1

COALTECH
Project 10.1
Coal Transport Investigation
By
Crickmay & Associates (Pty) Ltd.
December 2009
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coaltech commissioned an independent coal transport investigation to identify alternative transport modes and
technologies, with the aim of determining which technologies are best suited for specific coal transport requirements.
These transport requirements may vary according to the lead distance, terrain, throughput requirements and
geographical location, to name but a few factors. It is the intention of the study however, to provide guidance on a very
high level, in terms of selecting the most appropriate technology that would best satisfy these requirements in a cost
effective and safe manner, while minimising any negative socio-economic impacts.
This coal transport research was based on a hybrid research strategy. The first stage comprised a phenomenological
based, inductive approach to evaluating the literature available on different coal transport technologies, but moreover
to conduct primary evaluative research into the subject. The second positivist based, deductive approach included
primary research, based on the outcome of the first stage, aimed at fully evaluating, understanding and quantifying the
characteristics, capacities, costs and socio-economic impacts of each transport mode. Due to the research being
based on this hybrid strategy, it required a multi-method data gathering approach, which included focused desktop
research and more than 15 general interviews with various senior managers from a number of different organisations
within the coal and transport industries. Based on the initial information garnered, selected technology modal
specialists were targeted for in-depth interviews, further data gathering, cross referencing and validation. In total, 16
specialist interviews and targeted discussions were completed.
Different transport options are generally classified into modes, based on the infrastructure that is required to enable
such transport. Similar guidelines have been used during this coal transport investigation and the 18 identified
transport modes were grouped as indicated in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Available Transport Modes
Transport Mode In Commercial Use Feasible in SA
Road Based Transport Options
Current Road Transport Yes Yes
Quantum 1 Road Transport Yes Yes
PBS Vehicles Yes Yes
Roadtrains Yes Yes
Rail Based Transport Options
General Freight Rail Transport Yes Yes
Heavy Haul Rail Transport Yes Yes
Magnetic Levitation Systems Not for Freight No
Pipeline and Tube Based Transport Options
Coal Log Pipelines No To Be Validated
Slurry Pipelines Yes To Be Validated
Tube Freight Transportation System Not for Bulk Materials No
Continuous Articulated Rail in a Tube (CARIAT) No To Be Validated
Conveyor and Cable Transport Options
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transport Mode In Commercial Use Feasible in SA
Overland Conveyor Systems Yes Yes
Aerial Ropeway Systems Yes Yes
Rope Conveyor Systems Yes Yes
Combination Transport Options
Rail-Veyor System Yes Yes
Bimodal Transport Options Yes Yes
Other Transport Options
Water Based Transport Options Yes No
Air Transport Options Yes No
Eleven of these identified transport options are already being used commercially and are applicable under South African
conditions, while a further three options need further evaluation and testing before a definitive answer can be provided.
To accurately compare transport modes against each other, it was imperative that these technologies be evaluated
using the same criteria. To achieve this objective, the evaluation criteria were structured according to the physical
system characteristics, the socio-economic impacts of each system, its local applicability and any further research
requirements that were uncovered. In order to coherently report on and logically compare each option, based on these
criteria, the completed evaluation matrices for the physical system characteristics, the system capacities and the
socio-economic impacts can be viewed under section 9 of this document. The subsequent section 10 contains the
evaluation from a capital, operating and maintenance cost perspective. Section 11 then presents the cost
comparisons, based on the transport unit cost, at various lead distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 kilometres, based on
three distinct freight volume scenarios of 1, 5 and 50 Million Tonnes per Annum (MTPA), respectively. This comparison
is summarised and the transport options are ranked in order of economic competitiveness in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Summary of Feasible Transport Options per Scenario
SHORT (<10 KM)
Scenario A
Rank
Scenario B
Rank
Scenario C
Rank
1 MTPA 5 MTPA 50 MTPA
Rail-Veyor 1 Rail-Veyor 1 Conveyor 1
Roadtrain (180 t) 2 Aerial Ropeway 2 Pipe Conveyor 2
Roadtrain (105 t) 3 Conveyor 3 Rail-Veyor 3
PBS Vehicles (48 t) 4 Pipe Conveyor 4 Rope Conveyor 4
Aerial Ropeway 5 Roadtrain (180 t) 5 Aerial Ropeway 5
Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 6 Roadtrain (105 t) 6 Roadtrain (180 t) 6
Conveyor 7 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 7 Roadtrain (105 t) 7
Current Road (31 t) 8 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 8 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 8
Pipe Conveyor 9 Current Road (31 t) 9 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 9
Rope Conveyor 10 Rope Conveyor 10 Current Road (31 t) 10
iv
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
INTERMEDIATE (10 - 100 KM)
Scenario A
Rank
Scenario B
Rank
Scenario C
Rank
1 MTPA 5 MTPA 50 MTPA
Heavy Haul Rail (Current Rates) 1 Rail-Veyor 1 Conveyor 1
PBS Vehicles (48 t) 2 Heavy Haul Rail (Current Rates) 2 Pipe Conveyor 2
Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 3 Roadtrain (180 t) 3 Rail-Veyor 3
GFB Rail (Current Rates) 4 Conveyor 4 Rope Conveyor 4
Roadtrain (180 t) 5 Coal Log Pipeline 5 Coal Log Pipeline 5
Roadtrain (105 t) 6 Roadtrain (105 t) 6 Roadtrain (180 t) 6
Current Road (31 t) 7 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 7 Heavy Haul Rail (Current Rates) 7
Coal Log Pipeline 8 Aerial Ropeway 8 Roadtrain (105 t) 8
Rail-Veyor 9 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 9 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 9
Conveyor 10 Pipe Conveyor 10 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 10
Aerial Ropeway 11 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 11 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 11
Pipe Conveyor 12 Slurry Pipeline 12 GFB Rail (Private) 12
Slurry Pipeline 13 Current Road (31 t) 13 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 13
GFB Rail (Private) 14 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 14 Slurry Pipeline 14
Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 15 GFB Rail (Private) 15 Current Road (31 t) 15
Rope Conveyor 16 Rope Conveyor 16 Aerial Ropeway 16
LONG (100 - 1,000 km)
Scenario A
Rank
Scenario B
Rank
Scenario C
Rank
1 MTPA 5 MTPA 50 MTPA
Heavy Haul Rail (Current Rates) 1 Heavy Haul Rail (Current Rates) 1 Coal Log Pipeline 1
GFB Rail (Current Rates) 2 Coal Log Pipeline 2 Rail-Veyor 2
Coal Log Pipeline 3 Slurry Pipeline 3 Heavy Haul Rail (Current Rates) 3
PBS Vehicles (48 t) 4 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 4 Slurry Pipeline 4
Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 5 Rail-Veyor 5 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 5
Roadtrain (180 t) 6 Roadtrain (180 t) 6 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 6
Current Road (31 t) 7 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 7 GFB Rail (Private) 7
Slurry Pipeline 8 Roadtrain (105 t) 8 Roadtrain (180 t) 8
Roadtrain (105 t) 9 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 9 Roadtrain (105 t) 9
Rail-Veyor 10 Current Road (31 t) 10 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 10
GFB Rail (Private) 11 GFB Rail (Private) 11 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 11
Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 12 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 12 Current Road (31 t) 12
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The individual transport modes were ranked per lead distance segment for each of the three volume scenarios and then
averaged per distance grouping, which resulted in the overall ranking indicated in Table 2. FromTable 2 it is possible
to ascertain which transport mode, based on cost only, is the most competitive option at a given lead distance and for a
specified product throughput.
It should be noted that six transport options, which are applicable to the Medium lead distance applications, were
omitted fromTable 2 for the Short lead distance applications below 10 km, as these rail and pipeline type options are
simply not competitive at such short distances. Similarly, four transport options were also omitted from the Long lead
distance applications above 100 km, as conveyor type technologies are not practically suited to such long distances.
The outcome of the research broadly conformed to expectations, where conveyor type technologies are suitable across
shorter lead distances, with the flexibility and scalability of road transport ensuring that it remains an option in most
applications. The different versions of rail transport further indicated that it is very competitive at intermediate to long
lead distances, while the pipeline based technologies also seemed to be an option at mid-volume and long lead
distance applications. The most surprising outcome of this research, however, is the comprehensively competitive
possibilities of the Rail-Veyor system, which proved to be the only technology that was competitive under every single
scenario. However, the selection of a specific transport mode is not a simple economic calculation, but rather a
complex decision based on various influencing factors including the availability of infrastructures, individual system
characteristics, system integration possibilities and various socio-economic implications.
The main conclusion from this research is therefore that no single transport technology exists that could cost effectively
satisfy all the divergent transport requirements, across all distances, at different volumes and across all types of terrain.
The optimum coal distribution solution lies in the effective combination of all the available transport options into an
integrated and well managed network, where individual technologies are applied on merit. This approach allows for
the safest and most cost effective transport application for each individual route, with the lowest socio-economic
impact, while protecting and enhancing the available transport infrastructure.
The research was conducted at a very high level and intentionally kept as generic as possible. The results are valuable
and adequate for guiding selected transport and distribution related decisions, in cases where the lead distance, basic
geography and product volumes are known. However, a logical next step in this field of research would be to
investigate the integrative and cooperative approaches that could be followed to improve distribution productivity,
efficiency, reliability and cost effectiveness of the coal supply chain at an industry level. The introduction of an industry
wide supply chain network optimisation initiative and the establishment of coal hubs are two possible options to
achieve this level of cooperation, which warrants further investigation.
vi
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
1. BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DEFINITION.............................................................. 1
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE................................................................................................... 1
3. PROJECT SCOPE.......................................................................................................... 2
3.1 SCOPE INCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.2 SCOPE EXCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. RESEARCH DELIVERABLES........................................................................................... 2
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................ 3
5.1 PRIMARY EVALUATIVE RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2 GENERAL INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.3 SPECIALIST INTERVIEWS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.4 RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. RESEARCH EVALUATION CRITERIA............................................................................. 4
6.1 EVALUATION MATRIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2 SCENARIO DEFINITION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. COAL MINING AND DISTRIBUTION IN SOUTH AFRICA............................................. 6
7.1 COAL MINING AND CONSUMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2 LOCAL COAL TRANSPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.3 IMPACT ON AVERAGE LEAD DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE COAL TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES.................................. 9
8.1 ROAD BASED TRANSPORT OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1.1 Current Road Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1.2 Quantum1 Road Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1.3 Performance Based Standard Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1.4 Roadtrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
vii
CONTENTS
8.2 RAIL BASED TRANSPORT OPTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2.1 Conventional Rail Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2.2 Magnetic Levitation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3 PIPELINE AND TUBE BASED TRANSPORT OPTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3.1 Coal Log Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3.2 Slurry Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.3.3 Tube Freight Transportation Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.3.4 Continuous Articulated Rail in a Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.4 CONVEYOR AND CABLE TRANSPORT OPTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.4.1 Overland Conveyor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.4.2 Aerial Ropeway Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.4.3 Rope Conveyor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.5 COMBINATION TRANSPORT OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.5.1 Rail-Veyor System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.5.2 Bimodal Transport Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.6 OTHER TRANSPORT OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.6.1 Water Based Transport Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.6.2 Air Transport Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. HIGH LEVEL RESEARCH FINDINGS............................................................................. 35
9.1 SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.2 SYSTEM CAPACITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10. HIGH LEVEL COST COMPARISONS............................................................................. 42
10.1 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
10.2 ESTIMATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
11. SCENARIO BASED TRANSPORT UNIT COST COMPARISONS....................................... 44
11.1 SCENARIO A: 1 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
11.2 SCENARIO B: 5 MTPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11.3 SCENARIO C: 50 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
11.4 COST COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
viii
CONTENTS
12. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIRED.................................................................................. 54
12.1 INDIVIDUAL TRANPORT MODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
12.2 SECOND STAGE DETAILED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
12.3 COAL SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION AND OPTIMISATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
12.3.1 Industry Wide Coal Supply Chain Network Optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
12.3.2 Inland Coal Terminals, Hubs or Pantries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
13. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 59
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Unit Cost Comparison - 1 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix B: Unit Cost Comparison - 5 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Appendix C: Unit Cost Comparison - 50 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix D: Road Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix E: Roadtrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix F: Rail Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Appendix G: Coal Log Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Appendix H: Slurry Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Appendix I: Troughed and Pipe Conveyor Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appendix J: Aerial Ropeway Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Appendix K: Rope Conveyor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Appendix L: Rail-Veyor
TM
Transport System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Appendix M: Barging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Appendix N: Deep Sea Shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
ix
CONTENTS
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Typical Road Damage Caused by Overloaded Coal Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2: Research Evaluation Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3: Map of South Africa and Location of Eskom Power Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4: Current Coal Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 5: RTMS Accredited Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 6: Example of a Timber PBS Vehicle with a 46 t Payload Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 7: Example of a Coal Roadtrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 8: Off-road Roadtrain Transporting and Offloading Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 9: Coal Train Headed for the Richards Bay Coal Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 10: Maglev High Speed Passenger Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 11: Maglev Cargo Transport Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 12: Compressed Coal Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 13: Schematic Depiction of Tube Freight Transport Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 14: The CARIAT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 15: Schematic Layout of a Typical Troughed Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 16: Transition Idlers on a Pipe Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 17: Aerial Ropeway System Crossing a Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 18: Rope Conveyor System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 19: Example of a Rail-Veyor Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 20: Bimodal Rail Bogie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 21: Bimodal Train of Semi-Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 22: Open Top Container on a Back Tipper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 23: Transport Unit Cost for All Modes - 1 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 24: Transport Unit Cost at Short distances - 1 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 25: Transport Unit Cost at Intermediate Distances - 1 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 26: Transport Unit Cost at Long Distances - 1 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 27: Transport Unit Cost for All Modes - 5 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 28: Transport Unit Cost at Short Distances - 5 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 29: Transport Unit Cost at Intermediate Distances - 5 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 30: Transport Unit Cost at Long Distances - 5 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 31: Transport Unit Cost for All Modes - 50 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 32: Transport Unit Cost at Short Distances - 50 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 33: Transport Unit Cost at Intermediate Distances - 50 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 34: Transport Unit Cost at Long Distances - 50 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
x
CONTENTS
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Evaluation Category Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2: Impact on Average Lead Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3: Summary of System Characteristics - Road and Rail Based Transport Options. . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 4: Summary of System Characteristics - Pipeline, Tube, Conveyor, Cable and Combination
Transport Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 5: Summary of System Capacities - Road and Rail Based Transport Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 6: Summary of System Capacities - Pipeline, Tube, Conveyor, Cable and Combination Transport
Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 7: Summary of Socio-economic System Impacts - Road and Rail Based Transport Options . . 40
Table 8: Summary of Socio-economic System Impacts - Pipeline, Tube, Conveyor, Cable and
Combination Transport Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 9: Summary of System Capital and Operations Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 10: Comparative System Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 11: Number of Trucks Required per Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 12: Summary of Feasible Transport Options per Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
xi
CONTENTS
DOCUMENT DETAILS
Table I: Document Details
Project Title Coaltech Transport Investigation
System Final Report
Document Issue Date 30/09/2009
Client Reference Task 10.1
APPROVAL
Table II: Document Approval
Checked Name Signature Date
Author R Barnard 30/09/2009
Technical Approval J Lane 30/09/2009
Coaltech J Beukes 26/11/2009
VERSION CONTROL
Table III: Document Version Control
Version # Date Authorisation Author Description
1 30/09/2009 J Lane R Barnard First Draft
2 26/11/2009 J Beukes R Barnard Final Report
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT DETAILS
Table IV: Supporting Document Details
Project Title Coaltech Transport Investigation
System COALTECH_Crickmay Proposal_Final 240409
Document Issue Date 24/04/2009
Client Reference Task 10.1
xii
1. BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DEFINITION
It is estimated that approximately 50 million tonnes of coal was transported by road during the last year,
predominantly in the Witbank, Middelburg and Bethal areas of Southern Mpumalanga. Due to the large volumes
of coal being moved, road damage has escalated rapidly (Figure 1). Because of problems associated with
transport and rising costs, the coal industry is coming under increasing pressure to find alternative modes of coal
transport that will be viable and sustainable.
The aforementioned scenario is further complicated in that the current coal reserves are nearing depletion. It is
envisaged that new coal reserves will be unlocked from other areas within South Africa, including the Waterberg
area, some 400 km away from the current mining activity. Furthermore, these new reserves would have to be
transported to, amongst others, the Southern Mpumalanga area to sustain the production of several Power
Stations, as well as to export terminals such as Richards Bay.
In light of this, Coaltech requested an independent coal transport study to identify alternative transport modes and
technologies, with the aim of determining which technologies are best suited to specific transport requirements.
These transport requirements may vary according to the lead distance, terrain, throughput requirements and
geographical location, to name but a few factors. It is the intention of the study, however, to provide guidance on a
very high level, in terms of selecting the most appropriate technology that would best satisfy these requirements in a
cost effective and safe manner, while minimising any negative socio-economic impacts.
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to produce a study on alternative coal transport modes that could be employed by
the coal industry, so that the following needs are fulfilled:
i. Provide the Chamber of Mines Colliery Committee with information to support their policy decisions with
respect to coal transportation.
ii. To test the feasibility and applicability of suggested transport modes at various distances.
iii. To highlight transport modes that may require further research and investigation.
1
3. PROJECT SCOPE
The project scope takes into consideration the problem definition and objectives of the study. In essence, a high
level desktop study and primary research is to be conducted, subject to the following scope inclusions and
exclusions.
3.1 SCOPE INCLUSIONS
The following aspects are included in the scope of this project:
Conducting desktop and primary research into alternative transport options, their characteristics,
advantages, disadvantages, costs and socio-economic impacts;
Investigating the applicability and feasibility of each coal transport mode suggested;
Comparing the identified transport options against the same evaluation criteria;
The production of an interim and final bound report to be reviewed and approved by the Coaltech
Technical Committee.
3.2 SCOPE EXCLUSIONS
The project is intended to provide an independent high level view, and specific scope exclusions are as
follows:
Determining the best transport option for specific applications, routes or destinations.
The investigation into the optimisation of the current coal transport network.
The recommendation of specific infrastructural investments.
4. RESEARCH DELIVERABLES
The physical deliverables for the project include the following:
a) The production and submission of an interim research report to be reviewed by the Coaltech Technical
Committee;
b) The production and submission of a final bound research report containing the findings of the study, to
be approved by Coaltech.
The contents of the final research report will be focused on addressing the following requirements:
a) To provide a list of all available coal transport options.
b) To provide an indication of the feasibility and applicability of each transport option at various distances.
c) To highlight novel transport options that might need further research and investigation.
d) To provide a completed evaluation matrix that compares all the identified transport options against each
other, based on a set of predefined evaluation criteria.
2
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This coal transport research was based on a hybrid strategy. The first stage comprised a phenomenological
based, inductive approach in evaluating the literature available on different coal transport technologies, but
moreover to conduct primary evaluative research into the subject. The second positivist based, deductive
approach included primary research, based on the outcome of the first stage, aimed at fully evaluating,
understanding and quantifying the characteristics, capacities, costs and socio-economic impacts of each
transport mode from a desktop perspective.
Due to the research being based on this hybrid strategy, it required a multi-method data gathering approach.
The major benefit of this approach was that it provided the research teamwith a comprehension of the important
issues to be considered, before embarking on an expanded data collection campaign.
5.1 PRIMARY EVALUATIVE RESEARCH
The primary evaluative research consisted mainly of focused desktop research into the available
transport options in the coal industry, and also in related bulk industries. Literature included internet
searches, books, magazines, journal articles, white papers and various industry publications.
5.2 GENERAL INTERVIEWS
Interviews are classified as one of the best techniques to obtain primary data and detailed information.
Consequently, it was decided to conduct general, structured interviews with various senior managers,
from mainly supply chain and logistics departments, within a number of different organisations.
These interviews proved to be extremely valuable in confirming the research objectives, steering further
research and identifying technology and modal specialists that could be contacted for subsequent
specialist interviews. In total, 15 general interviews were conducted.
5.3 SPECIALIST INTERVIEWS
Based on the initial information gathered from the primary desktop research and the general interviews,
selected technology and modal specialists were targeted for in-depth interviews, further data gathering,
cross referencing and validation. In total, 16 specialist interviews and targeted discussions were
completed.
5.4 RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
To maintain an objective view and to cross reference specific information obtained, research
participants were identified and selected accordingly. These participants therefore included individuals
from various Coaltech member companies, as well as numerous companies that are active throughout
the entire coal supply chain, including coal producers, logistics service providers and consumers. Lastly,
research participants also included academics, independent research organisations and technology
vendors.
3
6. RESEARCH EVALUATION CRITERIA
In order to accurately compare the potential of each transport mode, it is imperative that these technologies are
evaluated against the same criteria. To achieve this objective, the principles of the model depicted in Figure 2
were used as a guideline.
The physical parameters firstly included basic system characteristics, focusing on system components,
advantages, disadvantages and restrictions around operating conditions. Secondly achievable throughput and
unit load capacities were evaluated, while lastly the capital, operational and maintenance costs of each system
were investigated.
The investigation also looked at the socio-economic impact of each system, focusing on environment, health
and safety, social aspects and the local and national economy. Within this research framework, transport
options were also further evaluated with regards to their local applicability, given certain natural and
infrastructural restrictions within South Africa.
The last focus area included the identification of novel transport options that might require further research and
investigation, and to comment on advanced research requirements for current operational systems.
4
6.1 EVALUATION MATRIX
Table 1 provides a brief summary of the evaluation categories.
Table 1: Evaluation Category Summary
No Category Description
1 Cost Capital Investment Cost
Operating Cost
Maintenance Cost
2 Capacity Capacity per Unit
Maximum Transport Capacity
Throughput Rate (hourly/daily)
Material / Article Size Restrictions
Minimum / Optimum / Maximum Transport Distances
3 System Characteristics Advantages
Disadvantages
Optimum Operating Conditions
Geographical Layout Requirements / Terrain / Typography
4 Safety Impact Public Safety
Operator Safety
5 Health Impact Public Health
Operator Health
6 Environmental Impact Environmental Impact / Damage
Possible Pollution
7 Social Impact Displacement of Settlements
Restriction of Movement
Prevention of Normal Land Usage
8 Economic Impact Possible Job Creation Opportunities
Impact on Economy of the Area
9 Further Research Required Current State of Technology
Fundamental Research
Testing / Pilot Applications
Estimated Research Cost and Duration
6.2 SCENARIO DEFINITION
Based on the evaluation criteria described in Table 1, the basic system characteristics and
socio-economic impacts will remain constant, regardless of the transport lead distance or the annual
freight throughput rates. However, total costs and transport unit costs will change dramatically where
lead distances and throughput rates are adjusted.
5
In this light, each transport option was evaluated against the same criteria, measured against predefined
lead distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km, as well as against throughput rates of 1, 5 and 50 Million
Tonnes per Annum (MTPA), respectively.
7. COAL MINING AND DISTRIBUTION IN SOUTH AFRICA
To identify and evaluate suitable technologies for the transportation of coal throughout South Africa, it is
important to understand the current and future mining and distribution activities within the country. This will
assist in identifying major corridors, as well as approximated volumes, sources, destinations and resulting lead
distances. The following sections briefly expand on this notion and continually refer back to the map in Figure 3.
7.1 COAL MINING AND CONSUMPTION
South Africa's indigenous energy resource base is dominated by coal. Internationally, coal is the most
widely used primary fuel, accounting for approximately 36% of the total fuel consumption of the world's
electricity production. In comparison, approximately 77% of South Africa's primary energy needs are
provided by coal. This is unlikely to change significantly in the next few decades, primarily due to a
relative lack of availability and investment in suitable alternatives. Historically, many of the local coal
6
deposits could be exploited at extremely favourable costs and, as a result, a large coal mining industry
developed within the country.
During 2008, approximately 253 million tonnes of coal was mined in South Africa, with just over 70%
of this coal sold into local markets. Local markets are dominated by the energy sector, which constitutes
approximately 60% of the total local demand. Other local demand sectors include the petrochemical
industry, metallurgical industry, cement industry, general industry and local merchants.
In addition to the extensive use of coal in the domestic economy, almost 30% of South Africa's coal
production is exported, mainly through the Richards Bay Coal Terminal, on the northern coast as
indicated in Figure 3. Smaller volumes of coal are also being exported through the ports of Durban on
the south coast and Maputo in Mozambique. This makes South Africa the fourth-largest coal exporting
country in the world.
South Africa's coal is obtained from collieries that range from among the largest in the world to
small-scale producers. As a result of many new entrants, operating collieries increased dramatically
during the past 10 years, with more than 80% of the total coal mined emanating from the Mpumalanga
province. However, these reserves are rapidly being depleted and alternative coal fields need to be
unlocked to satisfy current and future demands.
One of the most prominent new supply areas will be the Waterberg Coal Field in the Limpopo province.
This coal field starts just west of the town of Lephalale, shown in Figure 3, stretching for 40 km from
north to south and 88 km from east to west and then into Botswana. This coal field has estimated 300
year reserves, with 75.7 billion tonnes of in situ inferred resources, 85% of which are extractable.
Approximately 65% of this coal production would be used for power generation and the remainder
would be available for other markets, including exports.
