News Content
Hamburg cites Drewry to say it beats rivals for south German imports
THE Port of Hamburg proved to be the best way to get sea freight to southern Germany from Shanghai compared with Rotterdam, Antwerp and Med gateways, said Port of Hamburg Marketing, citing a study by London's Drewry Maritime Research.
In their "Best route market study for containerised imports to South Germany", published at the beginning of March, Drewry's supply-chain consultants investigated ports would provide the fastest and cheapest way to Munich, Freiburg, Stuttgart, Ulm and Nuremberg.
But for Munich, the Adriatic Port of Koper can be the fastest, but can only boast of a weekly 2M liner service, lumbered with US$100 in extra costs in comparison to the routing via Hamburg.
"In almost all markets under consideration, Hamburg comes out better than Rotterdam, Antwerp and the southern ports in the Mediterranean," said the Hamburg press release.
"Contributing to this are numerous direct services, a high departure frequency for container block trains and the fast transit times to/from the Hamburg quay wall," it said.
"Across the North Range a total of 16 Far East liner services are currently on offer from the major container shipping lines. The two leading ports in these statistics are Rotterdam and Hamburg, being called at by 15 and 13 of these 16 liner services respectively. Antwerp, however, with a total of six is served by fewer than half of all possible liner services," said the release.
Calculating the speed of the route for the transit time at sea is an important factor in this study. Hamburg and Rotterdam achieve an average of 33 days with a best time of 29 days.
The Port of Antwerp that is able to include the calculation for its extremely fast MSC 25-day liner service, on average achieves 36 days for its six services together. Since the study compares fastest times, Antwerp is repeatedly shown to be the fastest option in the port comparison.
But this is only true at certain times. In the overall comparison, ie, when considering the average transit times, Antwerp falls behind Hamburg and Rotterdam.
"Among the southern ports, Slovenia's Koper equally has a very positive 25-day liner service. Because of their geographical location, throughout the southern ports, the average transit time at sea is logically lower than for the North Range.
"However, the number of liner services calling at these ports lies between three and five with all ports, except Trieste, having a size restriction for containerships with a capacity of over 13,000 TEU.
"In almost all target regions under consideration, the Port of Hamburg is best positioned: For transport with Freiburg, Nuremberg and Stuttgart, the southern ports have so far played no role," said the Hamburg statement.
"The three North Range ports, ie, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg are the only options with competitive conditions. In Freiburg, the Port of Hamburg can show its full colours, with regional shippers profiting from cheaper rates and faster, or same, transit times in comparison with Rotterdam and Antwerp on the trade route to and from Shanghai.
For the Stuttgart and Nuremberg regions, the study determines that faster transit times are coupled with higher transport costs, with Antwerp offering the faster, but equally more expensive service. This, however, only applies to the ultra-fast MSC service, with its 25-day sea transit. When using any other liner service, this timesaving is non-existent in comparison to Hamburg and Rotterdam.
In all of the examples quoted, one of the Port of Hamburg's great strengths comes into play: The high concentration of container train departures with the Hamburg Terminals increase flexibility, buffering the transport chain.
Ulm is a good example for this: This market is only served by Hamburg and the southern Port of Trieste that only has one weekly container train service to Ulm.
"If the Trieste train is missed, then it is either trucking or a week's wait, cancelling out the time-saving from the shorter sea transit. Compare this to the daily scheduled train service to/from Hamburg, offering a reliable, more cost effective service to Shanghai," said the release.
According to Drewry's experts, Hamburg is traditionally the strongest port for the southern German hinterland and will not lose this position in the foreseeable future.
In their "Best route market study for containerised imports to South Germany", published at the beginning of March, Drewry's supply-chain consultants investigated ports would provide the fastest and cheapest way to Munich, Freiburg, Stuttgart, Ulm and Nuremberg.
But for Munich, the Adriatic Port of Koper can be the fastest, but can only boast of a weekly 2M liner service, lumbered with US$100 in extra costs in comparison to the routing via Hamburg.
"In almost all markets under consideration, Hamburg comes out better than Rotterdam, Antwerp and the southern ports in the Mediterranean," said the Hamburg press release.
"Contributing to this are numerous direct services, a high departure frequency for container block trains and the fast transit times to/from the Hamburg quay wall," it said.
"Across the North Range a total of 16 Far East liner services are currently on offer from the major container shipping lines. The two leading ports in these statistics are Rotterdam and Hamburg, being called at by 15 and 13 of these 16 liner services respectively. Antwerp, however, with a total of six is served by fewer than half of all possible liner services," said the release.
Calculating the speed of the route for the transit time at sea is an important factor in this study. Hamburg and Rotterdam achieve an average of 33 days with a best time of 29 days.
The Port of Antwerp that is able to include the calculation for its extremely fast MSC 25-day liner service, on average achieves 36 days for its six services together. Since the study compares fastest times, Antwerp is repeatedly shown to be the fastest option in the port comparison.
But this is only true at certain times. In the overall comparison, ie, when considering the average transit times, Antwerp falls behind Hamburg and Rotterdam.
"Among the southern ports, Slovenia's Koper equally has a very positive 25-day liner service. Because of their geographical location, throughout the southern ports, the average transit time at sea is logically lower than for the North Range.
"However, the number of liner services calling at these ports lies between three and five with all ports, except Trieste, having a size restriction for containerships with a capacity of over 13,000 TEU.
"In almost all target regions under consideration, the Port of Hamburg is best positioned: For transport with Freiburg, Nuremberg and Stuttgart, the southern ports have so far played no role," said the Hamburg statement.
"The three North Range ports, ie, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg are the only options with competitive conditions. In Freiburg, the Port of Hamburg can show its full colours, with regional shippers profiting from cheaper rates and faster, or same, transit times in comparison with Rotterdam and Antwerp on the trade route to and from Shanghai.
For the Stuttgart and Nuremberg regions, the study determines that faster transit times are coupled with higher transport costs, with Antwerp offering the faster, but equally more expensive service. This, however, only applies to the ultra-fast MSC service, with its 25-day sea transit. When using any other liner service, this timesaving is non-existent in comparison to Hamburg and Rotterdam.
In all of the examples quoted, one of the Port of Hamburg's great strengths comes into play: The high concentration of container train departures with the Hamburg Terminals increase flexibility, buffering the transport chain.
Ulm is a good example for this: This market is only served by Hamburg and the southern Port of Trieste that only has one weekly container train service to Ulm.
"If the Trieste train is missed, then it is either trucking or a week's wait, cancelling out the time-saving from the shorter sea transit. Compare this to the daily scheduled train service to/from Hamburg, offering a reliable, more cost effective service to Shanghai," said the release.
According to Drewry's experts, Hamburg is traditionally the strongest port for the southern German hinterland and will not lose this position in the foreseeable future.
Latest News
- For the first time, tianjin Port realized the whole process of dock operati...
- From January to August, piracy incidents in Asia increased by 38%!The situa...
- Quasi-conference TSA closes as role redundant in mega merger world
- Singapore says TPP, born again as CPTPP, is now headed for adoption
- Antwerp posts 5th record year with boxes up 4.3pc to 10 million TEU
- Savannah lifts record 4 million TEU in '17 as it deepens port
