vehicles and cranes
operated on the terminal. Diesel driven vehicles and cranes will of course produce more harmful exhaust
emissions than their electric counterparts, which cause no local emissions at all.
Visual Impact
The higher the containers are stacked or the higher the buildings are in a terminal, the bigger the visual
impact, which is expected to be disapproved by the local community, and therefore the lower the rating is
going to be.
Light Emissions
During night times, container terminals usually require strong illumination to continue operations, which is
unwelcomed by the local community. Hence, systems causing higher light emission, will receive a lower
rating. For this criterion it is assumed that lighting will already be reduced as far as possible and allowed by
rules and regulations in order to maintain safe operations. However, automated systems do not necessarily
need lighting to operate and therefore will receive better ratings.
Footprint (paved area)

In general, paved areas have harmful environmental impact as compared to green areas. Therefore, bigger
footprints will receive a lower rating. The paved footprint of a container handling system is lower if the
storage density is higher. The rating of this criterion will be directly related to the rating of the storage
density criterion.
4.4. Other
Civil Engineering / Terminal Expansion Scalability
The rating of the terminal expansion scalability is similar to that of equipment scalability. Attention will be
drawn to the required civil engineering effort when trying to expand the terminal. Some terminal systems
will only require additionally paved areas, while other systems higher investments will be required or
expansion might not be possible at all. The easier and cheaper a terminal can be expanded, the higher the
rating.
Degree of Innovation
The older the technology is, the lower the degree of innovation. In addition to the maturity of a system, the
benefit a new system brings to terminal operations is also assessed. A higher degree of innovation may lead
to a higher acceptance by the community, even if connected with other disadvantages, thus receiving a
higher rating.
Pag. 25 a 35
Acceptance by community
The acceptance of a community will largely depend on how the community is disturbed by a system and to
what extent the community identifies itself with the system. Therefore the rating of this criterion will
mainly depend on the criteria light emission, noise emission and visual impact as well degree of innovation.
Evaluation
5.1. Finance
5.1.1. Investment costs

Table 1: Comparison on Investment Costs
Investment Costs RTG RMG RCMS

Civil Engineering (infrastructure requirements) + - --
Equipment + - 0
IT + - -
++ = very good; + = good; 0 = sufficient; - = less sufficient; -- = bad
Source: HPC, 2015
Civil Engineering (infrastructure requirements)