7.2 LOCAL COAL TRANSPORT
Considering that the energy and petrochemical sectors use approximately 85% of the coal produced
locally and the fact that more than 60 million tonnes of export coal travels through Richards Bay, it is
clear that these two areas warrant the primary focus of further investigations.
At present, the majority of South African coal fired power stations are located in Mpumalanga, with 11
operational stations, as indicated on the map in Figure 3, and a twelfth station under construction, also
in this province.
There is one coal fired power station in Gauteng, just outside the town of Vereeniging, and another two
stations in Limpopo, just outside Lephalale, one operational and one being constructed. The total
consumption of these power stations is approaching 120 MTPA and they will remain in operation for the
foreseeable future. For the Mpumalanga based power stations in particular, coal will have to be
transported across much longer lead distances after the current coal fields have been depleted.
To transport the coal from the various mines to the power stations, most companies use conveyor belts
for short distances, rail transport wherever possible and road transport for the remainder.
7
With regards to the Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT), approximately 61.8 million tonnes of coal was
exported through this port in 2008, with an expected export volume of 65 million tonnes for 2009.
RBCT currently has an estimated export capacity of 76 MTPA, soon to be increased to 91 MTPA.
However, due largely to logistics constraints into the port, it is unlikely that these capacities will be filled.
The main mode of transport into the RBCT is undoubtedly the CoalLink rail line, running from Blackhill,
Mpumalanga, through KwaZulu-Natal, into Richards Bay, across a total distance of 580 km. This line is
capable of transporting approximately 72 MTPA and Transnet Freight Rail indicated that the capacity
will be upgraded to 81 MTPA by June 2010.
7.3 IMPACT ON AVERAGE LEAD DISTANCES
From the previous sections it is clear that there are two major areas of coal movement within South
Africa. The first is an intricate network of coal supply, via conveyor, road and rail, from a number of
mines, to 12 power stations in the Mpumalanga area. The second is the CoalLink export rail line
running out of Mpumalanga into Richards Bay.
Given that these two areas will at least sustain current demand well into the future, it is worth
investigating what the potential impact would be if the major coal source moved from its current
concentration in Mpumalanga, primarily into the Waterberg Coal Field in Limpopo province.
Based on available information, the overall weighted average one-way lead distance between the
various sources and destinations was calculated for coal moving from the respective mines into the two
areas described above. These estimated current average lead distances are given in Table 2.
For the purposes of estimating the impact on lead distances if the majority of coal is supplied from the
Waterberg Coal Field, it is roughly assumed that the coal will need to be transported from Lephalale to
approximately the Ogies area in Mpumalanga, across a lead distance of approximately 375 km along
existing roads, while the minimumachievable straight line distance is approximately 295 km. Fromhere
the coal could then theoretically be distributed via the same current supply network. When this
additional lead distance is added to the current lead distance, the estimated new average lead
distances are also given in Table 2.
Table 2: Impact on Average Lead Distances
Transport Mode
Current Weighted
Average Lead
Distance (km)
Expected New Lead
Distance (km)
Net Effect (%)
Conveyor < 5 Undetermined Undetermined
General Rail 320 695 + 117%
Road 110 485 + 340%
CoalLink Line 580 955 + 65%
8
It should be noted that, although the above table is based on rough calculations and estimates, it does
highlight the fact that the impact of the additional lead distance between Lephalale and Mpumalanga is
substantial and that the cost implication should not be ignored. The coal industry will have to find
alternative transport options to maintain their competitiveness.
It should also be noted that, although the major impact is at a very long lead distance level, it does not
negate the necessity to optimise transport at short to medium distances as well. The remainder of this
report will therefore focus on transport options across all lead distances and not just over long haul
routes.
8. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE COAL TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES
Transportation constitutes the physical movement of people and goods from one location to another and is
generally classified into modes, such as air, rail, road, water, cable, pipeline and space. The individual modes
can then be further subdivided into the infrastructure, vehicles and operations that are required to effectively
enable transportation via the selected mode. Similar guidelines have been used during this coal transport
investigation and the following paragraphs expand on the characteristics of such grouped transport modes.
During the research, most available transport options were identified, regardless of whether such options were
feasible or not. The following sections will briefly touch upon each option, while the more feasible options will be
discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this report, as well as in the relevant appendices.
8.1 ROAD BASED TRANSPORT OPTIONS
Road transport is classified as the transportation of passengers or freight via a land based road network,
using wheeled vehicles. The nature of road transportation of goods depends, apart from the degree of
development of the local infrastructure, on the distance the goods are transported by road, the weight
and volume of the individual shipment and the type of goods transported. The following sections briefly
expand on each road based transport option.
8.1.1 Current Road Trucks
Road transportation together with rail transportation accounts for 99% of South Africa's global logistics
costs, with road transportation the dominant mode. The road network infrastructure is shared by heavy
vehicles used for the conveyance of freight, light delivery vehicles and the general public in the form of
motor cars and panel vans. The total live vehicle population, as published by E-Natis, is estimated at
8.47 million motorised vehicles of which approximately 320,000 are defined as heavy load vehicles
with a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) in excess of 3,500 kg. It is further estimated that the aforementioned
complement of heavy load vehicles travelled up to 12,961 million km during 2008.
Road transportation, as commonly found in bulk materials handling, is comprised of two major
components mainly the vehicle combination and the road upon which it moves. Due to the large scale
usage of heavy motor vehicles to convey freight and its importance to any economy, much emphasis
has been placed on the improved movement and handling of freight by various types of vehicle
combinations via road. This section focuses mainly on current coal truck configurations, as indicated in
9
Figure 4, while the following three sections focus on alternative modes of road transport. Road
transport is further discussed in significant detail in Appendix D.
Road transport in general offers a variety of advantages, with probably the biggest advantage being that
the available vehicle combinations offer high levels of flexibility in changing of routes, as opposed to fixed
infrastructure type transport nodes such as conveyors, rail and pipelines. The response time within which
this can be done is also very short and is the single biggest advantage over most other transport modes.
In addition, road transport demands low initial capital costs, which is easily justifiable when the source
of freight has a relatively short life span of less than five years as opposed to conveyors, rail or pipelines
where the capital payback period is often between 15 and 20 years. Lastly, unlike many of the other
transport modes, road transport has typically thousands of transport companies offering services, which
allows for a greater deal of competition in the market which further reduces operating costs, as opposed
to a captive national rail supplier.
The disadvantages of road transport, relative to other transport modes such as rail, conveyers and
pipelines, is that road transport is management and labour intensive, with up to three drivers employed
to operate one vehicle over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between road
roughness and increased vehicle operating costs. Due to the backlog of maintenance on national and
provincial roads, partly due to under-funding and accelerated road wear associated with overloading,
the general condition of the road infrastructure is not ideal. Thus, the operating cost of road transport is
currently elevated beyond what it should be.
The single biggest disadvantage of road transport is the increased operator and public safety risk. Due
to the fact that road transport shares the road infrastructure with the general population, road transport
has a higher risk of accidents than other forms of transport such as conveyors and pipelines where
access can be greatly restricted. This risk increases exponentially as the freight volume increases, which
requires a general increase in the number of vehicles and hence results in a very high vehicle
concentration in certain geographical areas, as is currently the case in southern Mpumalanga.
10
The capacity of road transport systems, inter alia its productivity and throughput, has traditionally been
affected by lead distance, terminal times, road conditions, payloads and scheduling. Current coal truck
configurations are legally capable of carrying between 31 and 33 t payload, depending on vehicle
configuration. In addition, these trucks can operate over a multitude of conditions and scenarios
ranging from very short lead distance of less than five km to in excess of 1,000 km, as is the case with
long haul road freight.
The achievable annual freight throughput rate is generally dependent on these payload capabilities,
combined with the transport lead distance and the state of the road infrastructure. It has been estimated,
however, that approximately 50 million tonnes of coal was transported via road in Mpumalanga during
the past year.
Road transport therefore provides a very flexible distribution option, which imposes a comparatively low
capital investment requirement, while it is extremely scalable and could justifiably be employed for very
short contract periods. The main concerns around this mode of transport, however, are the increased
safety risk that it presents, and the accelerated deterioration of the public road infrastructure that results
from large numbers of trucks transporting freight in a relatively concentrated area.
8.1.2 Quantum 1 Road Trucks
The payload efficiency of the vehicles currently employed in the coal industry, when compared to other
industries, suggests significant room for improvement. Opportunities to improve the payload through
better truck and trailer design and load cell technology are under investigation in the coal industry, as
further discussed in Appendix D.
This design concept, currently referred to as Quantum 1 road trucks, aims at maximising the legal
payload carrying capability of a coal truck, within the current legal limits. Quantum 1 concept designs
have recently suggested that a legal payload of 38 t is possible, within current legislation.
The Quantum 1 design was conceptualised after trips to Europe and Australia in 2006 by a well
respected trailer design specialist, Mr Desmond Armstrong. Unfortunately, detailed drawings could not
be made available as these are considered confidential. However, two of the larger role players in the
South African coal industry are currently considering testing the theory, by building and operating a few
Quantum 1 trucks on a trial basis.
The system characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of these Quantum 1 vehicles are entirely
similar to the aspects described under normal road trucks in the previous section. The main benefit is
that these Quantum 1 vehicles will remain within the legal road transport framework, therefore being
able to operate on current public roads. The only major difference is a 22% increase in current average
payloads and a 15% increase in legal payloads, which will significantly decrease the transport unit costs
when compared to conventional coal trucks.
8.1.3 Performance Based Standard Vehicles
Performance Based Standards (PBS) is a mechanism designed to improve payloads, subject to
predefined performance criteria that allow approved vehicles to operate beyond what is possible within
current legislation.
11
As a general rule across the globe, legislation governing vehicle dimensions in the transportation of
goods is aimed at ensuring that vehicles operate safely and do not damage the public roads on which
they travel. In some innovative countries such as Sweden, Australia, to a lesser extent Canada, New
Zealand and recently South Africa, mechanisms have been developed to promote a line of thinking that
argues that legislation should not dictate what the vehicle should LOOK like, but rather how it should
PERFORM. This concept is described in significant detail in Appendix D.
The PBS concept in relation to how it is to be applied in South Africa is based on a great deal of work that
has already been done locally, contextualising a very complex subject and learning from the application
of PBS, which varies significantly from country to country. Fortunately, the SA National Department of
Transport (NDoT) has given enough support to allowa standard PBS approach to emerge in South Africa.
In this light, the South African timber industry has pioneered the PBS concept locally, based on the fact
that transport is the largest single cost component in the forestry business. Two of the largest companies
within the timber industry, namely Mondi and Sappi, recognised that innovation could not come from
the transporters themselves, but from a sound technical source, which bases its learning on world class
benchmarks.
These companies realised that the demonstration of good governance is the key to creating the
necessary trust with both the public and government, which is ultimately the prerequisite before any
concessions will be granted for operating PBS vehicles on South African roads.
In and around 2001, the timber industry began to
realise the potential of gaining concessions from
government if it could demonstrate its ability to govern
itself. With the help of the National Productivity
Institute (NPI), Crickmay & Associates, the Department
of Transport (DoT) and the South African National
Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), the initial industry
specific self regulation work which focused on
overloading was broadened to include driver wellness,
vehicle fitness, productivity and safety standards. This later
became known as the Road Transport Management
System (RTMS).
The RTMS is comprised of a set of consignor, consignee and haulier standards that are approved by the
South African National Standards (SANS) as a National Recommended Practice (ARP). These standards
aim to assist the consignor, consignee and haulier in complying with government legislation and are
also designed to work hand-in-hand with the various internal HR and SHEQ systems. This system of self
regulation has lead to vehicles being marked with the sign depicted in Figure 5, to indicate that these
companies and vehicles comply with the standards and are therefore RTMS accredited.
After a long and structured approach, following the principles of RTMS, Mondi and Sappi obtained the
required concessions from the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) local government, and for the past three years
these companies have each had a PBS unit running in KZN, under abnormal load permits. Based on the
success, licences for 30 new PBS vehicles have been granted.
12
Figure 6 shows a typical timber haulage vehicle with a 46 t payload capacity.
The biggest advantage of PBS is that these vehicles are allowed to run, under concessions, on public
roads. During the running of the first two PBS vehicles in the timber industry, payload increases of
between 12% and 15% were realised, with an average 25% reduction in transport costs, over a lead
distance of 150 km. A corresponding decrease in the number of vehicles operating should follow the
increase in payload and the introduction of the 30 new PBS vehicles. A significant reduction in carbon
emissions has been recorded in the timber industry, which was achieved through a reduction in the
amount of fuel used per tonne of product delivered.
PBS is aimed primarily at increasing the achievable vehicle payload. Based on investigations being
undertaken in the coal and timber industries, it is expected that the current average 31 t payload of coal
trucks can be increased to approximately 48 t, using the PBS guidelines. This has the potential to
significantly decrease transport costs in the coal industry.
The capital investment required for PBS vehicles, relative to existing vehicles, is approximately 31%
more on a per vehicle basis. However, when applying the principle over larger tonnages, the overall
capital required decreases, because fewer vehicles are required as a result of higher payloads. In
comparison, operating and maintenance costs are also reduced, based on lower fuel consumption and
fewer vehicles on the road.
In 2006, the Chamber of Mines advised that Eskom should be approached regarding RTMS; this was
done and in 2007 RTMS was implemented at Eskom, one of the major players in the South African coal
industry. Through Rotran, Eskom's lead logistics provider, Eskom established an industry RTMS
Committee, with the Chamber of Mines having three seats on the coal RTMS committee.
It is imperative to note, however, that RTMS implementation and adherence is a prerequisite for
obtaining licenses for PBS vehicles. The introduction of RTMS at Eskom has shown excellent results.
These results could provide a platform for the mining industry which could ultimately lead to the
commercialisation of PBS vehicles in the coal industry.
13
8.1.4 Roadtrains
A Roadtrain is a trucking concept used in remote areas of Argentina, Australia, Mexico, the United
States, Canada and southern Africa to move bulky loads efficiently where little infrastructure exists. A
Roadtrain consists of a relatively conventional prime mover unit, but instead of pulling one trailer,
semi-trailer or interlink combination, the Roadtrain pulls multiple trailers as per Figure 7 below.
The Roadtrain transport concept is both highly flexible and versatile and can be deployed on different
routes very easily with relatively low capital cost, when compared to conveyor or rail infrastructures.
Furthermore, Roadtrains are becoming a common feature in the South African mining landscape for the
efficient transport of raw and beneficiated minerals over distances of between 5 and 100 km.
It needs to be clearly understood that in countries such as Argentina, Australia, Mexico, the United
States and Canada, Roadtrains are permitted to travel on categorised public roads, which is in contrast
to countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe and Swaziland where Roadtrains may only travel on private or
semi-private roads. This distinct difference prevents any direct importation of overseas technology and
therefore direct comparisons are not applicable, as the regulatory environment is vastly different.
However, the concept of increased payloads being transported on dedicated heavy haul roads in order
to decrease the transport unit cost, when compared with conventional road transport, is universally
applicable and is discussed in significant detail in Appendix E.
Two broad categories of Roadtrains exist, namely slightly modified on-road trucks and specifically built
dedicated off-road Roadtrains. The modified Roadtrains are essentially on-road prime movers used for
normal coal transport or abnormal load applications (i.e. same dimensions and components) modified
to accommodate the prolonged slower speeds, increased draft requirements and poorer road surface
conditions.
Most related roadtrain equipment runs on axles and tyres where the axle load seldom exceeds 9,000
kg. The reason for this is that the haul road required does not have to be built to a specification any
higher than national roads, and in certain circumstances in remote areas the government has granted
14
permits to run these vehicles on roads also used by the public. Standard payloads of between 105 and
180 t are common and, with the assistance of powered trailers, payloads of up to 300 t are feasible and
steeper gradients are able to be negotiated at increased speeds.
Dedicated off-road Roadtrains, as depicted in Figure 8, adopt the advantages of the modified on-road
type Roadtrains, but address the problems of road gradients and reduced payloads at the expense of
being allowed on public roads. These vehicles employ such technology as dedicated 3.5 or 4.0 mwide,
high power and torque prime movers (similar to the Bell and Terex dumpers used in open cast mining)
and individual supplementary engines on trailers. These vehicles can climb gradients in excess of 6%
and can cruise at 80 km/h. Payloads of 200 t (minimum) are common with examples of 400 t
combinations being used in some mining applications.
In South Africa, no specific road rules apply as no Roadtrains are allowed to travel on public roads and
therefore the local or company health and safety rules applicable for transport on private roads will
apply. This underlines the fact that, under South African conditions, excluding the possibility of
obtaining local government concessions, Roadtrains will be confined to private roads or semi-private
roads. This effectively means that companies would be required to build private roads, with the
associated road construction and maintenance cost. Because of these factors, and the inherent
characteristics of Roadtrains, the technology is not feasible at long lead distances in excess of
approximately 200 to 300 km.
There are no theoretical limits on the size of a Roadtrain operation, which means that the number of
Roadtrains in the system will directly influence capacity and throughput and is therefore one of the
significant advantages of the system. However, caution needs to be exercised where a large density of
Roadtrains is operated on a particular route, to prevent vehicle congestion.
In particular, it is crucial that Roadtrains of very similar capacities and capabilities are used otherwise
bunching will obviously occur when lighter Roadtrains catch up with heavier or lower capacity ones. As
an example, in Australia ten Roadtrains in the 200 t class are used at a mine site, at 5 to 10 km lead
distances, and are moving material at a rate of 22 MTPA.
15
With regards to the system cost, the capital investment in a private road infrastructure is required, which
will obviously also include an annual maintenance cost. The potential for variation in the road design
requirements and associated construction costs can vary from as low as R500,000/km to over R8
million/km depending on route conditions, throughput and safety requirements, which significantly
change the sub-layer and road surface specifications. Additional capital will need to be invested in the
vehicles themselves, which will also incur an annual operating and maintenance expense.
At least four Roadtrain projects are currently underway in South Africa. The largest single Roadtrain
operation is at Richards Bay Minerals, where each month more than 300 000 t raw material is transported
over an average lead distance of 20 km on private road. The application uses the so-called "A-triple"
comprising a 6x4 truck tractor with five trailers, offering a total payload of between 105 and 110 t, at a
combination length of approximately 45 m, which can safely travel and stop from a cruise speed of 80
km/h. Although travelling on a private road, axle loadings are not designed to exceed the normal 9,000
kg/axle and therefore no special road designs were required. Another Roadtrain operation conveys lead,
zinc and copper concentrate by road to the Loop 10 siding of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. The
operation involves a number of vehicles operating 24 hours daily, seven days per week under abnormal
permit authority on a semi-private road, of which 149 km is gravel. Roadtrains are also used to transport
zinc ore at the Black Mountain Mine Project near Aggeneys in the Northern Cape.
Roadtrain technology is sufficiently developed and tested to provide an extremely flexible, reliable, low
risk, high throughput transport option at short to mediumdistances where no formal road, rail or conveyor
type infrastructure is available. The technology is therefore ideally placed to fill the transport gaps between
sources or coal pantries and high volume users, which are located a relatively short distance away.
8.2 RAIL BASED TRANSPORT OPTIONS
Rail transport is the conveyance of passengers and goods by means of wheeled vehicles, generally
referred to as trains, running along fixed railways or railroads. Rail has historically formed a vital link in
the logistics chain of any country, facilitating both trade and economic growth. Most rail systems serve a
number of functions on the same track, carrying local, long distance and commuter passenger and
freight trains, which decreases the capital cost apportioned to each train, thereby in turn increasing the
economic attractiveness of this transport mode.
The following paragraphs expand briefly on each rail transport option, while Appendix F covers this
mode of transport in detail.
8.2.1 Conventional Rail Transport
Conventional rail transport (Figure 9) is statistically the safest form of transport when compared to any
other form of land transport and is generally proven to be capable of high throughput rates. Rail
transport is very energy efficient, but lacks flexibility and is extremely capital intensive.
Because of the reduced friction between rail tracks and train wheels, rail transport is very sensitive to
gradients. Furthermore, because of the narrow gauge system used in South Africa, trains become
unstable at high speeds, which impacts on the minimum achievable radius of turns and bends in a rail
line, which is a distinct disadvantage on undulating and winding routes.
16
The payload capability of a freight train depends on the type of wagon being used, and also on the type
of rail line on which the train travels. Under South African conditions, the majority of the country's rail
lines are for general freight purposes and often referred to as General Freight Business (GFB). These
lines are designed to carry rail wagons with maximum axle mass loads of 18, 20 or 22 t. With four axles
per wagon, this equates to 72, 80 or 88 t per wagon of gross mass.
In comparison, heavy haul lines are constructed for the transportation of high volume freight on a
dedicated rail line. Two such major heavy haul lines exist in Southern Africa: the Mpumalanga to
Richards Bay CoalLink Line, and the Sishen-Saldanha Iron Ore Line. These lines are designed to carry
rail wagons with maximum axle mass loads of approximately 26 t. With four axles per wagon, this
equates to 104 t per wagon of gross mass, which is significantly higher than GFB lines.
The maximum achievable operating capacity or throughput rate of a rail transport system depends
entirely on the design characteristics of the system itself. This capacity is largely dominated by the
payload carrying capability of the system, the capacity of the physical infrastructure as well as the
transport lead distance. It is not uncommon, however, for rail transport systems to deliver in excess of
100 MTPA. In addition, rail remains competitive at extremely long distances, with the world's longest
railway being the Trans-Siberian Railway in Russia, which is 9,297 km long.
The capital investment requirements of a rail system are generally very high and are comprised firstly of
the establishment of a physical rail infrastructure, consisting of the railway line, signalling systems,
telecommunications and so forth, which forms the route along which freight will be transported. The
second element is the rolling stock, including locomotives and wagons, which are used as the vehicles
travelling on the physical infrastructure and transporting the actual freight. Under South African
conditions, however, the initial fixed infrastructure capital costs are shared by the entire rail network and
are not carried by the specific line only, which increases economic attractiveness.
Rail transport in South Africa is dominated by Transnet Limited, a public company with the South African
government as its sole shareholder. Freight transportation is managed by Transnet Freight Rail, the
largest division of Transnet Ltd, with its core business focused on freight logistics solutions designed for
17
customers in industry based business segments, mining, and heavy and light manufacturing. In
delivering this service, rail transport is divided into General Freight and Heavy Haul lines, with Transnet
normally owning and providing the infrastructure, the rolling stock and the operating service.
While the current national rail network needs to be upgraded and strategically expanded, these
initiatives are severely hampered by inadequate electricity supply, theft and vandalism, as well as the
unavailability of rolling stock, which negatively impacts on operating capacity and ultimately on service
delivery. Transnet has recently indicated that the main focus over the next five years will be on
eradicating investment backlogs and focusing on operational improvements. The 30-year national
infrastructure plan will focus on capacity expansions, in line with economic and industrial policies.
With regards to coal transportation, the most important current corridor is the Coalink line between
Blackhill and Richards Bay, with a current capacity of 72 MTPA, which will be upgraded to 81 MTPA by
2010. Transnet further plans to increase the capacity to 91 MTPA, which will be completed by
approximately 2020, after which it will remain constant until at least 2037.
With regards to linking the emerging Waterberg coal field with Mpumalanga and the CoalLink line,
Transnet agrees that the current Waterberg infrastructure does not have any surplus capacity and needs
to be upgraded, or a new line needs to be constructed. To this end the company is investigating various
alternatives, with an eventual completion date of 2020 to 2025 in mind.
When faced with a transport requirement over a long distance, crossing relatively flat terrain, with few
obstacles and where most of the crossed land is owned or accessible, rail transport is arguably superior
to most other transport options. However, in South Africa, where the rail network and rail transport in
general is managed by a public company without any direct competition, any expansions to the existing
network are extremely slow, while inadequate maintenance and unreliable service delivery have forced
a significant volume of bulk freight onto road transport.
8.2.2 Magnetic Levitation Systems
Magnetic Levitation, or Maglev, is a system of transportation that suspends, guides and propels vehicles,
predominantly trains, using magnetic levitation froma large number of magnets for lift and propulsion. This
method of transportation has the potential to be faster, quieter and smoother than wheeled mass transit
systems, such as conventional rail transport systems. The power needed for levitation is usually not a
particularly large percentage of the overall consumption; most of the power used is needed to overcome air
drag, as with most other high speed trains.
The highest recorded speed of a Maglev train is 581 km/h, achieved in Japan in 2003. Although this is
extremely fast for a land based transport system, it is slower than many aircraft, since aircraft can fly at far
higher altitudes where air drag is much lower. However, the technology has the theoretical potential to
exceed 6,400 km/h if deployed in an evacuated tunnel.
The first commercial Maglev passenger train was officially launched in 1984 in Birmingham, England. It
operated on an elevated 600 m section of monorail track between Birmingham International Airport
and Birmingham International railway station, running at speeds of up to 42 km/h. The system was
terminated in 1995 due to problems with reliability and design.
18
Perhaps the most well known implementation of high-speed Maglev technology currently operating
commercially is the IOS (initial operating segment) demonstration line of the German-built Transrapid
train in Shanghai, China, that transports people across a lead distance of 30 km (18.6 miles) to the
airport in just 7 minutes 20 seconds, achieving a top speed of 431 km/h, averaging 250 km/h.
These Maglev trains were thus primarily designed for high speed passenger transport systems
(Figure 10) between dedicated, high passenger volume origins and destinations, such as airports, train
stations and city centres. The technology further offers the advantages of being much faster, quieter and
energy efficient than conventional trains, although this all comes at a much higher price.
Some companies have started with the experimentation of Maglev cargo transport systems (Figure 11)
which is combined with other new technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells. In terms of this freight transport,
however, the system has the distinct disadvantage that it does not allow for backward compatibility with
existing rail infrastructure, as Maglev trains cannot operate on conventional rail systems. This means that
existing rail networks would be defunct and that an entire new network will have to be constructed, which
massively increases capital costs.
19
The biggest disadvantage of Maglev systems for commercial freight applications is the extremely high
price tag. The United States Federal Railroad Administration Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
a proposed Baltimore-Washington Maglev project, indicated an estimated 2008 capital cost of R558
million/km, for this 62 km line. It further indicated a R224 million per annum operating cost, excluding
maintenance and breakdowns.
Based on the backward incompatibility issue, as well as the prohibitively expensive capital cost of a
Maglev system, this technology was not deemed feasible for coal transport and therefore was not
investigated any further.
8.3 PIPELINE AND TUBE BASED TRANSPORT OPTIONS
Pipeline and Tube Based transport systems enable the transportation of goods through a fixed pipe
system or network. Most commonly, liquids and gases are pumped through such pipelines. Pneumatic
tubes that transport solid capsules using compressed air have also been used, while recently proposed
systems now use capsules that are electrically powered.
The following sections expand briefly on each pipeline and tube based transport option, while each
mode of transport is covered in significant detail in the appendices.
8.3.1 Coal Log Pipelines
The experimental Coal Log Pipeline (CLP) system is
based on the concept that coal can be compacted
into large cylindrical shapes, called Coal Logs
(Figure 12) for pipeline transportation using water or
another liquid as the carrier fluid. When transported
via pipeline in water at 2.5 to 3 m/s, sufficient
hydrodynamic lift is generated to move the coal logs.
The logs become waterborne and they make only
light contact with the pipe. Consequently, the wear of
coal logs and the pipe are both minimal and the
power required for pumping is also minimal. CLPs
are described in more detail in Appendix G.
CLP transportation is often compared with Coal
Slurry Pipelines, although in coal slurry pipelines the
coal is transported in a paste format and not in a
log format. CLP therefore requires much less water,
the dewatering of the coal at the destination is much easier, it uses less energy to transport each tonne
of coal, and it makes the clean-up process much easier in the event of spills.
The biggest disadvantage of CLP transport is the fact that the success of the initiative is entirely
dependent on the type of coal being transported. Coal type and the compacting method determine the
characteristics and durability of the coal log during transportation. To accurately ascertain whether coal
mined from a specific area could be successfully transported via CLP, such coal needs to be tested in
trial applications first, which is relatively expensive.
20
The other major limiting factor of the CLP system, especially under South African conditions, is the need
for large quantities of water to transport the coal efficiently. For every tonne of coal transported, the
system requires 250 to 333 litres of water. This rapidly grows into a substantial water requirement as the
coal throughput increases.
The maximum achievable throughput capacity of the CLP is currently a theoretical calculation and
depends on various factors, including pipeline distance, pipe diameter, pumping system and coal
characteristics, to name a few. However, pilot plant tests revealed that throughput rates of up to 17
MTPA are achievable for a pipeline system with a 508 mm diameter, across distances in excess of
3,000 km.
The capital investment cost for a CLP system is relatively high, and is mainly dependent on the pipe
diameter and the transport lead distance. It should be noted that the Inlet Subsystem cost has a
significant impact on the transport unit cost and decreases the attractiveness of the system over short
distances. It is therefore suggested that the CLP systemshould be considered only for transport distances
longer than 30 km. Water and energy charges dominate the operating and maintenance costs, but
these are relatively low when compared to other pipeline based transport systems.
The CLP concept is still experimental and has only been tested under pilot plant conditions, and no
commercial application of the technology has taken place since its demonstration in 2001. The main
stumbling block against using this newtechnology revolves around the coal properties, as discussed earlier.
In conclusion, the CLP appears to be a very high risk option, but it promises significant savings potential
if the coal characteristics match the optimum operating conditions. However, this will require much
more research and investment before it can be accurately determined.
8.3.2 Slurry Pipelines
Slurry Pipelines are used to transport mineral concentrate from a mineral processing plant near a mine, to
ports or other intermediate or final destinations. These pipelines use a slurry of water and pulverized coal,
mixed to a ratio of approximately one tonne of coal to one tonne of water. The coal slurry is then pumped
through a dedicated pipeline to a processing facility where dewatering takes place. At the dewatering
plant, the material is separated from the slurry and dried before it can be used. The resulting water is
usually subject to a waste treatment process before disposal, or it is returned to the origin station, at an
additional cost, where it can be reused. Slurry Pipelines are described in more detail in Appendix H.
Slurry Pipelines provide an unobtrusive, environmentally friendly, safe and secure transport mode with a
continuous flow and a very low maintenance requirement. The single biggest limiting factor of the Slurry
Pipeline system, especially under South African conditions, is the necessity for large quantities of water
to transport the coal efficiently. For every tonne of coal transported the system requires approximately
1,000 litres water, which is three times more than the water requirement for CLPs. The requirements
rapidly grow into a substantial water volume as the throughput increases.
The maximum achievable capacity of a Slurry Pipeline system depends on various factors, including
pipeline distance, pipe diameter, pumping system, material density, dewatering requirements and water
availability, to name a few. Theoretically, therefore, the throughput can be increased incrementally by
increasing the pipe diameter and the pumping capacity. However, most Coal Slurry Pipelines in
21
operation today transport less than 5 MTPA, which seems to be a practical limit. As an example, the
world's largest coal slurry pipeline is the Black Mesa pipeline in the United States. Built in 1970, this
18-inch pipeline transports 4.8 MTPA from Black Mesa, Arizona, to a power station in southern
Nevada, over a distance of 436 km.
The up-front capital cost of a Slurry Pipeline system is dominated by the construction of the preparation
plant and terminal station, which remains constant, regardless of the pipeline length. For this reason,
Slurry Pipelines are more suited to longer distance transport. Water and energy charges dominate the
operational expenses of Slurry Pipelines but, although the energy cost increases incrementally with
distance, the water cost remains constant if the throughput remains unchanged. Consequently, as was
the case with the capital costs, Slurry Pipelines are more economical at longer distances.
Based on these factors it can be concluded that slurry pipelines become very expensive at low volumes,
and that the optimumapplication of the technology is found around the designed maximumthroughput
rate of approximately 5 MTPA at distances beyond 500 km.
Regardless of the benefits of Slurry Pipelines, the biggest risk to the feasibility of this technology is the
extensive water requirement and the strain that it would place on the local water supply, especially in most
inland locations within South Africa. A promising new South African coal field is in the Waterberg area of
Limpopo province. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) has indicated that it is unlikely that
any water allocations would be made available in the Waterberg area for pumping coal, given the current
low water supply. Therefore Slurry Pipelines would not be an option in this water scarce region, unless
additional supply sources are introduced, which would further increase the operating cost of the system.
8.3.3 Tube Freight Transportation Systems
Tube freight transportation is a class of unmanned transportation in which close-fitting capsules, or
trains of capsules, carry freight through tubes between terminals. All historic systems were pneumatically
powered and often referred to as pneumatic capsule pipelines. Newer and recently proposed systems
now use capsules that are electrically powered, with linear induction motors and run on steel rails in a
tube, with a diameter of approximately 2 m. The system can ultimately be thought of as a small
unmanned train in a tube, carrying containerised cargo, as depicted in Figure 13.
22
These underground tube transportation systems were developed primarily for the transportation of
cargo in highly congested, urbanised areas. The main benefit of these systems are that they can carry
high volume freight, into highly congested areas, with minimum effect on surface transportation
systems. If this system were implemented in congested areas, passenger vehicles could be separated
from freight vehicles with improvements in efficiency and safety for both modes.
The transportation of coal in such containerised tube systems is theoretically possible, but given the
capital expenditure required to build a 2 m diameter tube across the entire transport lead distance,
either above or below ground, this system becomes prohibitively expensive. Since coal is mostly
transported in rural areas, it is much more practical and economical to employ a form of surface
transport. In this light, tube freight systems have not been investigated further.
8.3.4 Continuous Articulated Rail in a Tube
The Australian company, DeVere Mining Technologies, has for over five years been developing a hybrid
transport system, combining rail and conveyor technologies, which is able to convey bulk materials over
distances from 0.5 km to over 500 km. The CARIAT (Continuous Articulated Rail in a Tube) Conveyor
System is designed to carry materials made up of particle sizes less than 300 mm.
The CARIAT systemis essentially a small-scale train, moving along a fixed rail infrastructure, housed inside
a tube, as indicated in Figure 14. It is electrically powered, and in some instances the system also has the
capacity to generate energy back into the grid - in effect, partially recycling its own energy on declines.
The developers of the CARIAT system claim that the system can operate at a combined capital and
operating cost of around 20-40% of conventional belt conveyors and railways, and around 10-25% of
the cost of trucking, yielding savings of 60-90% over traditional transportation systems. However, these
claims are untested, as the system is still under development.
The company further claims that the improved energy efficiency of the CARIAT means a dramatically
reduced carbon footprint. It also presents a low noise transport option, with a low environmental impact,
because the system is capable of travelling underground safely, eliminating dust and other impacts in
environmentally sensitive areas. The system further minimises the impact on existing communities due to
23
its slim, streamlined size and ability to travel underground where necessary, resulting in reduced visibility
and intrusion. Lastly, the CARIAT can successfully traverse 45 degree inclines.
However, the system is still under development and only a life-size demonstrator section is available for
inspection south of Perth, in Australia and 3-D CAD design drawings for all key components are in
place. The University of Newcastle Research Associates (TUNRA) Limited has pledged its initial support
in assisting DeVere in the final stages of the development of the technology. With adequate investment,
DeVere anticipates premiering the first completely operational CARIAT in the near future.
It should be noted that the CARIAT is not commercially available and that it is remarkably similar to the
Rail-Veyor System, still to be discussed under section 8.5.1, which is already available locally. It is
expected that the Rail-Veyor system will be more economical, since it travels on an open rail system,
while the CARIAT requires the rail to be housed inside a tube for both the outward and return legs.
Based on the aspects described above, as well as the fact that no detailed or independent information is
available, the CARIAT has been earmarked for further research and will not be comparatively evaluated
elsewhere in this document.
8.4 CONVEYOR AND CABLE TRANSPORT OPTIONS
Conveyor and Cable transport options have been grouped as a broad class of transport modes that rely
on continuous belt transportation or vehicles that are pulled by cables, rather than having an internal
power source.
The following sections expand briefly on each conveyor and cable based transport option, while each
mode of transport is covered in significant detail in the appendices.
8.4.1 Overland Conveyor Systems
Conveyor based systems have been around for over a century, beginning with the typical movement of
lightweight materials over a short distance. As soon as the applicability of conveying larger and heavier
materials over longer distances took hold, there was a natural progression in design. The usage of
rubber belts, suspended between two pulleys and the concept of the three roll idler in 1891, signalled
the beginning of a new era and provided the foundation for modern belt conveyor design.
The continuous drive to improve efficiency, pushing the development envelope, reducing costs and
socio-economic impacts, has led to a variety of conveyor belt types, suited to various applications. The
most common form of conveyor belt designs found currently are as follows:
Troughed Conveyor Sandwich Conveyor
Curved Trough Conveyor Pocket Conveyor
Straight Trough Conveyor Pouch Conveyor
Pipe Conveyor Sicon Conveyor
24
Troughed and Pipe Conveyor systems are commonplace where transportation distances exceed the
normal interplant distances and will therefore be the main focus of this section. Significant further detail
regarding conveyor systems is provided in Appendix I.
As mentioned previously, the major components of the Troughed Conveyors are the rubberised belt,
idlers and pulleys, as indicated in Figure 15. For Pipe Conveyors, the basic design concepts remain
generally the same as for the Troughed Conveyor, at the tail end where the material is loaded. The
difference in structure occurs when the belt passes through a series of transition idlers, which transform
the belt from a troughed shape into a pipe shape, as shown in Figure 16.
By nature conveyor systems in general are more automated than other forms of transport such as rail
and road. Conveyor systems are generally controlled remotely from a control room. Operational
information, such as throughput, is often conveyed back to the central control room via SCADA
systems. Furthermore, certain maintenance elements such cleaning the belt can be incorporated into
the design of the overall system.
25
The main advantages of conveyor systems are that they can transverse gradients of between 30% to
35% and can provide high levels of throughput, with some conveyors having transported as much as
11,000 t/h. Conveyors further provide a continuous feed of material, they are reliable, offer a good
level of availability, have low operating costs and some conveyors can even create their own energy on
downhill gradients.
The disadvantages of conveyor systems are that they demand a relatively high capital investment in the
infrastructure, which requires a long lifespan of operation and large and sustained product volumes. In
addition, conveyor systems do not allow any flexibility and often cause operations to come to a
complete standstill when a breakdown occurs on the conveyor system.
Conveyor productivity and throughput is determined by a number of factors such as belt width and belt
speed. These in turn impact the drive pulley and subsequent power requirements, which increase capital
and operating costs. In addition, the factors of belt width and speed are continually being increased in
the pursuit of higher productivity. Where in the 1980s a belt throughput of 1,500 t/h on a 1,500 mm
belt would have been considered large, conveyor systems with a capacity of up 30,000 t/h are now in
production. However, it must be mentioned that the high capacity conveyor systems operate over a
significantly shorter lead distance, typically below 10 km.
Troughed Conveyors have been typically used for overland conveying and during the 1980s, overland
conveyors reached lengths of approximately 15 km. In the 1990s overland conveyors generally
lengthened and reached lengths of approximately 24 km. Currently, the longest single flight conveyor,
which was commissioned in 2005, is operating in India, bringing limestone from a mine to a cement
plant in Bangladesh. There are no intermediate drives or transfers between both end pulleys and it has a
total length of 16.5 km.
The importance of increasing the length of single flights is realised when consideration is given to the
longest belt conveyor of approximately 100 km, operating in Western Sahara conveying phosphate
from the Bu Craa mine to the coast at El Aain. This conveyor was commissioned in 1970 and consists
of 11 conveyor flights.
Conveyor system costs are generally affected by the terrain, the configuration of the loading and
offloading points, transport lead distances and the annual throughput requirements. As stated
previously, the capital investment costs are relatively high and the operating costs are dominated by the
cost for energy and lubricants, while maintenance and related labour charges are also relatively high.
Based on all these aspects, conveyor transport is a trusted mode that is widely used in the South African
coal industry. It is ideally placed for high volume, short haul transport between sources and
destinations, where the system life is long enough to warrant the capital investment required and where
the material supply is generally guaranteed.
8.4.2 Aerial Ropeway Systems
An Aerial Ropeway is essentially a subtype of cable car, from which bucket containers or passenger cars
are suspended. Aerial Ropeways are operated worldwide with a wide range of application areas, based
on the specific transport requirements. They are usually employed across difficult terrain, where
conventional transport is challenging, such as steep inclines and declines of up to 45 degrees.
26
These systems are used with success in the
transport of bulk materials, unit loads and
even passengers, sometimes all on the
same system. Figure 17 provides an
example of such a bulk transport system
crossing a settlement, while Appendix J
contains significant further detail.
The Aerial Ropeway concept has also
been employed for transporting coal via
suspended haulage buckets, with the use
of a cabled system. The system consists of
one or two fixed cables called track ropes,
one loop of cable called a haulage rope
and the carriages or haulage buckets. The
fixed cables provide support for the
buckets while the haulage rope, by means
of a grip, is solidly connected to the bucket, via the wheel set that rolls on the track cables. The haulage
rope is usually driven by an electric motor and, being connected to the buckets, moves them up or down
the cableway, usually traversing a steep incline or other obstacles.
The Aerial Ropeway systems have almost limitless application possibilities, for the transportation of any
type of bulk material between two points. Systems are usually individually designed for a specific
application and two or more systems can be operated in parallel to increase throughput. The biggest
advantage of an Aerial Ropeway system is the fact that it minimises the transport lead distance, because
the system can be erected across the shortest possible distance between two points, by crossing
obstacles and traversing steep inclines. These systems have been used to cross mountains, rivers,
forests, highways, roads, railway lines and even settlements, without the need for expensive bridges or
tunnelling.
The disadvantages of an Aerial Ropeway system, on the other hand, is that it is not suited to low product
volumes, short contract periods or very short lead distances, typically less than 8 km. The main reason
for these constraints is the relatively high capital requirements for the loading and off-loading stations,
which are required regardless of the system length or design life. However, the business case for
installing an Aerial Ropeway system is not normally based on the basic transport unit cost, but rather on
the fact that it can easily and economically cross immovable obstacles, which would require excessive
capital investment for any other mode of transport.
The maximum achievable throughput capacity of the Aerial Ropeway system is difficult to quantify and
depends on various factors, including transport lead distance, slopes, loading and offloading
requirements, material density and coal characteristics, to name a few. However, in previous projects it
has been found that an annual throughput rate of 5 Mt seems to be the feasible maximum capacity of
one system. For increased volumes, multiple systems can be operated in parallel and, as the capital and
operating costs multiply, so do the volumes, which keep the transport unit costs constant as long as
each system is used to its maximum capacity.
27
Ropeway systems are designed to operate across a maximum distance of approximately 10 to 15 km,
depending on the slope and the required material transfer rate. For transport lead distances longer than
this, transfer stations are employed to transfer the loaded buckets from one segment of the ropeway to a
following section, while moving. This effectively means that the Aerial Ropeway system can be infinitely
long.
Aerial Ropeway transport is a very old and well established technology that is used worldwide in various
applications. It is estimated that there are more than 13,000 Aerial Ropeway installations around the
world and that industrial ropeways account for approximately 10% of the total number of ropeway
systems in use. From a South African perspective, Fairview Mine near Barberton operates a 27 km
Aerial Ropeway system transporting around 150,000 t/annum. The system is now about 50 years old. It
is also interesting to note that the Havelock Ropeway system (also near Barberton), built in the 1930s
but now defunct, was the largest Aerial Ropeway system in the world at the time.
It can be concluded that Aerial Ropeway systems were specifically developed to address certain
shortcomings in conventional transport solutions, predominantly to provide a cost effective way of
crossing obstacles such as mountains, rivers, roads, railway lines, forests and settlements. In particular,
the Aerial Ropeway technology is superior to most other technologies in transporting material up and
down steep inclines, such as mountains, or even out of open cast mining pits.
Apart from the obvious advantageous application areas described above, Aerial Ropeways are
perfectly placed to play a crucial part in a multimodal and fully integrated coal supply chain. The
technology could be successfully applied to breach the gap between other transport modes in specific
cases where existing infrastructures need to be linked, with minimal cost to cross obstructions, or to
transport coal over medium distances into the final destinations from hubs or coal pantries, without
having to establish an expensive land based infrastructure.
8.4.3 Rope Conveyor Systems
The Ropeway Conveyor system, or RopeCon,
is a suspended, long-distance, continuous
conveyor systemsuitable for the transportation
of bulk materials and unit loads of any kind.
They are usually employed across difficult
terrains, where conventional transport is
challenging, such as steep inclines and
declines, or where obstacles need to be
crossed cost effectively. These bulk transport
systems, depicted in Figure 18, are used with
great success across the world. Appendix K
contains significant further detail on this
subject.
In laymen's terms, the RopeCon system can be described as a continuous conveyor system in the air,
running on ropes. However, a very significant difference between conventional conveyors and the
RopeCon system is that in conventional conveyors the belt itself moves over a series of rollers, whereas
28
in the RopeCon system, movement is obtained by attaching the conveyor belt to a wheel set and the
wheels then roll across the static suspended ropes, much like rail cars on tracks. The RopeCon belt also
differs from conventional conveyor belts in that it has built-up, corrugated sides, which provides a
channel-like shape, as apposed to a flat service.
The RopeCon system has the same basic advantages and disadvantages as the Aerial Ropeway
systems, described in the previous section. The main difference between these systems is the fact that
Aerial Ropeway systems transport in unit or bucket loads, while the RopeCon system provides
continuous conveying capability, which dramatically increases the achievable throughput capacity.
The maximum achievable throughput capacity of the RopeCon system is difficult to quantify and depends
on various factors, including transport lead distance, slopes, belt speeds, loading and offloading
requirements, as well as the specific coal characteristics. However, based on the generally accepted
design criteria obtained from the manufacturers, it is indicated that throughput rates of below 10,000 t/h
are best, but that this can be increased to 20,000 t/h under ideal conditions. This effectively means that
RopeCon systems can transport in excess of 100 MTPA, dependent on the specific application.
RopeCon systems are designed to operate across a maximum distance of approximately 20 to 25 km,
depending on the slope and the required material transfer rate. For transport lead distances longer than
this, transfer stations are employed to transfer the bulk material between belt segments. This effectively
means that the RopeCon system can be infinitely long.
There are at present no installations of the RopeCon system in South Africa and the cost of other
international installations is not readily available, which makes it exceedingly difficult to obtain an
accurate cost indication of the system. To present some guideline figures, limited cost estimates were
obtained for an implemented system in Jamaica, as well as a few quotations for the installation of local
systems. As can be expected, from a capital perspective the basic infrastructure, consisting of the
loading terminal, towers, belts and wheel sets, the ropeway and offloading terminal have a significant
impact on the total system cost, which decreases the attractiveness of the system over short distances.
Based on the substantial addition of equipment and moving parts, the system is also markedly more
expensive to construct than a normal Aerial Ropeway system.
However, the operations and maintenance cost of the system is very similar to a normal overload
conveyor system, which increases its economic attractiveness. Based on the fact that it also has a
significantly higher throughout rate, when compared to unit load Aerial Ropeway systems, the transport
unit cost reduces substantially.
It can be concluded that Ropeway Conveyor systems compete directly with Aerial Ropeway systems and
provide the same basic advantages of cost effectively crossing immovable obstacles. It is therefore also
perfectly suited for niche applications or for inclusion into an integrated supply chain, where it can easily
breach the gap between more conventional infrastructures. The distinguishing factor of the RopeCon
system is that it can provide a service where a very high and constant material throughput rate is
required.
29
8.5 COMBINATION TRANSPORT OPTIONS
Combination transport options have been grouped as those transport modes that combine the system
characteristics and individual elements of two or more transport options into a new, feasible system.
Each of these transport modes are briefly described in the following sections.
8.5.1 Rail-Veyor System
The Rail-Veyor Transport system, indicated in Figure 19, represents a novel, practical approach to
moving materials economically over short, intermediate and long distances. This technology is described
in significant detail in Appendix L.
The Rail-Veyor moves materials by use of a light rail track system with a series of two wheeled,
inter-connected cars that effectively represent a long, open trough moving along the track. Each car is
connected to the car in front with a connection that allows articulated movement for curves and dumping.
Sealing of the gap between cars is maintained by the use of overlapping urethane flaps, which prevent
leakage of the material and act as a discharge chute for dumping loads after being transported.
The driving force to move the train consists of a series of equally spaced, dual stationary drive stations. AC
motors and gear reducers turn horizontal, foamfilled tyres against the side drive plates of the cars, providing
forward thrust. Speed is controlled by an inverter, which allows operation in either forward or reverse
directions with sufficient power to start a loaded train fromany position on the track. These drive stations shut
down when the train is not in contact and a sensor based system starts the drive up again upon arrival of a
train from a previous station, which significantly reduces the energy required to power the system.
Loading and Tipping Loops are erected at the ends of the Rail-Veyor system, to accommodate
loading and offloading while the train is moving. When tipping, the train enters the loop in the upright
position on a horizontal plane and as it moves through the loop the train turns 180 degrees on a vertical
plane, effectively inverting the train, based on rollercoaster technology. During this movement the
loaded cars discharge the material by means of gravity, similar to normal conveyor belts. The train is
then returned to the upright position for reloading.
30
The Rail-Veyor system has the advantage that it combines the best aspects of conventional conveyors
and conventional rail, at a fraction of the capital and operating costs of these technologies. This is
based on the fact that it provides an almost continuous material throughput rate, while it operates on a
very lightweight rail track, which is significantly cheaper to construct and maintain than conventional
railways. The system is fully automated and is controlled from a central control room.
The optimum operating conditions for the Rail-Veyor system would be similar to those of a
conventional conveyor or rail system, with the advantage that it can operate at inclines of up to 11%and
it can negotiate bends of up to 30 degrees at relatively high speeds. The small-scale and lightweight
system also allows for relatively simple bridging and tunnelling over and under roadways, rivers and
other obstructions.