RTG: Storing of containers in blocks which are operated by RTGs require mainly pavements for trucks
travelling to and from the blocks and between the blocks on handover and bypass lanes. The travel passes
of the RTGs require a more expensive heavy duty pavement, which is capable of handling the higher wheel
load of RTGs, and in seldom cases even deep pile foundations might be required. The storage of the
containers also requires a heavy duty pavement, as the load of all stacked containers is transferred via the
relatively small area of a container corner castings.
RMG: RMGs might need fewer pavements for horizontal transport per container handled as trucks or
TTUs do not have to travel in between the stacks, but require higher investment costs into the crane rails.
Crane rails for RMGs need to have a good foundation in order to operate smoothly. In some cases, the
crane rails also have to get a deep pile foundation, if the area those RMGs are erected on is expected to still
settle. As we assume, that only automated RMGs will be considered for this comparison, the actual storage
area does not need to be completely paved. Concrete stones capable of holding up to four corner castings,
laid-out in a one TEU grid, are sufficient instead of having a pavement. The area in between these stones is
filled with gravel. Additionally, automated systems will require a lot of cabling for the power supply and
communication systems, which cause additional costs.
RCMS: The RCMS building will impose the highest civil engineering costs. The complete building will consist
of steel reinforced concrete structures, complete pavement of each floor and heavy foundations. On the
other hand, the RCMS would need less civil engineering effort due to its smaller footprint for terminals
where reclamation of land from the sea is necessary. However, this rating does not consider reclamation of
land from the sea.
Equipment
RTG: In a RTG system, TTUs will perform the horizontal transport. Travel distances are expected to be
longer than in a RMG system, but TTUs usually move faster than AGVs. Therefore, a similar number of TTUs
and AGVs will be needed. However, TTUs are far less expensive than AGVs and will therefore also require
Pag. 26 a 35
less investment. Again, RTGs used for stacking containers in the blocks are similarly productive as RMGs,
depending on the terminal-specific working environment. Therefore, similar numbers of RTGs and RMGs
will be required, but RTGs are again less expensive than RMGs and will therefore, also require less
investment.
RMG: As already explained in the comparison for RTG investment costs, the RMGs and AGVs are
expensive terminal handling equipment, and will therefore require higher investments than an RTG system.
RCMS: For the RCMS, lifting equipment is mainly replaced by elevators which transport the AGVs and
container from one floor to the other. Only at the truck handover, overhead RMGs are required to be
installed, which operate on a smaller area than for example RTGs or RMGs. The elevators and the cranes
used for the truck handover are less complicated equipment than RTGs or RMGs, and therefore expected
to be less expensive. Even if the number of equipment needed is higher than in a RTG or RMG system, it is
expected that the total investment will be at least less for the RCMS than for the RMG system. The
horizontal transport is performed by AGVs. These AGVs are expected to be less expensive than the
traditional AGVs used for the RMG system. Looking at the total equipment investment for a RCMS, it is
expected to end up with an investment costs, somewhere between the equipment investment costs for
RMGs and RTGs.
IT
RTG: As the RTGs and TTUs are assumed to be fully manually handled, only a basic TOS will be need and
an integration of control systems into the TOS will be very limited, thus causing comparably little costs.
RMG: For automated RMGs in combination with AGVs, a more comprehensive TOS will be required and
significant system integration will be required for the interfacing TOS and equipment management systems.
Hence, IT costs will be significantly higher for the RMG system as compared to the RTG system.
RCMS: In general, IT costs for the RCMS is expected to be very similar to the RMG system. However, a
main driver of IT costs for the RCMS will be at the beginning the lack of experience in integrating an RCMS
into a TOS. With increasing maturity of the systems, integration efforts will become comparable to that of
RMGs.
5.1.2. Operating costs

Table 2: Comparison on Operating Costs
Operating Costs RTG RMG RCMS

Energy -- + +
Maintenance - + 0
Labour -- ++ ++
Source: HPC, 2015
Energy
RTG: Looking at a ratio of lift per box or distance travelled per box, diesel driven equipment will have
higher costs than their electric counterparts. Therefore, the RTG system with only manually operated diesel
driven equipment will have the highest energy costs.
Pag. 27 a 35
RMG: The RMG system operated together with AGVs, will only require electric energy for equipment
within the storage area. Therefore, and based on the assumption of higher productivity compared to an
RTG system, energy costs are expected to be lower for RMG systems.
RCMS: Just as in the RMG system, all AGVs, elevators and cranes used within the RCMS building are
assumed to be electrically powered and will therefore have similar energy consumption as RMG systems
Maintenance
RTG: Diesel powered engines are known to have higher maintenance costs compared to their electric
counterparts. Therefore the RTG system receives a lower rating on this criterion.
RMG: Not only because all equipment in the storage area of a RMG system is electrically driven, but also
because of its complete automation, maintenance costs are lower for this system. Manual operated
equipment usually shows higher wear than automated equipment where accelerations and decelerations
are always kept within a range most suitable for the performance of the equipment. Sudden changes in
load, which harm equipment most, are minimized.
RCMS: In general, same arguments as for the RMG system apply for the RCMS. However, the omni wheels
of the special AGVs in the RCMS building are expected to have higher maintenance costs compared to AGVs
used together with RMGs and some equipment might be less accessible for maintenance than in the RMG
system, thus causing additional costs. In addition, maintenance costs for the RCMS building may also
increase overall maintenance costs for this system.
Labour
RTG: The RTG system is the system that required the largest number of employees working on RTGs and
driving the TTUs in the storage area. Therefore, the RTG system receives the lowest rating on this criterion.
RMG: The only required manual interference in the RMG system takes place at the handover of
containers between the RMGs and external trucks. The number of remote control operator required for
this procedure is however very low, most definitely lower than the number of RMGs in use.
RCMS: The same arguments used for the RMGs also apply to the RCMS. Only the handover between the
overhead cranes and the external trucks requires manual interference. The rating is the same as for the
RMG system.
Pag. 28 a 35
5.2. Operations
Table 3: Comparison on Operations Criteria
Operations RTG RMG RCMS