There are no theoretical limits on the size of the Rail-Veyor cars, which means that the unit train
lengths and the number of trains on the system will directly influence capacity. The maximum
operational speed has not been established, but based on torque, gear ratios and drive tyre diameters;
speeds of up to 12 m/s or 32 km/h are realistic. During system tests in South Africa and Canada, pilot
2.4 m long cars, with a 610 mm radius and 203 mm sideboards were fabricated for demonstration
purposes. Utilising these cars, in a series of trains totalling 500 equally sized cars, it loaded, moved and
dumped nearly 11,000 t/h of material over a 1.6 km haulage distance. This equates to a throughput
potential of 76 MTPA. To maintain this throughput rate at longer distances, additional trains will be
added to the system.
The system has been proven to provide an economical, practical approach to moving materials over
short, intermediate and long distances from 400 meters to 100 km. The maximum feasible transport
distance has not been established and the systemhas not been proven at excessively long distances, nor
has it been costed for longer than 100 km. However, the system designers claim that it is quite feasible
to run the system economically at distances of up to 800 km.
As indicated previously, the capital investment cost of the Rail-Veyor system is extremely competitive,
while the operating costs, which are dominated by energy charges, are significantly reduced by shutting
down the drive stations when they are not in use. Based on the fact that each loaded car weighs less
than 3 t, the maintenance charges on the fixed infrastructure is also significantly reduced.
The Rail-Veyor system is currently in operation at the Harmony Gold Phakisa Mine. A pilot system was
first built in 2005 and ran as a test system on the surface for six months, in order to resolve any potential
system issues, during which time no failures were recorded. After successfully running the surface
system, the Rail-Veyor was installed underground, where it transports ore across a lead distance of
approximately 5.1 km. The system was finally commissioned in April 2007 and it is still operational at
full production capacity.
The mine indicated that originally, the system was operating at R3.58/t delivered. However, since the
introduction of a second train in September 2008, the operating costs have been reduced to R3/t
delivered, and the mine management feels that at full capacity of 3.5 MTPA, this cost could drop below
R2/t.
31
It can be concluded that the Rail-Veyor system is one of the most prominent new bulk transport
systems that have recently become available and that it seemingly remains competitive from very short
to very long lead distances, which is rather unique. The major limiting factor, however, is that the system
has not been commercially applied for distances longer than 5 km, and there is only one reference site
available locally.
However, the potential benefits of the systemwarrant further detailed research and investigation into the
overall characteristics and specific applicability of this system, while the integration possibilities of
multiple Rail-Veyors also need to be tested. From the information available, it seems that the system
can fulfil the unique function of providing economic long distance transport where no other
infrastructure is available, while also being suitable for short distance, high volume transfers into final
destinations.
8.5.2 Bimodal Transport Options
Bimodal freight transport involves the transportation of freight in a bimodal container or vehicle, using
two modes of transport, namely conventional rail and road transport, without any handling of the freight
itself when changing modes. This transport method reduces material handling, and so improves
security, reduces losses, and allows freight to be transported faster through the supply chain. The
technology further combines the flexibility of road transport with the efficiency of rail transport,
especially in supply chains where no dedicated rail line exists between the coal source and the final
destination.
Older versions of bimodal semi-trailers combined normal rubber tires for road going freight, with their
own integrated train wheel sets for rail transport. However, these versions were extremely heavy due to the
additional steel train wheels, which dramatically reduced the payload carrying capability of the trailers.
More modern versions of the bimodal trailers do not include integrated railroad wheels, but ride on
specially manufactured rail bogies, as indicated in Figure 20, that do double-duty, by providing the
train wheel sets and serving as articulation points between multiple trailers in a train.
32
These modern bimodal systems use custom built semi-trailers, which are designed to be connected to
the rail bogie, which lifts the rubber wheels clear off the ground. Several trailers are then connected to
each other, using the rail bogies, in order to form a long train of trailers, as indicated in Figure 21.
Locomotives are then used to transport the trailers like normal trains.
A third variation on the bimodal transport option, is the use of open top containers. Normal 6 or 12 m
open top containers or intermodal containers are customised to provide tipping rear doors. These
containers are loaded with coal and then lifted onto custom designed, rear tipping road vehicles, as
indicated in Figure 22, with forklifts or reach stackers, which are used to transport the containers to a
rail siding. At the rail siding the containers are removed from the trucks and placed onto a flatbed rail
wagon, again using a forklift, reach stacker or gantry crane. The containers are then transported via rail
to as close as possible to the final destination.
At the final rail siding the containers are once again removed from the train and placed back onto a
back tipper truck, which transports the coal for the last few kilometres to the final destination. Here the
coal is simply tipped through the swinging back doors of the container.
33
While these bimodal transport options eliminate the need for double handling, the most significant
disadvantage is that the trailers are much smaller than normal rail wagons, which significantly
decreases the payload carrying capacity and increases the transport unit cost. This is due to the fact that
the same trailer is also transported via road, which is currently restricted by a gross vehicle combination
mass of 56 tonnes.
The total transport cost is therefore made up of the rail transport portion, as well as the road transport
portion, which are separately slightly higher than the normal rail and road transport rates, due to the
specialised equipment and handling requirements. In combination, however, the total cost should be
lower than road transport for the entire lead distance. This combination transport cost should also be
lower than having to establish and operate a transfer station in order to transfer coal between
conventional road and rail modes.
The abovementioned combination transport cost makes it impossible for this bimodal transport option
to be compared directly with any other mode of transport and should be evaluated on a per case basis.
For this reason, bimodal transport options will not be comparatively evaluated elsewhere in this
document.
8.6 OTHER TRANSPORT OPTIONS
The transport options discussed to date were mostly land based transport modes, with some variation
on aerial systems, which are in any event anchored on land. The following section very briefly discusses
alternative transport options, which are not land based.
8.6.1 Water Based Transport Options
Water transport is the process of transporting passengers or freight with a watercraft, such as a barge,
boat, ship or sailboat, across a body of water, such as a sea, ocean, lake, canal or river. The two most
prominent freight transport options are Barging and Deep Sea Shipping, which are discussed in more
detail below.
A barge is a flat-bottomed boat, built mainly for river and canal transport of freight. Some barges have
engines but mostly are not self-propelled and need to be towed by tugboats or pushed by towboats.
Barging is described in more detail in Appendix M.
The barge mode of transport is mostly beneficial in locations where the available inland waterways
cover a large geographic footprint. For example, in the US alone, there are approximately 19,300 km
of inland waterway systems. In South Africa in comparison, there are three main rivers, namely the
Orange, the Vaal and the Limpopo, with the Limpopo River being the most prominently placed for
possible coal transportation. These rivers do not nearly stretch as far as their US equivalents and are
generally not wide and deep enough to accommodate any significant barging. Furthermore, South
Africa is generally a dry country, and there is no guarantee of a stable or constant water supply in most
of the local rivers. Barging is therefore simply not a viable transport option, and any attempt to
accommodate barging will require significant capital investment to construct the infrastructure that
would enable the set-up of an inland waterway system.
34
Ocean-going freight transport can be classified as deep sea shipping, which refers to a maritime activity
that crosses oceans, while short sea shipping refers to the movement of freight mainly on sea while
remaining in or around the same continent, without crossing an ocean. Deep sea shipping is described
in more detail in Appendix N.
Under South African conditions, coal is mainly mined inland, which would require that it be transported
across the country to the nearest port from which it can be shipped. If, for example, the coal was mined
on the west coast and used on the east coast, it would make sense to ship the coal via short sea
shipping, instead of overland transport. However, the predominant coal mining region is currently in the
Mpumalanga province, while all indications are that the emerging coal fields will be situated mainly in
the Waterberg area of Limpopo province. This means that the coal would have to travel further overland
to get it to a suitable port, than the distance required to get it to the final local customer.
While deep sea shipping is generally the preferred mode of transport for coal exports, it does not make
economic sense to employ any form of shipping for local coal distribution.
8.6.2 Air Transport Options
Air transportation is the process whereby passengers or freight are transported from point to point,
making use of fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft, travelling through the air, following the shortest, safest
or approved route. The main benefit of this form of transport is that it is very fast, based on the speed of
the aircraft and the directness of the route, which shortens the lead distance.
The major disadvantages of air cargo transport is that the payloads are generally very small compared
to any other mode of transport, which makes the transport unit cost extremely expensive. Based on these
factors, air transport is not an option for the transportation of high volume bulk commodities such as
coal.
9. HIGH LEVEL RESEARCH FINDINGS
The identified transport options were all evaluated against the standard evaluation criteria described previously
in this document. In order to coherently report on and logically compare each option, the following
sub-paragraphs will compare physical system characteristics, system capacities and socio-economic impacts,
respectively. System costs will then be compared.
9.1 SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The physical system characteristics focus on the system configuration, advantages, disadvantages,
achievable lead distances and optimum operating conditions, while briefly touching on other specific
operational considerations. The objective of this paragraph is to allow the reader to evaluate the merits
of each technology, in order to ascertain the best fit, based on physical parameters, excluding costs and
socio-economic impacts.
While the detail per transport mode is contained in the individual appendices, Table 3 and Table 4
provide brief summaries of the system characteristics per transport mode.
35
Table 3: Summary of System Characteristics - Road and Rail Based Transport Options
Transport
Mode
System Characteristics
Infra-
structure
Vehicles Operations
Major
Advantage
Major
Disadvantage
Optimum
Operating
Conditions
Road Based Transport Options
Current Road
Transport
Public Road
Network
31t Payload Truck
and Trailers
Private Hauliers Extreme Flexibility Road Damage,
High Vehicle
Concentration,
Public Safety Risk
Less than 8%
Gradient, Short
Terminal Times
Quantum 1
Road
Transport
Public Road
Network
38t Payload Truck
and Trailers
Private Hauliers Extreme Flexibility,
Less Vehicles
Required
High Vehicle
Concentration,
Public Safety Risk
Less than 8%
Gradient, Short
Terminal Times
PBS Vehicles Public Road
Network, with
Concessions
48t Payload Truck
and Trailers
Private Hauliers Extreme Flexibility,
Less Vehicles
Required
Requires
Government
Participation
Less than 8%
Gradient, Short
Terminal Times
Roadtrains Private Heavy
Haul Roads
105t-180t
Payload Truck &
Multiple Trailers
Private Hauliers or
In-house Fleets
Extreme Flexibility,
High Product
Volume, Low
Vehicle
Concentration
Sensitive to
Gradients, Requires
Private Road
Infrastructure
Less than 2%
Gradient, Few
Bridges, Wide
Corners
Rail Based Transport Options
General
Freight Rail
Transport
Public Rail
Network
18t-22t Axle Load
Wagons
Public Company
(Transnet Freight
Rail)
High Capacity,
Economical over
Long Distances,
Increased Public
Safety
Lacks Flexibility,
Capital Intensive,
No Competition
Flat Terrain, Less
than 1% Gradient,
wide Turn Radius
Heavy Haul
Rail Transport
Dedicated
Rail Line
26t Axle Load
Wagons
Public Company
(Transnet Freight
Rail)
High Capacity,
Economical over
Long Distances,
Increased Public
Safety
Lacks Flexibility,
Capital Intensive,
No Competition
Flat Terrain, Less
than 1% Gradient,
wide Turn Radius
36
Table 4: Summary of System Characteristics Pipeline, Tube, Conveyor, Cable and Combination Transport
Options
Transport
Mode
System Characteristics
Infra-
structure
Vehicles Operations
Major
Advantage
Major
Disadvantage
Optimum
Operating
Conditions
Pipeline and Tube Based Transport Options
Coal Log
Pipelines
Dedicated
Pipeline,
Public or
Private
None -
Compacted Coal
Logs
Private Relatively Low
Water Usage, High
Volume, Low
Pollution
Dependant on
Specific Coal
Characteristics,
High Water
Requirement
Bituminous Coal,
Flat Terrain, Ample
Water Supply
Slurry
Pipelines
Dedicated
Pipeline,
Public or
Private
None - Slurry
Coal Mixture
Private High Volume, Low
Pollution
Extremely High
Water Requirement
Less than 16%
Gradient, Few
Crossings, Ample
Water Supply
Tube Freight
Trans-
portation
System
Dedicated
Tube System,
Public or
Private
Pneumatic or
Electric Capsules
Public or Private Sub-surface
Transport in
Congested Areas
Very Expensive Highly Congested
Area
Continuous
Articulated
Rail in a Tube
(CARIAT)
Private,
Dedicated
Tube & Rail
System
Continuous
Articulated Train
Private Economical, Small
Footprint, Energy
Efficient
Still Under
Development
Less than 11%
Gradient
Conveyor and Cable Transport Options
Overland
Conveyor
Systems
Dedicated
Conveyor
Rubber Belt,
Suspended
between Pulleys
Private Steep Gradients,
High Volume,
Continuous Feed
Lacks Flexibility,
Capital Intensive
High Volume, Long
Contract Period
Aerial
Ropeway
Systems
Dedicated
Aerial System
Haulage Buckets,
Suspended from
Cable
Private Low Cost Obstacle
Crossing
Low Volume, Not
Known in SA
Route with Multiple
Obstacles to Cross
Rope
Conveyor
Systems
Dedicated
Aerial System
Conveyor Running
on Suspended
Cables
Private Low Cost Obstacle
Crossing, High
Volume
Not Economical at
Short Distance, Not
Known in SA
Multiple Obstacles
to Cross, High
Volume
Combination Transport Options
Rail-Veyor
System
Light Weight
(22kg/m) Rail
System,
Electric Drive
Stations
Series of 2
Wheeled,
Inter-connected
Cars
Private Low Cost Option,
High Volume,
Energy Efficient
Limited Current
Examples
Less than 11%
Gradient
Bimodal
Transport
Options
Private Road
& Public Rail
Network
Customised Road
Trailers & Rail
Bogeys or Open
Top Containers &
Customised Back
Tipper Trucks
Private Road &
Public Rail
(Transnet Freight
Rail)
Reduces Double
Handling of
Material to Change
Between Transport
Modes
Smaller Payloads
due to Same Trailer
Travelling on Road
and Rail, within
Legal Limits
Majority or Route
via Rail, Short Final
Distance via Road
37
9.2 SYSTEM CAPACITIES
The physical system capacity constraints focus on the ability of the system to transport specific volumes
of material, on a per load and per annum basis. The objective of this section is to allow the user to
evaluate the capability of each technology, in order to ascertain the best fit in terms of the annual
throughput requirements and the transport lead distance.
While the detail per transport mode is contained in the individual appendices, Table 5 and Table 6
provide a brief summary of the system capacities per transport mode.
Table 5: Summary of System Capacities - Road and Rail Based Transport Options
Transport Mode
CAPACITY
Payload
Throughput
Capabilities
Maximum
Operating Distance
Road Based Transport Options
Current Road
Transport
31 t Payload truck
and trailers
Network specific, based
on number of vehicles:
50 MTPA achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
1,000 km
Quantum 1 Road
Transport
38 t Payload truck
and trailers
Network specific, based
on number of vehicles:
50 MTPA achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
1,000 km
PBS Vehicles 48 t Payload truck
and trailers
Network specific, based
on number of vehicles:
50-100 MTPA
achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
1,000 km
Roadtrains 105-180 t Payload truck
and multiple trailers
Network specific, based
on number of vehicles:
100 MTPA achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
300 km
Rail Based Transport Options
General Freight Rail
Transport
18-22 t axle load
wagons: 58-60 t payload
per wagon
Infrastructure specific:
10 MTPA achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
500 km
Heavy Haul Rail
Transport
26 t axle load wagons:
84 t payload per wagon
Infrastructure specific:
100 MTPA achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
1,000 km
38
Table 6: Summary of System Capacities - Pipeline, Tube, Conveyor, Cable and Combination
Transport Options
TRANSPORT MODE
CAPACITY
Payload
Throughput
Capabilities
Maximum Operating
Distance
Pipeline and Tube Based Transport Options
Coal Log Pipelines N/A Determined by pipe
diameter: 17 MTPA
achievable
Theoretically up to
3,000 km
Slurry Pipelines N/A Determined by pipe
diameter: 5 MTPA
achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
500 km
Tube Freight
Transportation System
Unknown - system
specific
Unknown: determined by
pipe diameter and
capsule capacity
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
50 km, within urban
limits
Continuous Articulated
Rail in a Tube (CARIAT)
Unknown Unknown: system still
under development,
70 MTPA anticipated
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
800 km
Conveyor and Cable Transport Options
Overland Conveyor
Systems
N/A Determined by belt width
and speed: 200 MTPA
achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
200 km
Aerial Ropeway Systems Design specific: 3-5 t
typical
Depends on slopes and
material density: 5 MTPA
achievable, per cable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
50 km
Rope Conveyor Systems N/A Depends on slopes and
material density: 100
MTPA achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
50 km
Combination Transport Options
Rail-Veyor System Design specific:
approximately 3 t per
car, 110 t per train
typical
Determined by
infrastructure and rail car
design: 76 MTPA
achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
800 km
Bimodal Transport
Options
Design specific:
approximately 22-30 t
per container/ trailer
typical
Road network and rail
infrastructure specific:
10-50 MTPA achievable
Theoretically unlimited,
practically less than
500-1,000 km
39
9.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The socio-economic system impacts focus on the impact that each system has on public health and
safety, the environment, the local community and the economy. The objective of this section is to allow
the user to evaluate the impact of each technology, in order to ascertain the best outcome in terms of
minimising the negative impacts and maximising the positive impacts.
While the detail per transport mode is contained in the individual appendices, Table 7 and Table 8
provide a brief summary of the system capacities per transport mode.
Table 7: Summary of Socio-economic System Impacts - Road and Rail Based Transport Options
Transport
Mode
Socio-Economic Impact
Health &
Safety
Environment Social Economic
Road Based Transport Options
Current Road
Transport
High Public
Safety Risk
High CO2
Pollution, Coal
Dust Pollution
High Social Impact
- Road Damage &
Traffic Congestion
High Negative Economic
Impact - Increased Cost for
Road Repairs. Positive:
Economic Growth, Job
Creation and Local Support
Services
Quantum 1
Road
Transport
High Public
Safety Risk
High CO2
Pollution, Coal
Dust Pollution
High Social Impact
- Road Damage &
Traffic Congestion
High Negative Economic
Impact - Increased Cost for
Road Repairs. Positive: Job
Creation and Local Support
Services
PBS Vehicles High Public
Safety Risk
Comparatively
Reduced CO2
Pollution, Coal
Dust Pollution
Comparatively
Reduced Social
Impact - Road
Damage & Traffic
Congestion
Comparatively Reduced
Economic Impact - Reduced
Cost for Road Repairs. Positive:
Job Creation and Local
Support Services
Roadtrains Low Public
Safety Risk
Comparatively
Reduced CO2
Pollution, Coal
Dust Pollution
Low Social Impact -
Private Roads
Positive Economic Impact: Job
Creation Opportunities
Rail Based Transport Options
General
Freight Rail
Transport
Low Public
Safety Risk
Low Direct
Pollution
Moderate Social
Impact
Positive Economic Impact:
Open System Enables Trade
Heavy Haul
Rail Transport
Low Public
Safety Risk
Low Direct
Pollution
Moderate Social
Impact
Positive Economic Impact:
Enables Trade
40
Table 8: Summary of Socio-economic System Impacts Pipeline, Tube, Conveyor, Cable and
Combination Transport Options
Transport Mode
Socio-Economic Impact
Health & Safety Environment Social Economic
Pipeline and Tube Based Transport Options
Coal Log Pipelines Low Health &
Safety Impact
High Environmental
Impact: Significant
Water Requirement
Low Social Impact Moderate
Economic Impact:
Job Creation &
Local Production
Slurry Pipelines Low Health &
Safety Impact
High Environmental
Impact: High Water
Requirement
Low Social Impact Moderate
Economic Impact:
Job Creation &
Local Production
Tube Freight
Transportation
System
Low Health &
Safety Impact
Low Direct Pollution Low Social Impact Moderate
Economic Impact:
Job Creation &
Local Production
Continuous
Articulated Rail in a
Tube (CARIAT)
Low Health &
Safety Impact
Low Direct Pollution Low Social Impact Moderate
Economic Impact:
Job Creation &
Local Production
Conveyor and Cable Transport Options
Overland Conveyor
Systems
Low Health & Safety
Impact
Low Direct Pollution Low Social Impact Moderate
Economic Impact:
Job Creation &
Local Production
Aerial Ropeway
Systems
Low Health & Safety
Impact
Low Direct Pollution Moderate Social
Impact: Visual
Intrusion
Moderate
Economic Impact:
Job Creation &
Local Production
Rope Conveyor
Systems
Low Health & Safety
Impact
Low Direct Pollution Moderate Social
Impact: Visual
Intrusion
Low Economic
Impact: Job
Creation, but
Significant
Component Imports
Combination Transport Options
Rail-Veyor System Low Health & Safety
Impact
Low Direct Pollution Low Social Impact Moderate
Economic Impact:
Job Creation &
Local Production
Bimodal Transport
Options
Moderate Public
Safety Risk, due to
Road Portion
Moderate CO2 &
Coal Dust Pollution
Moderate Social
Impact - Road
Damage & Traffic
Congestion
Comparatively
Reduced Economic
Impact - Reduced
Cost for Road
Repairs. Positive:
Job Creation and
Local Support
Services
41
10. HIGH LEVEL COST COMPARISONS
The costs associated with establishing, operating and maintaining each of the identified transport options are
extremely difficult to accurately quantify and compare, based on the complexity, customisability, terrain, specific
transport requirements, throughput rates and design life of each system. All these issues can influence the
eventual capital expenditure requirements and operating costs hugely, which obviously has a significant impact
on the transport unit costs.
The detail per transport mode, which includes a significant costs analysis, are contained in the relevant
appendices. The following sections attempt to summarise and compare the costs associated with each technology.
It should be noted however, that all costs contained in this document are high level cost estimates at a rough order
of magnitude level and should therefore be seen as indicative only. In order to increase the individual modal cost
accuracies, it would be required to identify a specific source and destination arc, as well as quantifying the required
capacities, lead distances, amortisation periods and system availability requirements. It is envisaged that this will
take place in subsequent phases of this project.
10.1 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
The capital investment cost associated with each transport mode varies significantly, but broadly
speaking, these costs firstly comprise the establishment of a physical infrastructure, such as a railway
line or a road network, combined with the requisite control, communications and management
systems. The physical infrastructures normally form the route along which freight will be transported.
The second element comprises the entities travelling on the infrastructure, which are the vehicles
containing and transporting the freight. In some cases, such as overland conveyors or pipelines, the
system consists only of the physical infrastructure and cannot be divided into two elements.
Table 9 contains a summary of the capital investment cost required, per unit, for the establishment of
the physical infrastructure as well as providing the vehicles required for transportation. These costs are
rough order of magnitude estimates and should be seen as indicative only.
Table 9: Summary of System Capital and Operations Cost
Transport Mode
Estimated Capital Cost
Infrastructure Vehicles
Road Based Transport Options
Current Road Transport (31 t) None: Public roads R1.95 M/interlink set
Quantum 1 Road Transport (38 t) None: Public roads R2.19 M/truck & trailer set
PBS Vehicles (48 t) None: Public roads R2.55 M/truck & trailer Set
Roadtrains (105 or 180 t) Terrain dependent - heavy haul
private road: R0.5-8.0 M per km
105 t Payload: R4.29 M per truck
& trailer set180 t Payload: R6.28
M per truck & trailer set
Rail Based Transport Options
General Freight Rail Transport Rail line dependent: R22.7 M per
km, for a New Line
Locomotive: R20.9
M/unitWagon: R830,000/unit
42
Transport Mode
Estimated Capital Cost
Infrastructure Vehicles
Heavy Haul Rail Transport Rail line dependent: R29.9 M
per km, for a new line
Locomotive: R25.5
M/unitWagon: >R830,000/unit
Pipeline and Tube Based Transport Options
Coal Log Pipelines Pipeline: Throughput dependent,
Minimum R2.6 M per km
N/A
Slurry Pipelines Pipeline: Throughput dependent,
Average R19.2 M per km
N/A
Tube Freight Transportation
System
System dependent: Unknown Unknown
Continuous Articulated Rail in a
Tube (CARIAT)
System dependent: Unknown Unknown
Conveyor and Cable Transport Options
Overland Conveyor Systems System dependent: Average
R20 M to R30 M per km
N/A
Aerial Ropeway Systems System Dependent: Average
R11.5 M per km (Incl. Haulage
Buckets)
N/A
Rope Conveyor Systems System dependent: Average
R27 M per km
N/A
Combination Transport Options
Rail-Veyor System System dependent: Average
R13 M per km
System dependent: Average
R2.5 M/train set
Bimodal Transport Options System dependent System dependent
FromTable 9 it is clear that the capital investment requirements differ a great deal between modes, but
these costs are also not conclusive, as especially the vehicle related capital costs will vary significantly,
based on the transport lead distance and the product throughput rate.
10.2 ESTIMATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operations and maintenance costs for each of the transport systems are normally dominated by
energy costs, labour and standard preventive and corrective system maintenance. These costs are
highly dependent on specific system characteristics, which largely depend on the capacity, the shift
arrangements, system utilisation rates, transport lead distance, loading and offloading requirements,
infrastructure availability, waiting times and several other influencing factors.
For the purposes of this document, these operations and maintenance charges are discussed in detail in
each of the transport mode specific appendices and will not be compared under this section. Instead,
each system will be compared on a transport unit cost based on specific scenarios. These costs include
all three elements of capital, operations and maintenance.
43
11. SCENARIO BASED TRANSPORT UNIT COST COMPARISONS
As mentioned previously in this document, the total and transport unit costs per mode will change dramatically if
the transport lead distance or the annual throughput rates are adjusted. In this light, each transport option was
evaluated against the same criteria, measured against predefined lead distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km,
as well as against fixed throughput rates of 1,5 and 50 MTPA, respectively.
In accurately comparing each transport mode, all transport unit costs are based on the system design criteria
given in Table 10, defined per scenario.
Table 10: Comparative System Design Criteria
Design Element Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Average throughput per annum 1 Mt 5 Mt 50 Mt
Average throughput per month 83,333 t 416,666 t 4.17 Mt
Average throughput per week 19, 230 t 96,150 t 961,540 t
Average throughput per day 2,884 t 14,420 t 144,196 t
Approximate system availability 95% 95% 95%
System design life 20 years 20 years 20 years
Throughput over total life of system 20 Mt 100 Mt 1,000 Mt
Effective interest rate 10% 10% 10%
Transport lead distance 1 - 1,000 km 1 - 1,000 km 1 - 1,000 km
Lastly, all operations and maintenance charges were used in the cost calculations at their current values and
none of these costs were escalated over the calculation period.
11.1 SCENARIO A: 1 MTPA
The first scenario contains the comparative transport unit costs, in R/t/km, for all the transport modes at
a very low annual throughput rate of 1 MTPA. Please refer to Appendix A for a table containing these
costs, per mode, at distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km.
When graphing the transport unit cost per mode, across distance, as indicated in Figure 23, it is clear that the
transport cost/t/km decreases as the distance increases. This phenomenon is therefore ideal for comparing
different transport modes at various distances to ascertain the cross-over points in terms of economic
attractiveness.
44
Figure 24 presents the transport unit costs per mode, across short distances, ranging from 1 to 10 km.
From this graph it is clear that the conveyor type technologies, such as Aerial Ropeways, Conveyors and
the combination type Rail-Veyor system provide some of the most cost effective transport solutions.
However, because the freight volumes are low, only 1 MTPA, these unit costs are much higher than
expected and are second to road transport options from a transport unit cost perspective.
It is further clear that all the road transport options, including Current Road, Quantum 1 Road, PBS
Vehicles, 105 t Roadtrains and 180 t Roadtrains, all prove to be cost effective solutions at short lead
distances with very low freight volumes. It should also be noted that the transport cost for both the
Roadtrain options include the establishment and maintenance of a dedicated, private heavy haul road,
at a capital cost of R2 million/km.
45
Figure 25 presents the transport unit costs per mode, across intermediate distances ranging from 20 to
200 km. Fromthis graph it is clear that the conveyor type technologies have disappeared as competitive
options, while the Rail-Veyor and all the road options are still present.
It is further interesting that the Coal Log Pipeline concept comes into the picture from approximately 30
km, while GFB Rail and Heavy Haul Rail enters the fray from approximately 20 km. It should be noted,
however, that the GFB Rail costs are based on current available market rates and are therefore
applicable only in cases where the Transnet infrastructure has sufficient surplus capacity to
accommodate new freight volumes.
Figure 26 presents the transport unit costs per mode, across long distances, ranging from 100 to
1,000 km. From this graph it is clear that the Rail-Veyor option still remains, as well as all the road
options. The Coal Log and Slurry Pipeline options are also present, while both the GFB and Heavy Haul
rail options seem to be the most economically attractive options at very long distances.
46
It should once again be noted that these rail costs are based on current available market rates. These
rates are therefore dependent on surplus capacity being available on the Transnet rail network to
accommodate the new volumes. If no such surplus capacity is available, then the existing infrastructure
needs to be upgraded or a new rail line needs to be constructed, which obviously incurs an additional
capital expense that needs to be included in the total transport unit cost.
The additional capital charges make the calculation of a new public rail freight rate impossible
because, under South African conditions, this cost is shared by the entire rail network and not carried
solely by the new line. In essence, the newly established line will therefore carry only a certain
percentage of the capital and not the whole amount, which is a process closely managed by Transnet
Freight Rail.
For the purposes of this transport investigation, all the capital costs have been added to the transport
unit cost, which essentially represents the cost of establishing and operating a "private rail line". If such a
new private rail infrastructure is established, rail is no longer a competitive option, as can be seen from
its omission on all the graphs. However, this private rail line does eventually become a competitive
option as the freight volume increases, as will be seen under subsequent scenarios.
This "private rail line" cost can be viewed as the upper limit for rail transport and any new service being
established by Transnet will be lower than this rate, based on the sharing of the capital cost across the
entire network.
11.2 SCENARIO B: 5 MTPA
The second scenario contains the comparative transport unit costs (R/t/km) for all the transport modes
at a medium annual throughput rate of 5 MTPA. Please refer to Appendix B for a table containing these
costs, per mode, at distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km, as indicated in Figure 27.
47
Figure 28 represents the transport unit cost at very short lead distances, ranging from1 to 10 km. In this
scenario the freight volume has increased five-fold, and again the Rail-Veyor system, the other conveyor
based transport options and all the road transport modes are competitive at these distances.
Figure 29 presents the transport unit costs per mode, across intermediate distances, ranging from20 to
200 km. From this graph it is clear that the increase in product volume has introduced several new
options, primarily conveyor type technologies that have now become more competitive. The road
transport options are still present, while the Rail-Veyor systemis now seemingly unchallenged in terms of
cost, from 20 to 100 km.
48
It is also worth noting that at these intermediate distances the two pipeline options become feasible, as
well two rail options, at approximately the 100 to 200 km mark. It is further interesting that the current
GFB freight rates are more economical from 30 km onward, when compared with current road
transport and that this rate becomes more competitive at a much faster rate than the road transport.
However, the Quantum 1 Road and the PBS Vehicles, both capable of operating on public roads,
remains superior to rail transport up to 55 and 70 km, respectively.
Figure 30 presents the transport unit costs per mode, across long distances, ranging from 100 to 1,000
km. From this graph it is clear that the Rail-Veyor option still remains, as well as all the road options. Both
the Coal Log and Slurry Pipeline options are also present, and now become very competitive at long lead
distances beyond 500 km.
The most interesting aspect of this scenario, however, is that Heavy Haul Rail is far superior to any other
option beyond 200 km, while GFB Rail becomes very competitive beyond 400 km.
It should once again be noted that these rail costs are based on current available market rates. These
rates are therefore dependent on surplus capacity being available on the Transnet rail network and, if
no such surplus capacity is available, then the "private rail line" notion is considered. However, even at 5
MTPA, private rail is still not a competitive option, as can be seen from its omission from the graph.
11.3 SCENARIO C: 50 MTPA
The third scenario contains the comparative transport unit costs (R/t/km) for all the transport modes at a
high annual throughput rate of 50 MTPA. Please refer to Appendix Cfor a table containing these costs,
per mode, at distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km, as summarised in Figure 31.
49
Figure 32 represents the transport unit cost at very short lead distances, ranging from1 to 10 km. In this
scenario the freight volume has increased ten-fold and, as can be expected, it is the inherently high
volume technologies such as the Conveyor and Pipe Conveyor that now become extremely competitive.
Surprisingly however, the Rail-Veyor system still remains competitive, while the high volume Rope
Conveyor system also becomes an option.
Apart from the abovementioned modes, all the road transport options are once again the alternatives
across short distances. This can be expected, as additional trucks are simply added at a constant
incremental cost as the volume increases. The deciding factor, however, changes from a direct
transport cost decision and must now include socio-economic impacts, due to the high number of trucks
being put on the road. This impact can be minimised through the use of the newer type of road transport
options, which significantly reduce the number of trucks required, as indicated in Table 11, at a
constant comparative lead distance of 111 km.
Table 11: Number of Trucks Required per Scenario
Transport Option
Number of Trucks Required
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Current Road 35 167 1,762
Quantum 1 26 128 1,285
PBS Vehicles 20 101 1,017
105 t Roadtrain 10 51 511
180 t Roadtrain 6 31 308
50
Figure 33 presents the transport unit costs per mode, across intermediate distances, ranging from20 to
200 km. From this graph it is clear that the increase in product volume has once again introduced
several new options, with all transport options now becoming more competitive.
The Conveyor, Pipe Conveyor and the Rail-Veyor options are still all present and very competitive. The
Rope Conveyor system and both the Pipelines are once again amongst the competitors, but the
interesting factor at these high product volumes is the competitiveness of rail transport.
Normal GFB rail once again becomes more economical than Current Road at 30 km lead distances; it
beats Quantum 1 Road at 50 km and is superior to PBS vehicles from 70 km. It further surpasses 105 t
Roadtrains at 90 km and 180 t Roadtrains only at 150 km. Interestingly, private rail now becomes
competitive at these high volumes, with Private Heavy Haul Rail surpassing PBS vehicles at 40 km and
Private GFB Rail surpassing PBS vehicles at 90 km.
51
Figure 34 presents the transport unit costs per mode, across long distances, ranging from 100 to
1,000 km. From this graph it is clear that the Rail-Veyor option still remains, as well as most of the road
options, except Current Road. Both the Coal Log and Slurry Pipeline options are also present, and now
become very competitive.
The most interesting aspect of this scenario is that, with the absence of conventional conveyor
technologies at these lead distances, the Rail-Veyor system seems to be the most economical option,
second to Coal Log Pipelines. However, under South African conditions it is unlikely that enough water
would be available to transport 50 MT of coal via pipelines, which makes Rail-Veyor the preferred
system.
Heavy Haul Rail obviously remains a very competitive mode, with Private Heavy Haul Rail superior to
any available road transport option beyond 100 km, and GFB Rail surpassing all road options beyond
200 km.
11.4 COST COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS
From the cost analysis it is clear that the transport lead distance and the product volume both have a
substantial influence on the transport unit cost. These are the two major deciding factors when selecting a
mode of transport. The feasible transport options, per scenario, are ranked in order of competitiveness
and summarised in Table 12.
52
Table 12: Summary of Feasible Transport Options per Scenario
SHORT (<10 KM)
Scenario A
Rank
Scenario B
Rank
Scenario C
Rank
1 MTPA 5 MTPA 50 MTPA
Rail-Veyor 1 Rail-Veyor 1 Conveyor 1
Roadtrain (180 t) 2 Aerial Ropeway 2 Pipe Conveyor 2
Roadtrain (105 t) 3 Conveyor 3 Rail-Veyor 3
PBS Vehicles (48 t) 4 Pipe Conveyor 4 Rope Conveyor 4
Aerial Ropeway 5 Roadtrain (180 t) 5 Aerial Ropeway 5
Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 6 Roadtrain (105 t) 6 Roadtrain (180 t) 6
Conveyor 7 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 7 Roadtrain (105 t) 7
Current Road (31 t) 8 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 8 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 8
Pipe Conveyor 9 Current Road (31 t) 9 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 9
Rope Conveyor 10 Rope Conveyor 10 Current Road (31 t) 10
INTERMEDIATE (10 - 100 KM)
Scenario A
Rank
Scenario B
Rank
Scenario C
Rank
1 MTPA 5 MTPA 50 MTPA
Heavy Haul Rail
(Current Rates)
1
Rail-Veyor
1
Conveyor
1
PBS Vehicles (48 t)
2
Heavy Haul Rail (Current
Rates)
2
Pipe Conveyor
2
Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 3 Roadtrain (180 t) 3 Rail-Veyor 3
GFB Rail (Current Rates) 4 Conveyor 4 Rope Conveyor 4
Roadtrain (180 t) 5 Coal Log Pipeline 5 Coal Log Pipeline 5
Roadtrain (105 t) 6 Roadtrain (105 t) 6 Roadtrain (180 t) 6
Current Road (31 t)
7
PBS Vehicles (48 t)
7
Heavy Haul Rail
(Current Rates)
7
Coal Log Pipeline 8 Aerial Ropeway 8 Roadtrain (105 t) 8
Rail-Veyor 9 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 9 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 9
Conveyor 10 Pipe Conveyor 10 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 10
Aerial Ropeway 11 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 11 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 11
Pipe Conveyor 12 Slurry Pipeline 12 GFB Rail (Private) 12
Slurry Pipeline 13 Current Road (31 t) 13 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 13
GFB Rail (Private) 14 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 14 Slurry Pipeline 14
Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 15 GFB Rail (Private) 15 Current Road (31 t) 15
Rope Conveyor 16 Rope Conveyor 16 Aerial Ropeway 16
53
LONG (100 - 1,000 km)
Scenario A Rank Scenario B Rank Scenario C Rank
1 MTPA 5 MTPA 50 MTPA
Heavy Haul Rail
(Current Rates)
1
Heavy Haul Rail
(Current Rates)
1
Coal Log Pipeline
1
GFB Rail (Current Rates) 2 Coal Log Pipeline 2 Rail-Veyor 2
Coal Log Pipeline
3
Slurry Pipeline
3
Heavy Haul Rail
(Current Rates)
3
PBS Vehicles (48 t) 4 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 4 Slurry Pipeline 4
Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 5 Rail-Veyor 5 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 5
Roadtrain (180 t) 6 Roadtrain (180 t) 6 GFB Rail (Current Rates) 6
Current Road (31 t) 7 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 7 GFB Rail (Private) 7
Slurry Pipeline 8 Roadtrain (105 t) 8 Roadtrain (180 t) 8
Roadtrain (105 t) 9 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 9 Roadtrain (105 t) 9
Rail-Veyor 10 Current Road (31 t) 10 PBS Vehicles (48 t) 10
GFB Rail (Private) 11 GFB Rail (Private) 11 Quantum 1 Road (38 t) 11
Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 12 Heavy Haul Rail (Private) 12 Current Road (31 t) 12
The individual transport modes were ranked per lead distance segment for each of the three volume
scenarios and then averaged per distance grouping, which resulted in the overall ranking indicated in
Table 12. From this table it is possible to ascertain which transport mode, based on cost only, is the
most competitive option at a given lead distance and a specified product throughput.
From Table 12 the following observations can be deduced:
Rail-Veyor is the only technology that remains competitive in every single application across all three
scenarios.
All five forms of road transport are always a competitive option, except for the Long Lead Distance
application under Scenario C.
GFB Rail and Heavy Haul rail are always competitive in the Intermediate to Long Lead Distance ranges.
"Private" GFB and Heavy Haul rail are extremely sensitive to volumes and become competitive in the
Intermediate to Long Lead Distance ranges under Scenario C.
12. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIRED
This coal transport investigation has revealed a total of 15 potential coal transport modes, with 12 of these
modes already in operation in different applications around the world. It is clear, however, that firstly there are
certain modes that require additional research and development before they can be put into operation locally.
Secondly, there are some transport modes that shows potential, but additional research is required into their
applicability across longer distances. Their integration possibilities with existing infrastructure also needs
investigating. Further research is also required into the integration, optimisation and management possibilities
of the industry wide coal distribution network, which could have significant benefits for the industry as a whole.
54
The following sub-paragraphs briefly explore each of the further research requirements.
12.1 INDIVIDUAL TRANPORT MODES
As mentioned previously, there are certain technologies that demonstrate tremendous potential, but it is
uncertain whether this potential is uniformly realisable. These technologies include:
a) Rail-Veyor
The Rail-Veyor system seems to be the most promising and universally applicable new transport
technology available today. The following aspects need further investigation:
The applicability and accuracy of the cost estimates for the implementation of this system at
distances longer than the current 5.1 km system in operation.
The integration possibilities of the system within a network environment where multiple
Rail-Veyors are implemented, similar to a conventional rail network. Because the Rail-Veyor
systemis automated, the management and control of such a systemneeds further investigation.
b) CARIAT
The Continuous Articulated Rail In a Tube system, which is being developed by DeVere Mining
Technologies in Australia, is extremely similar to the Rail-Veyor system, apart from the fact that it
runs inside a tube. The following aspects need further investigation:
An update on recent developments needs to be obtained with a view to verifying whether the
system is close to being commercialised.
The system needs to be independently evaluated to compare its characteristics and cost
elements with other available technologies.
It needs to be investigated whether the system can operate outside of a closed tube, which will
further reduce the capital costs required for implementation.
c) Coal Log Pipeline
The CLP concept promises to be a cost effective solution in certain scenarios, but is still in its
developmental stages and very little progress has been made since 2001. The following aspects
need further investigation:
Firstly, the availability of an adequate water supply in South Africa needs to be researched,
because this is the single biggest factor which will prevent it from being used. If sufficient water
is indeed available, the following aspects also need to be considered.
The inventor/developer of the system needs to be contacted to accurately determine the
current status, outstanding research requirements and estimated costs and durations for these
requirements.
Experienced geologists need to be consulted to ascertain whether the specific type of coal in
South Africa is adequately conducive to being compacted.
55
12.2 SECOND STAGE DETAILED RESEARCH
All the research completed to date was at a very high level and intentionally kept as generic as possible.
This research is valuable and adequate in steering certain transport and distribution related decisions,
but it lacks detail in selecting a specific transport mode for a specific route.
A logical next step in this research would be to select a specific route, linking a specific source and
destination, and to quantify the specific transport parameters for such a route. It would then be prudent
to use this research as a basis to select the four or five most probable technologies and then to design
and cost each system in significant detail in order to accurately select a technology for a specific
application.
This approach would also be ideal to test the potential of newer and unfamiliar technologies such as the
Rail-Veyor, Rope Conveyor, Aerial Ropeway, PBS Vehicles or Roadtrain systems.
12.3 COAL SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION AND OPTIMISATION
It is clear from the research that, based on the specific advantages and characteristics of each mode,
there is no single transport technology that could cost effectively satisfy all the divergent transport
requirements, across all distances and all types of terrain. The optimum coal transport solution
therefore lies in the effective combination of all the available transport options into an integrated and
well managed network, where individual technologies are applied to situations where they are best
suited.
This approach is also in line with a recommendation made by the National Department of Transport in
their Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa Discussion Document
1
. This document
states that the South African road network of the national, provincial and local spheres of government is
currently unable to meet the demands placed upon it, with various concerns including:
Lack of integrated planning of the road network, and lack of coordination with the rail and shipping
modes.
Inefficient modal mix, with some freight being carried by road when it would be better carried by rail.
Inadequate and inconsistent funding, barely adequate for maintenance and rehabilitation, insufficient
for capacity enhancement or extension of the infrastructure, resulting in a general deterioration of the
condition of the road system and inability to meet both social and economic needs.
Ineffective law enforcement, especially relating to overloaded vehicles and premature damage to
infrastructure assets.
Severe capacity shortages in some road authorities, limiting the ability to manage the road system
and to implement programmes.
A need for institutional reform to increase efficiency and effectiveness in delivery and to cater for the
total network.
56
1 National Department of Transport (2002) Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa - A Discussion Document [online],
Department of Transport Site, Available at: <http://www.transport. gov.za /library/docs/rifsa/reference.html>
[Accessed: 27 September 2009]
The recommended next step in this regard would therefore be to establish an independent and joint
stakeholder working group, typically under the auspices of Coaltech, consisting of all private and public
role-players throughout the coal supply chain. The function of this working group would be to research
the options and advantages obtainable through industry wide collaboration, joint infrastructure
development, proper transport integration and the effective management of such an integrated
distribution network.
This approach should seek to balance the public and private sector stakeholder needs, within the
constraints of the available transport resources, while incorporating long term planning capabilities in
order to upgrade, establish, integrate and maintain the required transport infrastructure, based on a
consolidated industry capacity plan.
The following sub-paragraphs explore some alternative and detailed improvement options.
12.3.1 Industry Wide Coal Supply Chain Network Optimisation
The South African coal industry is currently extremely fragmented, with multiple role-players who are
geographically scattered across the country. This current status quo results in the suboptimal planning
and distribution of coal, which adds unnecessary costs to the supply chain, while placing strain on the
existing distribution infrastructure.
The coal industry could derive tremendous benefits from adopting an integrated and cooperative
approach in order to optimise the current coal supply chain network. During the past few years, great
strides have been made in the development of standardised tools for supply chain modelling and
network optimisation. These tools and methodologies allow users to model the existing supply chain
and to compare it with alternative configurations and operating scenarios. The tools also assist in
identifying tradeoffs between cost, service and the investment capital required to support the most
efficient network.
Network optimisation is the most basic type of modelling that can be performed with these tools. In this
case, the network is defined by the flow of coal across arcs, from origins to destinations. The
optimisation tool aims to optimise these different arcs in the most cost effective manner. The arc
distances are therefore minimised, while the most economic transport mode is employed to minimise
distribution costs within the constraints of the system, while conforming to the coal quality, size and
volume specifications.
The proper implementation and management of such an integrative approach firstly reduces the coal
distribution costs, and secondly enables the principle of swaps. Quantified and registered volumes and
allocations for the same coal types are used to match identical requests from various customers to
suggest swaps of these products in order to create substantial savings across the network. Coal is
therefore supplied by the closest possible source, which dramatically reduces distribution costs. This
approach has been employed with great success by various other industries, including agriculture and
minerals.
57
12.3.2 Inland Coal Terminals, Hubs or Pantries
The last recommendation for further research is to investigate the possibilities of introducing inland coal
terminals, multimodal hubs or coal pantries in order to improve the coal distribution network. This
recommendation is based on the hub-and-spoke distribution network principles where, instead of
having multiple point-to-point logistics routes, coal is sent to a central hub and then distributed from
there to the individual final destinations. This allows for the consolidation of volumes at various strategic
points, in order to justify the modal changes that would allow the coal industry as a whole to capitalise
on the economic advantages on offer.
This approach presents the following potential benefits to the industry:
A small number of routes generally leads to more efficient use of transportation resources. For
example, trains are more likely to operate at full capacity, and increased and sustained volumes
would also justify the implementation of high volume fixed infrastructures such as conveyor systems.
Expensive and complicated operations, such as washing, blending and beneficiation, can be
carried out at the hub, rather than at every node.
Multiple coal qualities can be blended at the hub to create the optimum coal quality to be supplied
to the final customer.
Individual spokes are simple, and new ones can be created easily, based on the specific
requirements of the final destination at the end of the spoke.
A well managed and integrated hub allows for the efficient scheduling of transport on an industry
wide basis.
Sustainable hubs provide good growth and expansion opportunities for logistics infrastructures and
operators.
Consolidation of coal volumes maximises the available transport capacity, which ultimately reduces
the transport unit costs.
Investment capital and maintenance costs are pooled so that a more efficient infrastructure is
developed and maintained.
Hubs provide the mechanism to enable coal swaps.
For this concept to be successful, it requires an independent evaluation and development approach,
which requires a non-competitive and collaborative effort, managed by a non-partisan entity.
58
13. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Coal Transport Investigation revealed that the selection of a specific transport mode is not a simple
economical calculation, but a complex decision based on various influencing factors including the availability of
current transport infrastructures, individual system characteristics, integration possibilities with other transport
modes and various socio-economic implications. The cost itself is further impacted by the capital investment
requirements, the operations and maintenance cost, the transport lead distance, the product throughput
requirements and the system design life expectations. Every transport requirement therefore needs to be
evaluated against all these factors before a decision can be made.
The outcome of the research broadly conformed to expectations, where conveyor type technologies are suitable
across very short lead distances, with the flexibility and scalability of road transport ensuring that it remains an
option in most cases. The different versions of rail transport further indicated that it is very competitive at
intermediate to long lead distances, while the pipeline based technologies also seemed to be an option at
mid-volume and long lead distance applications. The surprise package of this research however, is the
comprehensively competitive possibilities of the Rail-Veyor system, which proved to be the only technology that
was applicable in every single scenario.
This highlights the necessity for further evaluating the Rail-Veyor technology to ascertain its full scalability and its
integration possibilities with multiple similar systems or other transport systems. It seems that this technology
successfully combines the best aspects of conveyor and rail transport, which results in a comparatively low
capital investment requirement, combined with a very competitive operating and maintenance cost component,
while accommodating various levels of product throughput.
It is also clear from the research that there is no single transport technology that could cost effectively satisfy all
the divergent transport requirements, across all distances, for all coal sizes, at different volumes and across all
types of terrain. The optimum coal distribution solution therefore lies in the effective combination of all the
available transport options into an integrated and well managed network, where individual technologies are
applied in situations where they are best suited. This approach allows for the safest and most cost effective
transport application for each individual route, with the lowest socio-economic impact, while protecting and
enhancing the available transport infrastructure. The industry wide supply chain network optimisation concept
and the establishment of coal hubs are two possible options to achieve this level of cooperation.
This initial Coal Transport Investigation was conducted at a very high level and intentionally kept as generic as
possible. This research is valuable and adequate in steering certain transport and distribution related decisions,
in cases where the lead distance, basic geography and product volumes are known, and as such satisfies the
original objective of providing input into policy decisions. However, a logical next step in this field of research
would be to investigate the integrative and cooperative approaches that can be followed to improve distribution,
productivity, efficiency, reliability and cost effectiveness of the coal supply chain at an industry level.