Operational flexibility + 0 -
Exception handling ++ 0 0
Technological maturity + ++ -
Ease of Maintenance ++ 0 -
Safety - ++ ++
Equipment Scalability ++ 0 +
Peak performance / robustness + 0 0
Service Level - + +
Storage density 0 + ++
System complexity + 0 0
Source: HPC, 2015
Operational flexibility
RTG: As RTGs can be easily adapted to required changes of the operational process. As everything is
handled manual, instructions can be given to the drivers on how to deal with special occurrences.
RMG: A RMG system is less flexible in regard to required changes in the automated area. If new
operational circumstances would be required, these processes would have to be modelled into the control
system. This requires much effort and is not easily done.
RCMS: The RCMS building is very inflexible to changes in operations where changes to the building are
required. The building itself cannot be easily reshaped without major investments and just as with the
automated parts of the RMG system, changes to the process modelling within the control systems would
have to be done. If only changes in algorithms of the IT-system have to be performed in order to change
the way of operations, the RCMS might have a greater degree of flexibility to changes than the RMG, as
AGVs can be easier rerouted than RMGs which are fixed to specific blocks.
Exception handling
RTG: Reach Stackers within the RTG system can easily handle any oversize cargo. The equipment is
manually driven and exception rules do not have to be modelled and implemented into a control system or
the TOS.
RMG: Oversize cargo cannot be handled within an automated environment such as a RMG system and is
therefore also handled by reach stackers. Complicated algorithms would have to be implemented into the
control software. This would be too much effort for exceptions. Misrouted containers can be easily routed
to their dedicated slot after a short manual update of the TOS data. The risk of containers being misrouted
is limited, due to the high degree of automation.
RCMS: Since the RCMS is just as automated as the RMG system, the same rating with the same arguments
apply.
Pag. 29 a 35
Technological maturity
RTG: Compared to RMGs and the RCMS, TTUs in combination with RTGs rely on relatively simple and
known technology. RTGs therefore receive a good rating.
RMG: RMGs are more complex then RTGs but because of being automated and bound to rails are
assumed to be more reliable as RTGs. AGVs are in the meantime also known technology and are assumed
to be more reliable as TTUs.
RCMS: Since the RCMS is a highly innovative, not proven technology, failure rates in the first few years of
employment are expected to be higher than for RTGs or RMGs, technology and systems which have been in
use for years already. On the long run the RCMS is believed to be similarly reliable as an RMG system.
Ease of Maintenance
RTG: The RTG system can easily react on broken down equipment. TTUs can be easily removed from the
operating area and brought to the maintenance area. Even RTGs can be towed into a position where they
do not interfere with ongoing operations.
RMG: If a RMG breaks down, it can be pulled to either end of the RMG block and be repaired. For the
duration of the repair, at least this side of the block has to be taken out of operation. A handover of
containers cannot take place. In case an AGV breaks down, Reach Stackers can be brought into the
automated area and pick up the AGV in order to bring it to the maintenance area. For the duration of the
Reach Stacker being inside the automated area, the whole waterside horizontal transport has to be
stopped.
RCMS: A breakdown of a crane on the truck handover or the breakdown of an elevator are situations to
which existing break down procedures exist. It is however unknown, how to react on a broken down AGV
within the RCMS building. It will be difficult to pull the AGV out of the building to the maintenance area. As
the RCMS is also a fully automated system, repairs should not take place within the building. Repairs in the
building would require at least a partly shut off of the system within the area of the vehicle break down.
Safety
RTG: Within the storage area, truck drivers and workers are exposed to a relatively high risk of accidents.
Full manual operation will have the risk of human errors. TTUs, external trucks and RTGs share the same
area of operation.
RMG: Within an automated RMG area, human error can almost be neglected. The main remaining risk of
accidents can occur on the handover between RMGs and external trucks. Safety procedures such as the
truck driver having to leave the truck before a container is either lifted or picked up from a truck limit the
risk of accidents. It is also confirmed by statistics, that far less serious accidents, if any, occur at automated
terminals than at traditional terminal system.
RCMS: The rating of the RCMS on this criterion is the same as for the RMG as there is also a clear
separation of manual operated and automated areas. The only remaining safety related potential is the
occurrence of accidents at the handover of containers between the overhead cranes and the trucks.
Equipment Scalability
RTG: At a given layout with a paved storage area and paved heavy duty drive ways for RTGs, additional
equipment can be easily put in place.
Pag. 30 a 35
RMG: Installing a new crane on a given single RMG block, which is already equipped with two RMGs, is
not recommendable as RMGs will hinder each other in operation and loose productivity. Adding additional
RMG blocks is possible if the place is available. Investments are higher than for an RTG solution. However,
AGVs can easily be added to the system, in order to improve horizontal transport productivity.
RCMS: Adding additional AGVs can be easily done in the RCMS. Adding additional elevators into an already
existing building will be a big challenge and if at all possible will interfere during construction with