59
60
61
APPENDI X A
UNIT COST COMPARISON - 1 MTPA
* Please refer to the notes below for an explanation of the highlighted cells
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
o
a
d
(
3
1
t
)
Q
u
a
n
t
u
m
1
R
o
a
d
(
3
8
t
)
P
B
S
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
(
4
8
t
)
R
o
a
d
t
r
a
i
n
(
1
0
5
t
)
R
o
a
d
t
r
a
i
n
(
1
8
0
t
)
G
F
B
R
a
i
l
(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
s
)
H
e
a
v
y
H
a
u
l
R
a
i
l
(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
s
)
G
F
B
R
a
i
l
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
H
e
a
v
y
H
a
u
l
R
a
i
l
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
C
o
a
l
L
o
g
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
S
l
u
r
r
y
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
P
i
p
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
A
e
r
i
a
l
R
o
p
e
w
a
y
R
o
p
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
R
a
i
l
-
V
e
y
o
r
[km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km]
1 15.27 12.30 10.98 9.58 7.97 29.58 21.07 32.20 24.53 36.23 166.61 8.89 11.12 3.43 72.95 4.06
2 7.97 6.40 5.71 5.13 4.29 14.88 10.60 17.50 14.06 18.30 83.51 5.19 6.48 3.22 39.95 2.53
3 5.53 4.44 3.96 3.65 3.06 9.98 7.11 12.61 10.57 12.33 55.81 3.95 4.94 3.08 28.95 2.02
4 4.32 3.45 3.08 2.91 2.45 7.53 5.37 10.16 8.82 9.34 41.96 3.33 4.17 2.97 23.45 1.76
5 3.59 2.86 2.55 2.46 2.08 6.06 4.32 8.69 7.78 7.55 33.65 2.96 3.71 2.88 20.15 1.61
6 3.10 2.47 2.20 2.17 1.84 5.08 3.62 7.71 7.08 6.35 28.11 2.72 3.40 2.80 17.63 1.51
7 2.75 2.19 1.95 1.96 1.66 4.38 3.12 7.01 6.58 5.50 24.15 2.54 3.18 2.74 16.21 1.44
8 2.49 1.98 1.76 1.80 1.53 3.86 2.75 6.48 6.21 4.86 21.18 2.41 3.01 2.69 15.19 1.38
9 2.29 1.82 1.62 1.67 1.43 3.45 2.46 6.07 5.92 4.36 18.87 2.31 2.88 2.64 14.05 1.34
10 2.13 1.69 1.50 1.57 1.35 3.12 2.23 5.75 5.68 3.96 17.03 2.22 2.78 2.60 13.33 1.31
20 1.40 1.10 0.97 1.13 0.98 1.65 1.18 4.28 4.64 2.17 8.72 1.85 2.32 2.34 9.86 1.15
30 1.15 0.90 0.80 0.98 0.86 1.16 0.83 3.79 4.29 1.57 5.95 1.73 2.16 2.19 8.95 1.10
40 1.03 0.80 0.71 0.91 0.79 0.92 0.66 3.54 4.11 1.27 4.56 1.67 2.08 2.10 8.23 1.08
50 0.96 0.74 0.66 0.86 0.76 0.77 0.55 3.40 4.01 1.10 3.73 1.63 2.04 2.03 8.13 1.06
60 0.91 0.70 0.62 0.83 0.73 0.67 0.48 3.30 3.94 0.98 3.18 1.61 2.01 1.97 8.03 1.05
70 0.87 0.67 0.60 0.81 0.72 0.60 0.43 3.23 3.89 0.89 2.78 1.59 1.99 1.92 7.73 1.04
80 0.85 0.65 0.58 0.80 0.70 0.55 0.39 3.18 3.85 0.83 2.48 1.58 1.97 1.88 7.42 1.04
90 0.83 0.64 0.56 0.78 0.69 0.51 0.36 3.14 3.82 0.78 2.25 1.56 1.96 1.85 7.51 1.03
100 0.81 0.62 0.55 0.77 0.68 0.48 0.34 3.10 3.80 0.74 2.07 1.56 1.95 1.82 7.55 1.03
200 0.74 0.57 0.50 0.73 0.65 0.33 0.24 2.96 3.70 0.56 1.24 1.54 1.93 1.63 6.72 1.02
300 0.71 0.55 0.48 0.71 0.64 0.28 0.20 2.91 3.66 0.50 0.96 1.52 1.90 1.53 6.40 1.01
400 0.70 0.54 0.47 0.71 0.63 0.26 0.18 2.88 3.64 0.47 0.82 1.51 1.88 1.46 6.32 1.01
500 0.69 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.63 0.24 0.17 2.87 3.63 0.45 0.74 1.50 1.88 1.41 6.55 1.01
600 0.69 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.62 0.23 0.17 2.86 3.63 0.44 0.68 1.50 1.87 1.37 6.42 1.01
700 0.69 0.52 0.46 0.70 0.62 0.23 0.16 2.85 3.62 0.43 0.64 1.49 1.87 1.33 6.42 1.00
800 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.70 0.62 0.22 0.16 2.85 3.62 0.42 0.61 1.49 1.87 1.31 6.30 1.00
900 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.70 0.62 0.22 0.16 2.84 3.61 0.42 0.59 1.49 1.86 1.28 6.45 1.00
1000 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.69 0.62 0.21 0.15 2.84 3.61 0.41 0.57 1.49 1.86 1.26 6.42 1.00
62
APPENDI X A
Notes
I. For transport modes and cells highlighted in Green, this is an indication that no or very little data is available on
the application of these transport modes at the specific shorter distances:
a. Heavy Haul Rail has been used only on two major railway lines locally: The CoalLink line to Richards
Bay, at 580 km and the Orex line to Saldanha Bay at 861 km:
i. Specific transport unit costs for these lines at distances shorter than 580 km are therefore for
indicative purposes only.
ii. Transport unit costs for these shorter distances have been calculated through extrapolation.
II. For transport modes and cells highlighted in Yellow, this is an indication that no or very little data is available on
the application of these transport modes at the specific longer distances:
a. Roadtrains are normally used across distances shorter than 300 km, based purely on the range:
i. With the normal fuel tank sizes of the evaluated Roadtrains, these units are ideal for transport lead
distances shorter than 300 km.
ii. For longer lead distances an additional infrastructure will need to be added in the form of refuelling
stations.
b. General Freight Rail is the transportation of freight on the existing Transnet rail network:
i. No data is available for the transportation of coal at distances longer than 500 kmon GFB lines.
ii. For long distance transport, the rolling stock will need to travel through multiple shunting yards
where it will change between trains accordingly. This will influence the delivery time, as well as the
transport cost.
iii. Transport unit costs for these longer distances have been calculated through extrapolation.
c. Coal Log and Slurry Pipelines, although possible, are normally not used across distances longer than
500 km:
i. The longest pipeline in the world, transporting coal and based in the USA, is 437 km long.
ii. Transport unit costs for these longer distances have been calculated through extrapolation.
d. Conveyors and Pipe Conveyors, although theoretically possible, are not normally used across distances
longer than 100 km:
i. The longest conveyor system in the world, operating in the Western Sahara, is 100 km long.
ii. Transport unit costs for these longer distances have been calculated through extrapolation.
e. Aerial Ropeways and Rope Conveyor Systems, although theoretically possible, are not normally used
across distances longer than 100 km:
i. The longest similar systems in the world are all operating at distances of less than 100 km.
ii. Transport unit costs for these longer distances have been calculated through extrapolation.
63
APPENDI X A
f. Rail-Veyor Systems, although theoretically possible, have not been tested at long lead distances:
i. The longest operational Rail-Veyor system is 5.1 km long.
ii. The system has not been comprehensively priced beyond 100 kilometres.
iii. Transport unit costs for these longer distances have been calculated through extrapolation.
It should be noted that, for all the transport modes described above, the transport unit costs in the highlighted
cells should be treated as indicative only. Systemdesigns at these specific lead distances are subject to changes.
64
APPENDI X A
65
APPENDI X B
UNIT COST COMPARISON - 5 MTPA
* Please refer to the notes below the Table in Appendix A for an explanation of the highlighted cells.
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
o
a
d
(
3
1
t
)
Q
u
a
n
t
u
m
1
R
o
a
d
(
3
8
t
)
P
B
S
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
(
4
8
t
)
R
o
a
d
t
r
a
i
n
(
1
0
5
t
)
R
o
a
d
t
r
a
i
n
(
1
8
0
t
)
G
F
B
R
a
i
l
(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
s
)
H
e
a
v
y
H
a
u
l
R
a
i
l
(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
s
)
G
F
B
R
a
i
l
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
H
e
a
v
y
H
a
u
l
R
a
i
l
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
C
o
a
l
L
o
g
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
S
l
u
r
r
y
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
P
i
p
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
A
e
r
i
a
l
R
o
p
e
w
a
y
R
o
p
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
R
a
i
l
-
V
e
y
o
r
[km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km]
1 15.28 12.29 10.98 9.36 7.77 29.58 21.07 30.10 21.76 23.76 43.15 2.96 3.71 1.14 15.81 1.50
2 7.97 6.40 5.72 4.92 4.08 14.88 10.60 15.40 11.29 11.95 21.63 1.73 2.16 1.07 8.66 0.88
3 5.54 4.44 3.96 3.44 2.86 9.98 7.11 10.51 7.80 8.01 14.46 1.32 1.65 1.03 6.27 0.67
4 4.32 3.45 3.08 2.70 2.24 7.53 5.37 8.06 6.06 6.04 10.87 1.11 1.39 0.99 5.08 0.57
5 3.59 2.86 2.55 2.25 1.87 6.06 4.32 6.59 5.01 4.86 8.72 0.99 1.24 0.96 4.37 0.51
6 3.10 2.47 2.20 1.95 1.63 5.08 3.62 5.61 4.31 4.07 7.29 0.91 1.13 0.93 3.82 0.47
7 2.75 2.19 1.95 1.74 1.45 4.38 3.12 4.91 3.81 3.51 6.26 0.85 1.06 0.91 3.51 0.44
8 2.49 1.98 1.76 1.58 1.32 3.86 2.75 4.38 3.44 3.09 5.49 0.80 1.00 0.90 3.29 0.42
9 2.29 1.82 1.62 1.46 1.22 3.45 2.46 3.98 3.15 2.76 4.90 0.77 0.96 0.88 3.04 0.40
10 2.13 1.68 1.50 1.36 1.14 3.12 2.23 3.65 2.92 2.50 4.42 0.74 0.93 0.87 2.89 0.39
20 1.40 1.10 0.97 0.92 0.77 1.65 1.18 2.18 1.87 1.32 2.27 0.62 0.77 0.78 2.14 0.32
30 1.15 0.90 0.80 0.77 0.64 1.16 0.83 1.69 1.52 0.92 1.55 0.58 0.72 0.73 1.94 0.30
40 1.03 0.80 0.71 0.69 0.58 0.92 0.66 1.44 1.35 0.73 1.19 0.56 0.69 0.70 1.78 0.29
50 0.96 0.74 0.66 0.65 0.55 0.77 0.55 1.30 1.24 0.61 0.97 0.54 0.68 0.68 1.76 0.29
60 0.91 0.70 0.62 0.62 0.52 0.67 0.48 1.20 1.17 0.53 0.83 0.54 0.67 0.66 1.74 0.28
70 0.87 0.67 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.43 1.13 1.12 0.47 0.73 0.53 0.66 0.64 1.68 0.28
80 0.85 0.65 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.55 0.39 1.08 1.09 0.43 0.65 0.53 0.66 0.63 1.61 0.28
90 0.83 0.64 0.56 0.57 0.48 0.51 0.36 1.04 1.06 0.40 0.59 0.52 0.65 0.62 1.63 0.28
100 0.81 0.62 0.55 0.56 0.47 0.48 0.34 1.00 1.03 0.37 0.54 0.52 0.65 0.61 1.64 0.28
200 0.74 0.56 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.33 0.24 0.86 0.93 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.64 0.54 1.46 0.27
300 0.71 0.55 0.48 0.50 0.42 0.28 0.20 0.81 0.89 0.22 0.26 0.51 0.63 0.51 1.39 0.27
400 0.70 0.54 0.47 0.49 0.42 0.26 0.18 0.78 0.88 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.63 0.49 1.37 0.27
500 0.69 0.53 0.47 0.49 0.41 0.24 0.17 0.77 0.87 0.18 0.20 0.50 0.63 0.47 1.42 0.27
600 0.69 0.53 0.47 0.49 0.41 0.23 0.17 0.76 0.86 0.18 0.19 0.50 0.62 0.46 1.39 0.26
700 0.69 0.52 0.46 0.48 0.41 0.23 0.16 0.75 0.85 0.17 0.18 0.50 0.62 0.44 1.39 0.26
800 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.48 0.41 0.22 0.16 0.75 0.85 0.17 0.17 0.50 0.62 0.44 1.37 0.26
900 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.48 0.41 0.22 0.16 0.74 0.85 0.16 0.16 0.50 0.62 0.43 1.40 0.26
1000 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.48 0.41 0.21 0.15 0.74 0.84 0.16 0.16 0.50 0.62 0.42 1.39 0.26
66
APPENDI X B
67
APPENDI X C
UNIT COST COMPARISON - 50 MTPA
* Please refer to the notes below, as well as the notes below the table in Appendix A,
for an explanation of the cells highlighted in Green and Yellow.
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
o
a
d
(
3
1
t
)
Q
u
a
n
t
u
m
1
R
o
a
d
(
3
8
t
)
P
B
S
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
(
4
8
t
)
R
o
a
d
t
r
a
i
n
(
1
0
5
t
)
R
o
a
d
t
r
a
i
n
(
1
8
0
t
)
G
F
B
R
a
i
l
(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
s
)
H
e
a
v
y
H
a
u
l
R
a
i
l
(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
s
)
G
F
B
R
a
i
l
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
H
e
a
v
y
H
a
u
l
R
a
i
l
(
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
C
o
a
l
L
o
g
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
S
l
u
r
r
y
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
P
i
p
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
A
e
r
i
a
l
R
o
p
e
w
a
y
R
o
p
e
C
o
n
v
e
y
o
r
R
a
i
l
-
V
e
y
o
r
[km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km] [R/t.km]
1 15.28 12.29 10.98 9.32 7.72 29.58 21.07 29.63 21.14 19.84 43.15 0.53 0.67 1.14 2.95 1.47
2 7.97 6.40 5.72 4.87 4.04 14.88 10.60 14.93 10.67 9.96 21.63 0.31 0.39 1.07 1.63 0.81
3 5.54 4.43 3.96 3.39 2.81 9.98 7.11 10.03 7.18 6.67 14.46 0.24 0.30 1.03 1.19 0.59
4 4.32 3.45 3.08 2.65 2.19 7.53 5.37 7.58 5.43 5.02 10.87 0.20 0.25 0.99 0.97 0.48
5 3.59 2.86 2.55 2.20 1.83 6.06 4.32 6.12 4.39 4.03 8.72 0.18 0.22 0.96 0.83 0.41
6 3.10 2.47 2.20 1.91 1.58 5.08 3.62 5.14 3.69 3.37 7.29 0.16 0.20 0.93 0.73 0.37
7 2.75 2.19 1.95 1.69 1.40 4.38 3.12 4.44 3.19 2.90 6.26 0.15 0.19 0.91 0.67 0.33
8 2.49 1.98 1.76 1.54 1.27 3.86 2.75 3.91 2.82 2.55 5.49 0.14 0.18 0.90 0.64 0.31
9 2.29 1.82 1.62 1.41 1.17 3.45 2.46 3.50 2.53 2.28 4.90 0.14 0.17 0.88 0.59 0.29
10 2.13 1.68 1.50 1.31 1.09 3.12 2.23 3.18 2.29 2.06 4.42 0.13 0.17 0.87 0.56 0.28
20 1.40 1.10 0.97 0.87 0.72 1.65 1.18 1.71 1.25 1.07 2.27 0.11 0.14 0.78 0.42 0.21
30 1.15 0.90 0.80 0.72 0.60 1.16 0.83 1.22 0.90 0.74 1.55 0.10 0.13 0.73 0.38 0.19
40 1.03 0.80 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.92 0.66 0.97 0.72 0.57 1.19 0.10 0.13 0.70 0.35 0.18
50 0.96 0.74 0.66 0.60 0.50 0.77 0.55 0.83 0.62 0.48 0.97 0.10 0.12 0.68 0.35 0.17
60 0.91 0.70 0.62 0.57 0.47 0.67 0.48 0.73 0.55 0.41 0.83 0.10 0.12 0.66 0.35 0.17
70 0.87 0.67 0.60 0.55 0.46 0.60 0.43 0.66 0.50 0.36 0.73 0.10 0.12 0.64 0.34 0.16
80 0.85 0.65 0.58 0.54 0.44 0.55 0.39 0.60 0.46 0.33 0.65 0.09 0.12 0.63 0.32 0.16
90 0.83 0.64 0.56 0.52 0.43 0.51 0.36 0.56 0.43 0.30 0.59 0.09 0.12 0.62 0.33 0.16
100 0.81 0.62 0.55 0.51 0.42 0.48 0.34 0.53 0.41 0.28 0.54 0.09 0.12 0.61 0.33 0.16
200 0.74 0.56 0.50 0.47 0.39 0.33 0.24 0.38 0.31 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.12 0.54 0.29 0.15
300 0.71 0.55 0.48 0.45 0.37 0.28 0.20 0.34 0.27 0.15 0.26 0.09 0.11 0.51 0.28 0.15
400 0.70 0.54 0.47 0.45 0.37 0.26 0.18 0.31 0.25 0.13 0.22 0.09 0.11 0.49 0.27 0.15
500 0.69 0.53 0.47 0.44 0.36 0.24 0.17 0.30 0.24 0.12 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.47 0.28 0.15
600 0.69 0.53 0.47 0.44 0.36 0.23 0.17 0.29 0.24 0.11 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.46 0.28 0.15
700 0.69 0.52 0.46 0.44 0.36 0.23 0.16 0.28 0.23 0.11 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.44 0.28 0.15
800 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.44 0.36 0.22 0.16 0.27 0.23 0.11 0.17 0.09 0.11 0.44 0.27 0.15
900 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.43 0.36 0.22 0.16 0.27 0.22 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.11 0.43 0.28 0.15
1000 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.43 0.36 0.21 0.15 0.26 0.22 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.11 0.42 0.28 0.15
68
APPENDI X C
Notes
I. For transport modes highlighted in Red, this is an indication that the specific transport modes are probably not
capable of transporting 50 MTPA:
a. General Freight Rail implies that the freight is transported using the existing Transnet rail network:
i. Based on the relatively low levels of spare capacity with the system, it is highly unlikely that Transnet
would be able to transport 50 MTPA of coal on GFB lines.
ii. It is much more probable that new Heavy Haul Lines will be constructed for these coal volumes.
b. Coal Log and Slurry Pipelines are generally restricted in capacity, based on the water availability at the
pipeline origin:
i. The highest capacity coal pipeline in the world, transporting coal in the USA, has a capacity of 4.8
MTPA.
ii. Based on South African conditions, it is highly unlikely that the Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry will grant permission to use for water for coal transportation. If so, then 5 MTPA would
probably be the maximum throughput allowance.
c. Aerial Ropeway Systems are generally designed as low volume transport mechanisms:
i. These systems have a maximum capacity limit of 5 MTPA.
ii. In order to transport 50 MTPA, 10 Aerial Ropeway systems will have to be operated in parallel,
which is probably an unrealistic expectation.
69
APPENDI X C
70
69
APPENDI X D
Road Transport
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 75
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 75
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.1.1 Road Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.1.2 Vehicle Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.1.3 Quantum1 Road Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.1.4 Performance Based Standards Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.2 SYSTEM AUTOMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.3.1 Advantages of General Road Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.3.2 Advantages of Quantum1 and PBS Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.4.1 Disadvantage of Road Transport and Quantum1 Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.4.2 Disadvantage of PBS Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 85
3.1 CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.2 IMPACT OF QUANTUM 1 AND PBS ON VEHICLE PAYLOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.3 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.4 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.5 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.6 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 89
4.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.3.1 Public Perception of PBS Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.3.2 Transporter and Driver Perceptions of PBS Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
72
APPENDI X D
5. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 91
5.1 SELF REGULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.1.1 Road Transport Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.1.2 RTMS Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.2 SELF REGULATION - A SUGGESTED WAY FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 96
7. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 96
8. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 97
APPENDICES
Appendix D1: Proftrans Transport Cost Model Inputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Appendix D2: Minister of Transports Letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Appendix D3: Haulier Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
73
APPENDI X D
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Pavement design of a Flexible Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 2: Pavement Design of a Rigid Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 3: Typical RFA Vehicle Combinations found in Coal Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 4: Simulated Rearward Amplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 5: PBS Vehicle Operating in Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 6: Legal Payload as a Percentage of Total Gross Combination Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 7: Road Transport Unit Cost at 1 Mtpa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Figure 8: Road Transport Unit Cost at 5 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Figure 9: Road Transport Unit Cost at 50 MTPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Figure 10: The Benefits of Larger Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 11: PBS Trucks Currently Running in the Timber Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 12: National RTMS Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 13: Reduction in Overloading in the Timber Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 14: Reduction in the Percentage Incidence of Overloading Over Tolerance in the Sugar Industry . . 94
Figure 15: Reduction in the Percentage Incidence of Overloading Over 2% Tolerance at Eskom. . . . . . 94
Figure 16: RTMS Accredited Vehicle Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of PBS Performance Results of a Simulation of a South African Vehicle Measured
Against Australian Safety Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 2: PBS Application in Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 3: Average Payload in the Coal Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 4: PBS vs Interlink using Prof Trans Model under Two Scenarios (measured in Rand per Tonne) . . 89
74
APPENDI X D
1. INTRODUCTION
Road transport is classified as the transportation of passengers or freight via a land based road network, using
wheeled vehicles. Apart from the degree of development of the local infrastructure, the nature of road transportation
of goods depends on the distance the goods are transported by road, the weight and volume of the individual
shipment and the type of goods transported.
Road transportation together with rail transportation accounts for 99% of South Africa's global logistics costs,
with road transportation the dominant partner at approximately 1.4 billion tonnes of freight conveyed during
2007, as opposed to approximately 0.2 billion tonnes moved by rail. Naturally this level of road freight
movement is significant and is supported by a road infrastructure of approximately 752,000 km, of which
approximately 200,000 km is unclassified.
The road network infrastructure is shared not only by heavy vehicles used for the conveyance of freight, but also
with the general public in the form of motor and light delivery vehicles. The total live vehicle population as
published by E-Natis is estimated at 8.47 million motorised vehicles, of which approximately 0.32 million are
defined as heavy load vehicles of a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) in excess of 3,500 kg. It is further estimated that
the aforementioned complement of heavy load vehicles travelled up to 12,961 million vehicle kilometres during
2008.
The remainder of this document focuses largely on the heavy load vehicle, more commonly known as the vehicle
combination, and the characteristics which make it unique in the realm of freight transportation.
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Road transportation, as commonly found in bulk materials handling, is comprised of two major components,
namely the vehicle combination and the road upon which it moves. Due to the large scale usage of heavy motor
vehicles to convey freight and its importance to any economy, much emphasis has been placed on the improved
movement and handling of freight by various types of vehicle combinations via road. As a result two
advancements in vehicle combination design have also been discussed in subsequent sections.
It is important to note that the system characteristics, which are to be discussed, are governed largely by the
regulatory environment as contained in the National Road Traffic Act of 1996. This Act not only defines the
regulatory limitations on vehicles, but also seeks to define the responsibilities of all road users on the national
road infrastructure.
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
As mentioned above, vehicle combination and road infrastructure are the two critical elements in road
transportation and are discussed below.
75
APPENDI X D
2.1.1 Road Infrastructure
Critical to road transportation is the road infrastructure on which materials are conveyed. In regard to
road infrastructure there are three types of roads found in South Africa; these are as follows:
Bitumen, or flexible roads
Concrete, or inflexible roads
Gravel, or unpaved roads.
Bitumen or Flexible Roads
Bitumen roads are constructed of several layers of material, which decrease in load carrying capacity,
as depicted in Figure 1 below. The surface or bituminous layer is generally the strongest layer, as this is
the area of the road where the heaviest stresses are felt over a relatively small surface area. The concept
of a flexible road suggests that each sublayer flexes as stresses are passed from one layer to the next,
thereby distributing the load over the entire structure without any specific layer being overstressed.
Concrete or Inflexible Roads
In contrast to flexible roads, concrete or inflexible roads are considered to be rigid due to the high
strength of concrete. The rigidity of the concrete surface layer allows the concrete to act as a beam,
thereby countering any small areas of weakness in the supporting layer. The integrity of a concrete road
will be intact as long as water does not negatively impact the supporting layer.
A typical concrete or rigid pavement design is depicted in Figure 2.
76
APPENDI X D
Gravel or Unpaved Roads
Gravel or unpaved roads as the name would imply do not have any protective or strengthening layer as
in the case of flexible and rigid roads. In essence the unpaved roads are primarily made of the subbase
which is shaped and rounded to the correct road shaping parameters.
It is important to note that the single biggest influence on the performance of any road type is the
amount of traffic that passes over its surface. The effect of traffic is comprised of the following elements:
Load magnitude
Vehicle configuration
Load repetitions of heavy vehicles commonly known as 80 kN single axle load or E80.
A road is designed with a specific lifetime of E80s in mind. E80s can effectively be consumed faster than
anticipated, especially when heavy vehicles are overloaded. With this in mind, current and new vehicle
combinations are discussed below.
2.1.2 Vehicle Combinations
A combination of vehicles as typically encountered in the road transport industry is broadly defined in
terms of the National Road Traffic Act as a combination of motor vehicles, which may consist of the
following:
A truck drawing two drawbar trailers
A truck tractor drawing a semi-trailer and a drawbar trailer
A truck tractor drawing two semi-trailers.
Whilst the aforementioned definition is broad, it can be further sub-divided into smaller categories based
on the axle, tyre and length configurations of the entire combination of vehicles. To the knowledge of the
writer, the Road Freight Association has the most comprehensive vehicle classification system that can be
found in the public domain, apart fromthat which has been adopted by Eskomand supplied by Crickmay.
77
APPENDI X D
The RFA vehicle classification system is broken down into vehicle concepts that are employed in various
segments of the transport industry and is primarily used by the RFA in a costing schedule released to
industry, and largely takes cognisance of the impact of axle types. The application of the RFA classification
was tested on the Road Transport Management System(RTMS) vehicle database as captured by Eskomfor
all vehicles delivering to their power stations during 2007. Figure 3 indicates the various vehicle
combination types present during 2007, as per the RFA vehicle classification.
During 2007 the fleet of vehicle combinations delivering coal into the Eskom power stations were
predominantly made up of vehicle concepts 9 and 11 in Figure 3, with vehicle categories 10, 13 and
18 only constituting 36.5% of the fleet. However, it is important to note that the makeup of the fleet has
changed significantly, with the current 2009 RTMS database showing that nearly 90% of all vehicle
combinations are of the vehicle concept 18 type.
Although not representative of the entire coal transport sector the Eskom sample of vehicles, as
contained in the RTMS database, is noteworthy and should provide a good indicator of the current type
of vehicle combinations in use. Furthermore, with the change in fleet makeup the average legal payload
of the vehicle combinations has risen from approximately 31 t in 2007 to approximately 33 t in 2009.
Further advancement in payload of vehicle combinations is evident and is elaborated upon in the
following paragraphs dealing with Quantum 1 and PBS vehicles.
78
APPENDI X D
2.1.3 Quantum 1 Road Trucks
The payload efficiency of the vehicles currently employed in the coal industry, when compared to other
industries, suggests significant room for improvement. Opportunities to improve the payload through
better truck and trailer designs, through the application of new materials and design philosophies, is
under investigation in the coal industry.
This type of design concept, currently referred to as Quantum 1 road trucks, aims at maximising the
legal payload carrying capability of a coal truck, within the current legal limits. Quantum 1 concept
designs have recently suggested that a legal payload of 38 tonnes is possible, within current legislation,
which represents a 15% increase in payload over the current maximum legal payload of 33 t as
explained in 2.1.2 above.
The Quantum 1 design was conceptualised after trips to Europe and Australia in 2006 by a well
respected trailer design specialist, Mr Desmond Armstrong. Unfortunately, detailed drawings could not
be made available as these are considered confidential. However, two of the larger role players in the
South African coal industry are currently considering testing the theory, by building and operating a
number of Quantum 1 trucks on a trial basis.
2.1.4 Performance Based Standards Vehicles
Vehicle combinations based on Performance Based Standards (PBS) employ a mechanism designed to
improve payloads, subject to predefined performance criteria that allow a vehicle combination to
operate beyond what is possible within current legislation. As a general rule across the globe,
legislation governing vehicle dimensions in the transportation of goods is aimed at ensuring that
vehicles operate safely and do not damage the public roads on which they travel. The application of
PBS breaks the legislative hindrance by focusing on the safety and performance of the vehicle before it
considers what it is supposed to look like in terms of current legislative requirements.
As explained earlier, the logic driving PBS is defining narrow vehicle performance criteria for specific
applications. Table 1 below illustrates the specific performance criteria for each route access category
for safety related measures. Further measures are used to evaluate performance criteria related to road
damage. These include vehicle and bridge loading measures.
79
APPENDI X D
Table 1: Summary of PBS Performance Results of a Simulation of a South African Vehicle
Measured Against Australian Safety Standards
Initially vehicle designs are modelled and simulated using accredited vendors with accredited computer
simulation software. An example of one of the simulation manoeuvres, namely rearward amplification,
is depicted in Figure 4 below.
80
APPENDI X D
These criteria employed and tested on a specific vehicle combination differ with respect to the different
routes on which the vehicle combination is designed to travel. In this regard the different PBS vehicle
combination types and accessibility to route types are defined in Table 2 below.
Table 2: PBS Application in Australia
Route Access Category Generic PBS Descriptor Close Present Description
Unrestricted Access Level 1 (L1) General Access
Significant Freight Route Level 2 (L2) B-double Routes
Major Freight Route Level 3 (L3) Type I Road Trains (A-doubles)
Remote Areas Level 4 (L4) Type II Road Trains (A-triples)
The vehicle combination (L2) shown below in Figure 5 could operate on significant freight routes with a
Gross Combination Mass (GCM) of 77.5 tons as long at it conforms to its specified criteria.
2.2 SYSTEM AUTOMATION
System automation of road transport has largely been limited to management aspects of the road
transport. Management aspects, which are typically automated, often relate to the dispatching and
scheduling of vehicles. Furthermore, automation with respect to the tracking and reconciliation of
freight is commonplace with the advent of barcoding and radio frequency identification (RFID). There
are no known examples of actual heavy vehicle automation currently in operation, although some
conceptual designs are available, such as that proposed by the Department of Mechanical Engineering
at Standford University, entitled Command Modification for Longitudinal Control of Automated Heavy
Vehicles.
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
Road transport in general offers a variety of advantages. The advantages of general road transport and
the additional advantages of Quantum1 and PBS vehicles are discussed in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
81
APPENDI X D
2.3.1 Advantages of General Road Transport
The advantages of general road transport are as follows:
High Flexibility in Routing
Vehicle combinations offer high levels of flexibility in changing of routes, as opposed to fixed
infrastructure type transport modes, such as conveyors, rail and pipelines. The response time with
which this can be done is also very short and is the single biggest advantage over most other
transport modes.
High Flexibility in Load Size and Load Type
By virtue of the fact that trucks and truck tractors are interchangeable with numerous varieties of
trailers, vehicle combinations can be easily adapted from carrying low payloads (e.g. 15 t) to high
payloads (e.g. 38 t) in a matter of minutes. Furthermore, often due to the variety of trailer types, a
truck or truck-tractor can be deployed in specific bulk handling applications or general road freight
applications by changing trailer types.
Low Initial Capital Costs
Due to the flexibility of road transport, low initial capital costs are easily realised when the source of
freight has a relatively short lifespan of less than five years as opposed to conveyors, rail or pipelines
where the capital payback period is often between 15 and 20 years.
Large Supplier Pool
Unlike many of the other transport modes, road transport has typically thousands of transport
companies offering services, which allows for a greater deal of competition in the market and further
reduces operating costs as opposed to a captive national rail supplier.
2.3.2 Advantages of Quantum 1 and PBS Vehicles
The advantages of Quantum 1 and PBS vehicles are inherently the same as general road transport.
However, in addition to general road transport, PBS and Quantum 1 vehicles exhibit the following
advantages:
Increased Payload
Quantum1 vehicles have displayed a 15%increase in payload over the current design configurations.
In addition, PBS vehicles currently running in timber in KwaZulu-Natal show an additional increase in
payload ranging from 12 to 15% over Quantum 1 vehicles.
Decreased Cost
During a PBS vehicle trial in the timber industry a 25% reduction in cost on lead distances of 150 km
was realised.
Decreased Numbers of Vehicles on the Road
A corresponding decrease of vehicle numbers should follow the increase in payload.
82
APPENDI X D
Reduced Carbon Emissions
Significant reduction in carbon emissions have been recorded in the timber industry. This is achieved
due to a reduction of the fuel used per tonne of product moved.
PBS is Becoming an Established Fact in South Africa
The recognition of PBS as a viable concept has been proved in South Africa by establishing RTMS as
a recognised and approved self regulation system, contextualising PBS in the South African transport
arena and in testing PBS vehicles in KwaZulu-Natal.
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
The disadvantages of general road transport and Quantum 1 vehicles are few in relation to other transport
modes. However, the PBS vehicle concept does have specific challenges, and is therefore discussed
separately.
2.4.1 Disadvantage of Road Transport and Quantum 1 Vehicles
The disadvantages of road transport pertain largely to a few areas and these are discussed as follows:
Management and Labour Intensive
Relative to other transport modes, such as rail, conveyers and pipelines, road transport is
management and labour intensive with up to three drivers employed to operate one vehicle over a
24-hour period.
High Operating Costs
Due to the management and labour intensive nature of road transport and because of the heavy
dependency of road transportation on diesel fuel, operating costs are relatively high when compared
with traditional forms of transport, such a conveyors and rail.
National Road Infrastructure Maintenance
There is a direct correlation between road roughness and increased vehicle operating costs. Due to
the backlog in maintenance of national and provincial roads, partly due to insufficient funding and
accelerated road wear associated with overloading, the general condition of the road infrastructure is
not ideal. Thus, operating costs of road transport are currently elevated beyond what they should be.
Safety Risk
Due to the fact that road transport shares the road infrastructure with the general populace, road
transport is at a higher risk of accidents than other transport forms such as conveyors and pipelines
where access can be greatly restricted.
2.4.2 Disadvantage of PBS Vehicles
The disadvantages of PBS in general are the same as for road transport; however, PBS specific dis-
advantages are as follows:
83
APPENDI X D
Poor Regulatory Environment and Partnership
PBS is generally aimed at a first world transport operating environment. It presupposes a well
regulated transport environment, competent government officials and a high level of trust between
business, government and the public. Sadly, the South African transport environment is somewhat
lacking in these areas and thus far the PBS process has been poorly funded. Thus far, although the
results have been good, the process has been excruciatingly slow.
Requires World Class Technical Expertise to Implement
The PBS system relies on the application of world class technical and mechanical expertise. A real
danger exists in under-estimating the technical expertise required to embark on this route. Scrutiny of
some of the South African transport systems, when compared to the Australian PBS system, reveal
that the lack of expertise in the South African industry is far worse than expected and shows that, in
some cases, reputable South African trailer and truck manufacturers have little understanding of
South African transport law and of design principles.
To prevent these problems, the strategy already defined by the PBS and other relevant committees will
need to be properly funded and executed. In addition, a mechanism will need to be put into place to
ensure that the necessary technical status is acquired and monitored.
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Due to the complexity and high flexibility of road transport, it is difficult to determine definitively what the
ideal operating conditions would be. However, the following would greatly improve the efficiency of the
road transport system in general:
A well maintained road infrastructure, with a low road roughness index.
Turnaround times at facilities of less than 30 minutes.
Dedicated truck bypass lanes around city or town centres.
Flat conditions with gradients of less than 2%.
A properly scheduled supply chain to reduce vehicle bunching at facilities.
Lead distances of less than 150 km where a suitable rail infrastructure is present.
All year work.
The availability of backhaul, also commonly known as return loads.
Optimal loading of vehicles to the legal maximum payload.
Selection of the appropriate size of vehicle for the application for when lead distance reduces to
below a certain threshold; the impact of terminal times is more important than the payload the
vehicle achieves.
84
APPENDI X D
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operational parameters.
The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance, significantly impact on the
selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in the following sub-paragraphs.
3.1 CAPACITY
The capacity of the road transport system inter alia, its productivity and throughput, has traditionally
been affected by the following:
Lead distance, i.e. the distance from source to destination.
Terminal times, i.e. the time taken to arrive at a facility, load and/or offload product and depart from
the facility.
Road conditions.
Vehicle design and thereby payload (gross mass - tare mass).
Vehicle routing and scheduling.
An improvement in any one of the aforementioned constraints often brings around an increase in
productivity and vehicle throughput. In essence, vehicle combinations can operate over a multitude of
conditions and scenarios ranging from very short distances of less than 5 km to in excess of 1,000 km,
as is the case with long haul road freight. Due to the natural complexity of road transport, the impacts of
changing vehicle design is the only element briefly discussed in subsequent paragraphs, as this forms
part of the current technical innovations within the coal road transport industry.
3.2. IMPACT OF QUANTUM 1 AND PBS ON VEHICLE PAYLOAD
Quantum 1 and PBS vehicles are primarily aimed at increasing the payload. Table 3 shows the potential
of improvements in payload as determined by investigations undertaken in the coal and timber industries.
Table 3: Average Payload in the Coal Industry
Vehicle Payload Tonnes
Current estimated payload 29.5
Current average interlink combination(used in calculations) 31.0
Theoretically possible within current legislation(called Quantum 1) 38.0
Estimated PBS vehicle in coal 48.0
As discussed in paragraph 2.1.2, the average legal payload has increased from 31 t in 2007 to 33 t in
2009. It should be noted, however, that this is the achievable payload and an average of 31 t was used
as the basis for the calculations, as this is the most likely payload to be achieved in reality. The main
reason for the difference is that current payload management in the coal road transport industry is poor
and transporters are not realising the full potential that their current vehicle combinations possess.
The payload efficiency of the vehicles currently employed in the coal industry, when compared to other
industries as (Figure 6), suggests room for improvement, as highlighted in paragraph 2.1.3.
85
APPENDI X D
Under Rotran, Eskom's lead logistics provider, opportunities to improve the payload through better truck
and trailer design and construction materials is under investigation.
3.3 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
The feasible operating distance of road transport is ultimately limited by whether there is a more
competitive mode of transport available as an option between a specific source and destination. From
analyses done, current road transport is feasible from 1 km to more than 1,000 km when volumes are
less than 1 Million Tons Per Annum (MTPA) and when there is the absence of rail or pipelines.
3.4 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
The capital investment required for vehicle combinations is heavily dependent on the type of truck or
truck tractor used and the trailers with which it is associated. The capital costs can vary fromR1.5 million
for a truck-tractor with semi-trailer to R2.2 million for Quantum 1 type vehicles and approximately R2.5
million for PBS type vehicles. However, when vehicles with larger payloads are used, such as PBS
vehicles, then generally the overall capital required decreases due to fewer vehicles being required to
transport the high volume of freight as a result of higher payloads.
3.5 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
System operating and maintenance costs are mainly comprised of fuel, wages, licence fees and
insurance. For the purposes of determining vehicle costs, full maintenance contract costs of between
R1.313 and R1.41 per kilometre where used. Similarly, tyre costs were also established along a similar
contract maintenance scheme ranging from R0.80 to R1.03 per kilometre. Overheads where derived
as 5% of the total fixed and labour costs. Fuel represents between 33% and 39% of the total transport
unit cost, as discussed in paragraph 3.6.
86
APPENDI X D
3.6 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
Using the ProfTrans Transport Costing Model, transport unit cost curves were calculated for current
road transport with an average payload of 31 tonnes and then compared against transport unit cost
curves developed for Quantum1 and PBS vehicles. As road conditions and topography vary greatly, the
derived transport unit cost curves should be used as a basic indication. The input parameters for the
transport cost model can be found in Appendix D1.
The transport unit cost curves were also developed for various annual throughput volumes, namely 1, 5
and 50 MPTA, respectively (Figures 7, 8 and 9).
87
APPENDI X D
The results of the Quantum1 concept are included for two reasons. Firstly, with reference to the Minister
of Transport's letter (Appendix D2), the Department of Transport appear to be calling for the exploitation
of opportunities within current legislation before they will consider PBS. Secondly, if the envisaged
Quantum 1 trials prove valid, they could potentially offer a substantial opportunity. However, it must be
noted that the Quantum 1 vehicles will be specialised coal vehicles and will, as a result, remove a
degree of flexibility from the transporter as the current truck trailer combinations simply need a change
of trailer for the transporter to be able to move another commodity with his truck.
However, it is important to note that the feasible distance for road transport changes dramatically when
the annual tonnage increases, with the feasible distance dropping dramatically to within 100 km or less
if the lifespan of the source is beyond a 5 to 10 year cycle. In the road transport category, the feasibility
of larger vehicles such as Quantum 1 and PBS operating at shorter distances, depends on the
turnaround time, which is a reflection of the level of supply chain coordination. Using a payload of 31 t,
two scenarios are given in Table 4 below, using a standard costing model. Fromthis, it is clear that total
transport costs reduce as turnaround times improve.
88
APPENDI X D
Table 4: PBS vs Interlink using Prof Trans Model under Two Scenarios (measured in Rand
per Tonne)
Lead
Distance
Interlink (R/Tonne) PBS (R/Tonne) PBS (R/Tonne)
Based on Total Terminal Time
of 132 mins
Based on Total Terminal Time
of 60 mins
10 16.85 14.92 9.00
20 23.23 19.26 13.60
60 47.68 36.62 31.05
80 59.90 45.31 39.77
120 84.35 62.67 57.22
160 108.81 80.04 74.67
200 133.26 97.40 92.12
240 157.71 114.77 109.57
500 264.11 227.65 233.0
1,000 517.75 444.7 441.0
Payload 31 48 48
4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly
considered in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
4.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
Due to the fact that road transport shares the road infrastructure with the general public, vehicle
combinations, whether they be the current vehicle combinations, Quantum1 or PBS, will be more at risk
to accidents than any other formof transport that is closely controlled. Unfortunately, due to the inherent
size of heavy vehicles accidents often tend to be severe and the frequency of fatalities will be higher than
for motor or light delivery vehicles. That being said, the PBS vehicle concept is largely based on safety
criteria and as a result should be safer than general vehicle combinations.
Furthermore, the emissions fromroad transport, which also have a negative impact on the environment,
are noxious and can cause ill health and even death in humans in severe circumstances.
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The overall impact of road transport is best described from an emissions perspective. It is common
knowledge that vehicle emissions are noxious and contribute to global warming through the release of
carbon dioxide. However, in reference to Figure 10, the pursuit of larger payload vehicles, such as
Quantum 1 and PBS vehicle combinations, has a positive impact as less emissions occur due to lower
fuel consumption per tonne of freight moved.
89
APPENDI X D
Source: CSIR
In addition to the above, the development of new road infrastructure can be environmentally taxing, as
surfaces need to be prepared using quarry material and river crossings and steep gradients have to be
negotiated carefully.
4.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
The impact of road transportation on society is often realised in increased noise levels in and around
cities and towns because of highways and major arterial routes, not to mention the negative
consequences of accidents and associated health risks already mentioned previously, and increased
traffic congestion.
However, road transport brings many benefits, providing work and bringing goods from far-flung
locations to the major centres, thereby improving the population's access to such goods. In addition to
general road transport the PBS vehicle combination approach brings further benefits in reducing the
required number of vehicles. Furthermore, PBS brings with it good governance, which is for the betterment
of society at large. However, with this said, the perception of all stakeholders in the road transport industry
needs to be managed carefully and is discussed in the following sub-paragraphs.
4.3.1 Public Perception of PBS Vehicles
There is a real danger that the implementation of PBS vehicles will be negatively perceived by the public,
as the PBS vehicles are longer and look bigger. To counteract this, the concept of PBS will need to be
managed extremely carefully to ensure that public perception is positive well in advance of the PBS
vehicles being introduced.
90
APPENDI X D
4.3.2 Transporter and Driver Perceptions of PBS Vehicles
Transporter and driver perceptions will also need to be managed extremely carefully. In essence, if PBS
is to become the norm, drivers might find themselves without work or without the necessary licence to
drive the PBS vehicles.
A recapitalisation programme, similar to that planned for the taxi industry, may be necessary. This will
need to be handled sensitively given that many transporters' livelihoods will be at stake.
4.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The economic impact of road transport is significant as it is fundamental to driving the economy. The
reason for this is simple, in that road transport facilitates the trading of money for goods and services
which in turn ultimately forms the basis of the economy.
5. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
The current system usage with respect to Road Transport has already been handled in general in paragraphs 1
and 3. What is of greater importance is more specifically the usage of PBS vehicle combinations in association
with the current road infrastructure. With respect to PBS in some innovative countries, such as Sweden, Australia,
to a lesser extent Canada, New Zealand and recently in South Africa, mechanisms have been developed to
promote a line of thinking that argues, Don't tell us what the vehicle should look like, tell us how it should
perform.
The remainder of this document discusses the PBS concept in relation to how it is to be applied in South Africa
and not how it is applied in the countries mentioned above. The reason for this is that a great deal of work has
already been done in South Africa contextualising PBS. In addition, the subject is complex and the application of
PBS varies from country to country. Fortunately, the SA National Department of Transport (NDoT) has given
enough support to allow a standard approach to emerge in South Africa.
Most of the reference work has been done relative to the Australian road transport industry, which has many
similarities when compared to South Africa. Australia is well advanced in the application of PBS and other
transport related initiatives. Crickmay, together with the NDoT and the Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR), visited Australia as part of a fact finding mission in 2006. As a result of this visit, PBS has been
accepted in South Africa as being relevant and applicable.
A key lesson that emerges from the different concepts/scenarios possible in PBS in South Africa is that they
originated in the timber industry (Figure 11), where transport is the largest single cost component. Two of the
largest companies within the timber industry, namely Mondi and Sappi, recognised that innovation could not
come from the transporters themselves, but from a sound technical base, which bases its learning on world class
benchmarks. For the past three years, both Mondi and Sappi have each had a PBS unit running in KZN under
abnormal load permits. Licences for 30 new PBS vehicles have been granted and 15 of these have already been
taken up.
91
APPENDI X D
5.1 SELF REGULATION
A prerequisite to PBS is the concept of self regulation of the road transport industry in relation to driver
safety, vehicle safety, overloading and vehicle productivity. The demonstration of good governance is
the key to creating the necessary trust between the public and government. The concept of self
regulation began with a focus on overloading control, as it is estimated that elevated road damage
raises transport costs exponentially and costs the country an estimated R20 billion in extra transport
costs annually.
The preservation of the road infrastructure was deemed a critical part of the future of logistics in South
Africa and has to be protected. In the words of John F Kennedy, Its not our strong economy that gave
us our good roads; it's our good roads that gave us our strong economy. It was this thinking that led the
South African timber industry to embark on a system of overload self regulation in 2001.
5.1.1 Road Transport Management System
With the help of the National Productivity Institute (NPI), Crickmay, the Department of Transport (DoT)
and the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), the initial self regulation work, which
focused on overloading in the timber industry, was broadened to include driver wellness and safety
standards. This later became known as the Road Transport Management System (RTMS).
The RTMS National Committee (Figure 12) has had a strategy document in place for a number of
years, which has been endorsed by the Minister of Transport. At present, the Committee has been
courting the Road Transport Management Corporation (RTMS) for funding for a minimumof two years.
92
APPENDI X D
By mid-2007, the timber industry had achieved a 50% reduction in overloading as can be seen in
Figure 13. Based on this dramatic reduction, government support for PBS was established and the
Minister of Transport endorsed the first two PBS vehicles (Appendix D2), which clearly shows the link
between self regulation and PBS.
93
APPENDI X D
The success of the RTMS initiative in timber led to the KZN DoT agreeing to sponsor a similar process in
the sugarcane industry in 2007. Since the inception of RTMS in April 2007, the sugar industry has also
dramatically improved their percentage incidence of overloading over tolerance (Figure 14).
In 2006, the Chamber of Mines advised that Eskom would be approached regarding RTMS; this was
done and in 2007 RTMS was implemented. To date, Eskom have achieved a phenomenal decrease in
their overall overloading over 2% tolerance (Figure 15) and through Rotran have established an industry
RTMS Committee.
94
APPENDI X D
5.1.2 RTMS Standards
RTMS is comprised of a set of consignor, consignee and haulier standards that are approved by SA
National Standards (SANS) as a National Recommended Practice (ARP).
The standards consist of the following three parts:
Haulier Standards ARP 0067-1:2007 (Appendix D3)
Consignee Standards ARP 006-3:2007
Consignor Standards ARP 067-2:2007.
The standards can roughly be broken up into the following rules:
Rules 1-3 Overloading Related Requirements
Rules 4-10 Safety Related Requirements.
These standards aim to assist the consignor, consignee and haulier in complying with government
legislation and are also designed to work hand-in-hand with the various internal HR and SHEQsystems.
Approved vehicles are issued with an RTMS sign as shown in Figure 16.
The success of RTMS in both the timber and sugar industries has come about because the customers in
the supply chain, such as Mondi, Sappi and Illovo Noodsberg, started to demand that third party
transporters comply with the law and that the vehicles crossing over their weighbridges be compliant
with the vehicle permissible maximum combination mass.
95
APPENDI X D
5.2 SELF REGULATION - A SUGGESTED WAY FORWARD
It must be emphasised that the Mpumalanga government knows little about PBS. These standards
cannot be touted as a possible solution unless the necessary groundwork has been undertaken. This is
especially true when it is considered that the industry will be asking for larger payloads in an
environment where roads are rapidly deteriorating, primarily because of overloading.
Should the mining industry as a whole see RTMS and PBS as viable options, the following steps will need
to be taken to strengthen the management and implementation of these systems.