operations. At high investment costs, the RCMS building can be enlarged if place is available. Extending the
building into the depth of the terminal would require a relocation of the handover area between trucks and
the RCMS. Given the possibility of adding additional floors to the building, scalability would be better than
for the RMG system.
Peak performance/robustness
RTG: An RTG system can easily react on occurring peaks if a sufficient number of equipment and drivers
are available and if the infrastructure is capable of accommodating all external trucks. However, it is always
questionable to equip a terminal with a very high number of equipment just to be able to handle the peak
that might occur for only one or two hours per day. The remainder of the day, the equipment would be left
idle and not required, which is a waste in terms of investment.
RMG: The main difference to RTG systems is that investment in additional equipment and subsequently
infrastructure is a lot higher than in the RTG system’s case. Therefore, RMG systems would be not built to
handle extreme peak situations but assume a rather levelled work load. This is to some degree justified, as
investment in such highly automated handling systems would only be done if a high enough workload is
anticipated. With a higher workload and the economies of scales coming along with this, peaks usually tend
to be not as high as in smaller terminals.
RCMS: Just as for RMG system, the RCMS would also require high investments into equipment and
infrastructure in order to be able to handle greater peaks. Therefore the rating is similar as that of the RMG
system.
Service Level
RTG: The service level of the RTG system at the waterside highly depends on the number of TTUs in use
and the availability of RTGs in the storage area that serve the TTUs and external trucks. If the number of
equipment is sufficient, the service level will be good at the water side. At the truck handover and train
side, the service level might be highly influenced by the other sides. As all sides, the waterside, the truck
handover and the train side share one equipment, the RTGs, a peak on one side will influence all other
sides.
RMG: In the automated environment of an RMG system, the service level of the waterside is more or less
independent to the workload on the other two sides, the truck handover and the train side. The service
level will therefore be very good on the waterside, if the number of AGVs is sufficient to serve the STS
cranes in use. On the other side of the RMG block, at the truck handover, the service level may be more
vulnerable to truck or train peak situations, since the waterside cranes cannot support the landside.. A
decoupling of the handover at the RMG block and the train side, for containers that are transported
between the stack and the train, can improve the service level. Bomcarts which are place underneath the
RMGs can be decoupled from the tractors and therefore function as a buffer.
RCMS: The operation of the RCMS is almost similar to that of the RMG system. The only difference is, that
AGVs in the RCMS also serve the landside. The AGVs would wait for the handover of the container by the
Pag. 31 a 35
OHBC to and from the external trucks or trucks serving the rail terminal. Both the RMG and the RCMS thus
receive the same. The most important aspect and benefit from using a RCMS is the fact that containers can
be accessed directly without any shuffling or housekeeping moves. Shuffling and housekeeping moves are
necessary within the RTG or RMG systems, where containers are stacked on top of each other. In order to
get to a specific container, which happens to be on the bottom of a stack, all other containers on top have
to be removed.
Storage density
RTG: Due to the drive ways in between the RTG storage blocks and the usually fewer number of rows
within a block, the storage density of the RTG system is lower than in the RMG or RCMS case.
RMG: RMG systems have more rows per block and usually also more bays per block. Furthermore, RMG
blocks are directly attached to each other and do not require any travelling or handover lanes in between
them. This makes a RMG system a very compact system with a high storage density.
RCMS: The storage density of a RCMS building highly depends on the height of the building. The higher the
building is, the higher the density, i.e., capacity per ground space is obtained. Assuming a height of 10
floors, the RCMS building will offer the highest storage density. The RCMS has a high advantage in being
able to access every container without having to move other containers out of the way. In the other two
systems, the cranes virtually have to dig for containers at the bottom, which makes crane productivities
decrease (reshuffling process), and ultimately impacts CT throughput adversely
System complexity
RTG: The RTG system is the system with the highest share of manual operations and has been in use in
container terminals all around the world for decades. Compared to the other systems it therefore receives
the highest rating. Still any kind of container handling system on a marine terminal is rather complex due to
the many different parties with own interests interacting on a terminal.
RMG: The automated RMG system is, due to its high degree of automation very complex. Processes
cannot easily be changed and require larger effort in IT to adapt to new requirements. Nevertheless such
systems have been in use for many years now and are well manageable. Therefore the RMG system
receives a higher rating than the RCMS.
RCMS: The RCMS is just as the RMG system due to its automation being considered very complex. The
interaction of crane operators and truck drivers is easier than in manually operated systems.
5.3. Environment
Table 4: Comparison on Environmental Criteria
Environment RTG RMG RCMS

Noise -- + ++
Exhaust Emission -- + +
Visual Impact + + --
Light Emissions -- + ++
Footprint (paved area) - 0 ++
Source: HPC, 2015
Pag. 32 a 35
Noise
RTG: With all vehicles and cranes being diesel and manually driven and therefore being very noisy, the
RTG system receives the worst rating.
RMG: RMGs and AGVs being automated and electrically driven produce less noise than an RTG system.
RCMS: The RCMS is also automated and its equipment electrically driven but can in comparison to the
RMG system even have a reduced noise emission if the RCMS building is closed by surrounding walls.
Exhaust Emission
RTG: Every equipment within a RTG system is assumed to be diesel driven and therefore having a high
exhaust emission.
RMG: Within the automated environment of a RMG system all vehicles and cranes are electrified and
therefore have a very low exhaust emission.
RCMS: Just as for the RMG system every AGV and crane within the RCMS building is assumed to be
electrical and therefore also has a very low emission of exhaust.
Visual Impact
RTG: The RTG and the RMG systems have about the same stacking height. Therefore the visual impact is
limited to the STS cranes at the quay wall.
RMG: The visual impact of the RMG system will also be limited to the STS cranes.
RCMS: The RCMS building is assumed to have 10 floors and will therefore be at least as high as the STS
cranes, virtually creating a waterside wall. This will have a much higher visual impact on the surrounding
community than the other two systems.
Light Emissions
RTG: The RTG system will be the system with the highest light emission. The manual operations will have
to be supported by light during night.
RMG: The high degree of automation within a RMG system reduces the light requirements to the
handover position between the RMGs and the trucks.
RCMS: The light emissions of the RCMS are expected to be comparable to the RMG system. In addition,
just as for the noise emission, the light emission could potentially be further reduced by surrounding
covering of the RCMS building.
Footprint (paved area)

RTG: Since the RTG is going to have the lowest storage density, its footprint is going to be the largest
among the three systems.
RMG: The RMGs has a higher storage density than the RTG system and therefore will show a moderate
footprint compared to the other two systems.
RCMS: The RCMS, with an assumed height of 10 floors, will have the smallest footprint.
Pag. 33 a 35
5.4. Other
Table 5: Comparison on Other Criteria
Other RTG RMG RCMS

Civil Engineering / Terminal Expansion Scalability + 0 -
Degree of Innovation - + ++
Acceptance by community 0 0 0
Source: HPC, 2015
Civil Engineering / Terminal Expansion Scalability

RTG: Expanding the terminal in a RTG system will, compared to the other two container handling
systems, be limited to preparing the new area for pavement of streets or heavy duty pavements for
container stacks and RTG driveways.
RMG: For an expansion of the RMG system, complete new blocks will have to be erected, which also
require new crane rails for the RMGs and additional electrical and IT infrastructure installations. This will
lead to a higher effort in civil engineering than for expanding the RTG system.
RCMS: The expansion of a RCMS will require the highest effort in civil engineering. The RCMS can only be
expanded by expanding the RCMS building and its heavy concrete structure.
Degree of Innovation
RTG: The degree of innovation is lowest for the RTG system as it is in use for many years all over the
world.
RMG: Despite being in operation for more than a decade now, the automated AGVs and RMGs are still
considered as very innovative compared to the RTG system. However, compared to the new RCMS they are
slightly less innovative.
RCMS: The ability of accessing every container directly without having to dig for a container reduces the
number of unproductive moves is revolutionary. In this sense, the RCMS could be considered as a potential
game changer, thus being very innovative.
Acceptance by community
RTG: The visual impact of the RTG will be limited to the STS cranes, therefore one can expect that the
community will specifically like or identify with such a technology. The community will see this way of
operation as a necessity without big emotions.
RMG: Just as for the RTG, the acceptance by the community will most likely not be influenced by using a
RMG system in regard to using a RTG system.
RCMS: Depending on how the community rates the visual impact of such a building and on how the
system’s technological leadership and eco-friendliness is perceived and weighed against the visual impact, ,
the RCMS can also be viewed as a statement of a city or community to being very innovative and proud of
such a technology.
Pag. 34 a 35
Disclaimer
The views represented in this document only reflect the views of the authors and not the views of
the European Union. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the
information contained in this document.
Furthermore, the information are provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the
information fit for any particular purpose. The user of the information uses it as its sole risk and
liability
Pag. 35 a 35

Qualitative Comparison: Document Status

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitative Comparison: Document Status

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

636158 – RCMS Report

This project has received funding from the

HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH

IMDG International Maritime Code for Dangerous Goods

OCR Optical Character Recognition

OHBC Overhead Bridge Crane

OOG Out of Gauge (cargo)

RCMS Rethinking Container Management System

RMG Rail Mounted Gantry (crane)

RTG Rubber Tyred Gantry (crane)

STS Ship to Shore (crane)

TEU Twenty feet Equivalent Unit

TOS Terminal Operation System

TTU Tractor Trailer Unit

Source: HPC, 2013

Layout and System Alternatives

3.1. Conventional RTG-System

3.1.1. Schematic Layout

Source: Kemme, 2013

3.1.2. Quayside Operation

3.1.3. Horizontal Transport

3.1.4. Truck Handling

Source: HPC, 2009

3.1.5. Yard Operation

3.1.6. Gate Operation

3.1.7. Handling of Special Containers

Source: HPC, 2009

3.2. Automated RMG with Automated Horizontal Transport

3.2.1. Schematic Layout

Source: Kemme, 2013

Source: HPC, 2009

3.2.2. Quayside Operation

3.2.3. Horizontal Transport

3.2.4. Truck Handling

3.2.5. Yard Operation

3.2.6. Gate Operation

3.2.7. Handling of Special Containers

Source: HPC, 2009

3.3.1. Schematic Layout

Source: HPC, 2015

Source: IAI, 2015

3.3.2. Quayside Operation

3.3.3. Horizontal Transport

Source: IAI, 2015.

Source: IAI, 2015.

3.3.4. Truck Handling

3.3.5. Yard Operation

Source: IAI, 2015.

3.3.6. Gate Operation

3.3.7. Handling of Special Containers

Criteria Definition / Description of Approach

The different systems will be compared, assuming equal framework conditions.

4.1.1. Investment costs

4.1.2. Operating costs

Footprint (paved area)

5.1.1. Investment costs

Investment Costs RTG RMG RCMS

Civil Engineering (infrastructure requirements)

5.1.2. Operating costs

Operating Costs RTG RMG RCMS

Operations RTG RMG RCMS