Step 1: Assist the National RTMS Committee to conclude funding arrangements with the Road
Transport Management Corporation.
Step 2: Undertake a rigorous public and government education exercise, particularly within the
Mpumalanga government.
Step 3: Obtain permission from Mpumalanga government to test PBS vehicles.
Step 4: Test one or two PBS vehicles for a two-year period.
Step 5: Commercialise the concept.
There needs to be a sound technological base for truck design and innovation to support these steps.
6. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
Some work has already been done in advancing vehicle design. However, there still remains opportunity to
improve the overall efficiency of the road transport supply chain by ensuring proper planning and routing of
vehicles.
Furthermore, the classification of the road infrastructure in preparation of PBS vehicle combinations would be a
prerequisite to ensuring the successful implementation of PBS vehicles.
7. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
a) The RTMS Eskom Coal Chairman, Mr G Marais (Rotran)
b) The RTMS Coal representative, Mr Sean Mooney (Exxaro)
c) National PBS and RTMS Chairman, Mr Paul Nordengen (CSIR)
d) SANRAL, Mr G Ackerman
e) National Department of Transport, Mr P Mohan Director Overload control
f) Road Transport Management Corporation, Mr. Ranthoko Rakgoale, CEO
96
APPENDI X D
8. REFERENCES
ProfTrans Vehicle Costing Model, Seidel and Associates
Mr Desmond Armstrong, Transport Technical Manager, Mondi Business Paper
Armstrong, Nordengen et al (2009). Performance Based Standards for Heavy Vehicles: Monitoring report on
two PBS vehicles operating in the forestry industry: November 2007 to July 2008
Hans Prem and Luan Mai (2004). Presentation to the South African Delegation: PBS Analysis of Truck/Trailer for
Timber Transport in South Africa Mechanical System Dynamics, Melbourne, Australia
Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa, National Department of Transport, retrieved from
http://www.transport.gov.za/library/risfsa-f.html
Hong S Bae and J Christian Gerdes, 2000, Command Modification for Longitudinal Control of Automated
Heavy Vehicles, Department of Mechanical Engineering at Standford University, retrieved from
http://ddl.stanford.edu/files/avec2ktalk.pdf
http://www.nra.co.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=40
J Lane, MaxLegal Technical Description,17 February 2009, Crickmay and Associates
www.selfregulation.co.za
www.rtms-forestry.co.za.
97
APPENDI X D
APPENDIX D1
Proftrans Transport Cost Model Inputs
Tonnage/Period Current Quantum 1 PBS
5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Number of Days/Period 365 365 365
Lead Distance (km) 111 111 111
Loading (minutes) 82 82 82
Offloading (minutes) 50 50 50
Number of Shifts 2 2 2
Hours per Shift 10 10 10
Vehicle Capacity (tonnes) 31 38 48
Time Utilisation % 95 95 95
No. Drivers/Vehicle/Shift 1.085 1.085 1.085
Number of Loads/Full Day 3.3 3.3 3.3
Number Vehicles Required 176.2 128.5 101.7
Number Drivers Required 382 279 221
Total Transport Costs (R) 417,750,000 320,900,000 280,300,000
Transport Revenue tonne/km (R) 0.75 0.58 0.51
Fuel Cost % of Total Transport Cost 39.56 33.95 33.17
Total CapEx Truck and Trailer Units (at current price) 232,969,173 232,856,279 214,729,380
Total Assets Managed 302,730,173 286,475,612 261,582,047
Litres of Fuel Used/ Period 21,694,413 16,089,158 13,586,400
Tonnes Carbon Emissions/Period 57,091 42,340 35,754
Litres Fuel Used/tonne 4.34 3.22 2.72
Cost of Fuel/ Period (R) 144,484,790 107,153,792 90,485,424
Average No. Days Worked/Period 277 310 310
Number Trips/Period 161,290 131,579 104,167
Number Axles/Vehicle 7 7 7
Number of Axle Passes/Annum 23,041 18,797 14,881
Productive km/Period 35,806,452 29,210,526 23,125,000
Non Productive km/Period 716,129 584,211 462,500
Total km/Period 36,522,581 29,794,737 23,587,500
Total km/Vehicle/Period 207,279 231,866 231,932
Prod Veh Days/Period 48,878 39,867 31,552
Workshop Vehicle Days/Period 15,435 7,035 5,568
98
APPENDI X D
APPENDIX D2
Minister of Transports Letter
99
APPENDI X D
100
APPENDI X D
101
APPENDI X D
APPENDIX D3
Haulier Standards
ROAD TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RTMS)
Haulier Requirement Summary
RULE NUMBER CHECKLIST AND EXPLANATION OF RULES
Rule 1 Maintain an
inventory of
nominated vehicles
Is there an inventory of the vehicles that participate in the programme?
Does the inventory show the required details for each vehicle?
Are all vehicles coded according to the vehicle classification system?
Are all the documents verifying those details stored in an identified place?
Is a specific person responsible for keeping the inventory details up to date?
Does the RTMS manual describe when the list is to be updated?
Rule 2 Assess the vehicle
mass before each
laden trip
Does your RTMS manual have a procedure for assessing the mass and dimension of each type of
vehicle load that includes:
The type of load this method is used for;
How the loading of the vehicle is controlled to ensure correct axle masses;
How the weighing method can be verified;
Any procedures needed to cater for different loading conditions or variations in density,
specific gravity, water content etc;
How the measurement is recorded and where that record is kept;
A procedure in the RTMS manual for ensuring that all drivers know what the mass limits are
for the vehicles they drive;
A back-up weighing system;
Documented procedures for the back-up weighing system;
Ensuring that staff members know when the back-up system is to be used?
Rule 3 Verify the mass
determination
method
Does your RTMS manual have procedures for verifying all of the different measurement methods
that you use? ?
Do the procedures explain what documentary evidence of the verification is required? ?
Do the procedures explain how often each method is to be verified? ?
Do the procedures explain where the evidence of verification is stored? ?
Do you have procedures for correcting measurement methods found to be inaccurate by the
verification process? ?
Do you have procedures for calibrating and proving calibration of your equipment?
Rule 4 Maintain vehicles in
a roadworthy
condition
Do you have evidence (less than six months old) that a qualified person has certified each vehicle
in the nominated fleet roadworthy?
Does your RTMS manual detail the frequency at which periodic maintenance is to take place?
Does the maintenance management schedule detail the tasks that need to be completed during
the service?
Do you have a table of tolerances and wear limits for major components?
Are those personnel involved with maintenance in your company aware of the contents of this
table and how to access it?
Rule 5 Ensure vehicle and
load safety
Do you have a documented instruction detailing when the daily check is to be carried out, who
will do it and how it is to be recorded?
Does the daily check cover all of the minimum inspection requirements?
Is an appropriate on-road vehicle fault report log available to drivers and maintenance
personnel?
Is there a procedure in the RTMS manual that describes the full responsibilities of the people
carrying out the checks?
Do the relevant staff members understand their responsibilities when conducting daily checks, and
are they aware that when signing off the check sheet, they are certifying that the vehicle is
roadworthy to the limits of the inspection?
102
APPENDI X D
ROAD TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RTMS)
Haulier Requirement Summary
RULE NUMBER CHECKLIST AND EXPLANATION OF RULES
Rule 6 Manage driver
wellness
Do you have a documented instruction detailing when drivers should go for medical check-ups?
Does the medical check-up cover all of the minimum requirements such as blood pressure tests,
eye tests, blood sugar levels, nutritional supplements, and substance abuse, etc?
Are the depot facilities, vehicles and sleep accommodation suitable to prevent fatigue?
Have you implemented effective communication channels between management and drivers to
promote discussion on matters that affect the safe operation of the business?
Rule 7 Provide training and
education
Have you provided training to all relevant staff members that are involved in your RTMS and are
refresher courses run when needed?
Do you keep documented evidence of training provided to staff members?
Do you adapt your training modules to suit the type of road transport operations?
Rule 8 Assign tasks and
responsibilities
Have the tasks of the personnel involved in the system been fully documented in the RTMS
manual?
Have responsibilities for the tasks been documented and allocated?
Have all the relevant staff members been told what their responsibilities are?
Do all the relevant staff members know how to access the written record of what their
responsibilities are?
Has a specific person been assigned the responsibility of "RTMS Manager" to ensure that the RTMS
is followed?
Rule 9 Keep records and
documentation
For each trip, do you keep documentary evidence of the following:
The vehicle's registration number or fleet number;
The assessed mass of the vehicle;
The measured mass of the vehicle (if weighed at the end of the trip);
The date and time of the trip?
Is there a record of all incidents and accidents?
Is a document distribution list maintained?
Is a record of customer complaints kept?
Are non-conformances followed up by a Corrective Action Report (CAR)?
Does your RTMS manual have procedures for ensuring that all relevant staff members can and
know how to access these documents?
Rule 10 Perform an internal
review (self-audit)
Does the RTMS include procedures for carrying out internal audits that cover the following:
When the audits are to take place;
Who is to conduct them (independent or internal auditors);
How the audits are to be conducted?
Are there written procedures for ensuring that all non-conformances are identified and corrected
within two weeks or as specified by the internal auditor with a maximum period of three months?
Have staff members been identified for taking action for ensuring that instances of
non-compliance are not repeated?
Do you produce a quarterly compliance report?
Have you identified the person/people responsible for updating your RTMS procedures when
necessary?
103
APPENDI X D
104
1
APPENDI X E
Roadtrai ns
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 109
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 110
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.1.1 Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.1.2 Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2.1.3 Off-loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2.1.4 Truck Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.1.5 Road Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
2.2 ROADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.2.1 Heavy Vehicle Operating Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.2.2 Roadtrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 120
3.1 CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4. SYSTEM COST.............................................................................................................. 120
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 124
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
106
APPENDI X E
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 125
6.1 AUSTRALIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.2 CANADA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.3 UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.4 EUROPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.5 MEXICO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.6 BRAZIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.7 SOUTHERN AFRICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.8 WORLDS LONGEST ROADTRAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 132
8. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 132
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 132
10. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 134
107
APPENDI X E
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Typical Example of a Roadtrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 2: Roadtrain Transporting and Off-loading Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Figure 3: Powertrans Truck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 4: ETF Haul Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 5: Loading via Hopper and Loading via front end loader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 6: Off-loading Directly onto the Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 7: Off-loading onto Specifically Designed Off-loading Bays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Figure 8: Length based Commodity based. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 9: South African Roadtrain Top End Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 10: South African Roadtrain Bottom End Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 11: Roadtrain Unit Cost by Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 12: Australian Roadtrains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 13: Map of Roadtrain Areas in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 14: Roadtrains with Multiple Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 15: Conventional Combination Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Figure 16: Roadtrain in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 17: Roadtrains in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 18: Roadtrain Transporting Sugarcane in Swaziland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 19: Roadtrain Transporting Sugarcane in Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 20: 112 Semi-trailers in transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Table 2: Roadtrain Operations and Maintenance Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
108
APPENDI X E
1. INTRODUCTION
A Roadtrain is a trucking concept used in remote areas of Argentina, Australia, Mexico, the United States,
Canada and southern Africa, to move bulk loads efficiently where little infrastructure exists. A Roadtrain consists
of a conventional prime mover unit, but instead of pulling one trailer, semi-trailer or interlink combination, the
Roadtrain pulls multiple trailers, as shown in Figure 1.
Traditionally, mining operations have used conveyor belts or railways for the transport of raw materials over
extended distances. These transport modes are capital intensive, particularly over long distances; they require
long payback periods and are inflexible. A Roadtrain, on the other hand is both highly flexible and versatile and
can be deployed on different routes very easily with a relatively low capital cost in comparison.
It must be understood that in countries such as Argentina, Australia, Mexico, the United States and Canada,
Roadtrains are permitted to travel on categorised public roads. In countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe and
Swaziland, Roadtrains may travel only on private or semi-private roads. This distinct difference prevents any
direct importation of overseas technology and therefore direct comparisons are not applicable, as the
regulatory environment is so different.
The first example of a Roadtrain dates back to the 1930s, when the government of South Australia operated a
fleet of AEC 8x8 military trucks to transport freight and supplies into the Northern Territory, replacing the Afghan
camel trains that had been trekking through the deserts since the late 1800s. These trucks pulled two or three
6 m Dyson four-axle self tracking trailers.
Australian Kurt Johansson is recognised as the inventor of the modern Roadtrain. After transporting stud bulls
320 km to an outback property, Johansson was challenged to build a truck that would carry 100 head of cattle
instead of the original load of 20. Johansson's first Roadtrain consisted of a US Army WW2 surplus Diamond-T
tank carrier, nicknamed "Bertha", and two home-built self tracking trailers. Both wheel sets on each trailer could
steer and therefore could negotiate the tight and narrow tracks and creek crossings that existed throughout
Central Australia in the early 1900s. Freighter Trailers in Australia viewed this improved invention and went on
to build self tracking trailers for Johansson and other customers, becoming innovators in transport machinery for
Australia.
109
APPENDI X E
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Roadtrains are becoming a common feature in the South African mining landscape for the efficient transport of
raw and beneficiated minerals over distances of between 5 and 100 km.
Roadtrains combine the unparalleled flexibly (significantly reducing risk of volume and origin changes), low
capital investment (negating long payback periods) and simplicity of conventional road transport, but with
significantly higher payloads. This provides a viable alternative to conventional conveyors, slurry pipelines and
cableways.
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Although it employs many of the conventional road transport characteristics, albeit with significantly
more trailers, a Roadtrain is typically not only a long truck with a high payload, but rather a number of
specific equipment modifications which have been made to make Roadtrains a productive and safe
mode of coal transport.
2.1.1 Vehicles
Two broad categories exist: slightly modified on-road trucks and specifically built dedicated off-road
Roadtrains.
a) Modified On-road Roadtrains
These Roadtrains are essentially on-road prime movers used for normal coal transport or
abnormal load applications (i.e. same dimensions and components), modified to accommodate
the prolonged slower speeds, increased draft requirements and poorer road surface conditions.
The following are some examples of the broad changes that should be made to the vehicle:
Engines
Large engines are employed with electronics to limit torque, e.g. a 565 hp Cummins ISX
engine developing 2,500 Nm is employed. Engine torque is electronically stepped, so that the
engine develops 2,000 Nm in the first six gears, then 2,300 Nm in the next six followed by
2,500 Nm in the top six, to prevent wheel-spin when pulling away with empty trailers. The
stepped torque also reduces the stress on the power train when moving off in lower gears.
Cooling
Due to the fact that Roadtrains typically travel slower than highway type trucks and also given
the fact that they take a relatively long time to get up to speed, bigger radiators and fans are
necessary to cool the engines in the absence of the ram air effect.
Gearing
Roadtrains typically operate low ratio differentials with drive train protection that reduces the
amount of torque available to the wheels when the vehicle is in a low gear. As a result, the
wheels are prevented from spinning when it pulls away.
110
APPENDI X E
An example is an Eaton Fuller, 18-speed Autoshift transmission with 3,050 Nm capacity that is
fitted to make the prime mover easier to drive and also prevent possible driver abuse through
inappropriate gear selection. Autoshift also allows very quick, aggressive downshifts to use the
engine brake to its greatest effect.
Tyres and Axles
Most Roadtrain equipment runs on axles and tyres, where the axle load seldom exceeds 9,000
kg. The reason for this is that the haul road required does not have to be built to a specification
any higher than national roads and in certain circumstances in remote areas the government
has granted permits to run these vehicles on roads also used by the public.
Chassis
In Australia, Roadtrains are built to the construction standards described in the Road Safety
(Vehicles) Regulations. Chassis made to Roadtrain standards are made stronger with more
cross-members, and the chassis are not allowed to be too long, for manoeuvrability reasons.
Speeds
Final drive ratios of 5:1 can attain 99,4 kph at 1,800 rpm, but typically prime movers are
governed to a maximum of 80 kph for this operation.
Braking
High volume air compressors are required in the Roadtrains to power the brake system to feed
the many axles, which are typically all air-braked, as a regular heavy duty vehicle compressor
is not sufficient. A 1,000 L/min naturally aspirated compressor is fitted to cope with the very
large air demand. In some cases an interesting specification adjustment is that these vehicles
are fitted with drum brakes instead of disc brakes on every axle. Anti-lock braking systems
(ABS) are fitted to both prime mover units as well as trailers.
Trailers, Dollies and Semi Trailers
To facilitate manoeuvrability and to allow combinations to be broken up at yards to enter city
limits, etc, dollies are used in conjunction with semi-trailers. In South Africa, Azmeb-Afrit
Flexi-Tippers are used and are made from kits manufactured by Azmeb in Darwin, Australia,
using axles and suspensions from local sources.
This Australian Roadtrain technology provides reliable tracking characteristics and straight-line
stability, enhanced by 19.5 inch rim and tyre equipment.
Typically side tipping trailers are used for the following reasons:
~ Increased stability
~ Retrieve the tipping action at any point for precision partial tipping
~ Spread the load uniformly in virtually any thickness
~ Good for use in constrained offloading space
~ No backing up
~ Reduces the need for grading
~ The driver stays in his cabin.
111
APPENDI X E
With the assistance of powered trailers (e.g. manufactured by Powertrans) payloads of up to
300 tonnes (t) are feasible and steeper gradients are able to be negotiated at increased speeds.
b) Dedicated Off-road Roadtrains
Although slightly outside of the scope of this study, dedicated off-road Roadtrains adopt the
advantages of the modified on-road type Roadtrains, but address the problems associated with
road gradients and reduced payloads at the expense of being allowed on public roads.
These vehicles (e.g. those manufactured by Powertrans Australia) employ such technology as
dedicated 3.5 or 4.0 m wide, high power and torque prime movers (similar to the Bell and Terex
dumpers used in open cast mining) and individual supplementary engines on trailers.
Furthermore, the vehicles can climb gradients in excess of 6% and can cruise at 80 km/h. The
modified Roadtrains can reduce the double handling at mines by loading at the coal face or in the
pit. Payloads of 200 t (minimum) are common, with examples of 400 t combinations being used in
some mining applications (Figure 2).
Two movie links are included of these vehicles hauling ore, to demonstrate the speed at which they
haul large payloads.
Downhill haul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADwUsJLzbFY
Uphill haul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYmCjeauARE
112
APPENDI X E
In one example, 10 of these vehicles in the 200 t class are used at a mine site and, on a 5 to 10 kmlead,
they are moving material at a rate of 22 Mt per annum.
In addition to the off-road Powertrans trucks (Figure 3), there are other off-highway. Roadtrains, ETF
have developed a new and innovative Large Haul Train configuration for off-highway use.
ETF Haul Trains can be used on the same roads where current Large Haul Trucks are operating, with
existing inclines and curves. All vehicles of the Haul Train have all-wheel-steering, therefore a short
turning radius is achieved (Figure 4). In single lane use, 11 m of road is sufficient for a Haul Train with
HT 380 trucks (payload 220 t each). For a 180 degrees turn, only 28 m is needed.
113
APPENDI X E
2.1.2 Loading
Two distinct types of loading can occur, namely hopper type and conventional front-end loader
(Figure 5). In some instances, the front-end loader or hopper is equipped with a load cell that tells the
operator precisely how to load each trailer.
In the largest Roadtrain application in South Africa, four front-end loaders service ten 110 t Roadtrains
at an average lead distance of 23 km.
2.1.3 Offloading
Again, two distinct types of offloading occur, namely offloading directly onto the ground or stockpile
area and into a dedicated offloading grid or bin linked to a conveyor system (Figures 6 and 7).
114
APPENDI X E
2.1.4 Truck Drivers
Typically, Roadtrains operate with four drivers per vehicle 24 hours around the clock, in three 8-hour
shifts. Over long distances extra drivers accompany drivers, thereby preventing downtime of rigs during
required fatigue breaks and reducing vehicle productivity.
Due to the nature of the large gross combination mass of trucks, increased focus is placed on safety
relative to public road applications. Drivers are screened before going on shift and the shift team leader
is briefed. There is a safety and training programme and staff are rewarded for reporting road hazards
and safety infringements. In addition, drivers are called at random intervals by the controller,
particularly in the early hours when fatigue may set in.
In South Africa, there are no specific driving licence requirements in addition to the current licensing
requirements for large articulated vehicles. In Australia, a multi-combinatorial licence is required which
covers vehicles like Roadtrains and B-Double Vehicles. This also includes the necessary medical
examinations.
In addition, the mining industry in Australia requires the Roadtrain drivers to be experienced in general
driving and maintenance of heavy vehicles. The Roadtrain driver has to perform periodic maintenance
of the truck in addition to loading and offloading the cargo.
In Australia, the general community expects drivers of heavy vehicles to meet high health standards. This
increases the safe operation of Roadtrains and enhances the safety of all users of the road network.
Drivers undergo and have to pass a medical examination, in accordance with the document entitled
Medical Examinations for Commercial Drivers published by the Department of Transport and
Regional Services, Australia (DOTARS) and the National Transport Commission. When operating
Roadtrains on the above routes, drivers are required to carry their current and valid medical certificate
with them at all times.
115
APPENDI X E
2.1.5 Road Rules
In South Africa, no specific road rules apply as no Roadtrains can travel on public roads, and therefore
the local or company health and safety rules applicable for transport on private roads will apply. In
Australia, the Road Rules contain all the rules with which drivers of Roadtrains must comply, and are as
follows:
a) Speed-Limits
The speed limit for Roadtrains on open roads is 90 km/h. The general speed limit in built-up areas
throughout is 50 km/h, unless otherwise signposted.
b) Using Low Gear
If a "Trucks and Buses Must Use Low Gear" sign is displayed on a length of road, the driver of a
truck must use a gear that is low enough to limit the speed of the vehicle without having to
continually use the primary brake.
c) Overtaking
In order to avoid a collision or an obstruction, a vehicle overtaking or passing another vehicle
must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the other vehicle is travelling, until there
is sufficient distance. The vehicle which is being overtaken must not increase its speed.
A Do Not Overtake Turning Vehicle sign can be legally enforced. If, for example, a vehicle
displaying this sign is indicating a left turn, and the turning vehicle is not close to the left hand kerb
of the road, other drivers are not permitted to overtake on the left, even if they are in that lane.
d) Multi-Lane Roads
On multi-lane roads where the speed limit is higher than 80 km/h, vehicles must keep to the left,
even when there is no Keep Left Unless Overtaking sign. The right lane can only be used to
avoid an obstruction or traffic congestion, or when overtaking or turning right. If a vehicle is in the
left lane at the end of a two-lane section, it must give way to other vehicles in the right lane.
e) Restrictions on Stopping and Parking
Vehicles must not stop on a length of road in a built-up area for longer than an hour, unless there
is information, a traffic control device or local law that allows a longer period. However, if
dropping off or picking up goods the vehicle can stop for longer than one hour, but not any longer
than is necessary for the task. When operating on a length of road that is not in a built-up area,
drivers may only stop on the shoulder of the road.
f) Lights and Warning Devices
A vehicle with a GVM over 12 t must not be driven unless it is equipped with at least three portable
warning triangles. The driver must produce the warning triangles if asked by a police officer or
other authorised person. If some or all of any load being carried falls off the vehicle, or if a driver
stops on a road and the vehicle is not visible for at least 200 m in all directions, the driver must
position the warning triangles so that:
116
APPENDI X E
one triangle is at least 50 m, but not more than 150 m, in front of the vehicle or fallen load and
one is placed likewise but behind the vehicle.
one triangle is placed to the side of the vehicle or load to give adequate warning to other road
users.
g) Keeping a Safe Distance
Drivers must keep sufficient distance between the vehicle travelling in front and their vehicle in
order to stop safely and avoid a collision. Vehicles must not unreasonably obstruct the path of
other vehicles. Any vehicle that is longer than 7.5 m must keep the required minimum distance
from other vehicles, unless driving on a multi-lane road or any length of road in a built-up area, or
overtaking. The minimum distances are:
for a long vehicle in a Roadtrain area - 200 m
for a long vehicle in another area - 60 m.
2.2 ROADS
As described previously, Roadtrains are not allowed to travel on public roads in South Africa and are,
therefore, confined to private roads or semi-private roads. In contrast countries such as Australia permit
Roadtrains to travel on certain pubic roads. Below is a summary of the Australian Roadtrain approved
road network.
2.2.1 Heavy Vehicle Operating Categories
Due to the variation in road system standards and carrying capacity, the Road Traffic Act of 1961
specifies two categories under which heavy vehicles operate on Australian roads. The two categories of
operation are:
General Access Vehicles
Restricted Access Vehicles.
General Access Vehicles (GAVs) are vehicles that operate within specified mass and dimension limits
contained in the Road Traffic Act and Regulations. These limits provide general protection for the whole
of the road system in South Australia and allow GAVs to operate on the road network without any route
or time restrictions, other than locally imposed controls, such as load limits on bridges. The Restricted
Access Vehicles (RAVs) category allows larger and heavier vehicles to operate on South Australia's road
system, but restricts access to approved routes that have been designed with the strength and capacity
to cater for this size of vehicle. Roadtrains are classified as RAVs.
2.2.2 Roadtrains
The approved route network for Roadtrains and converter dollies is made up of five sections:
Route Network for Roadtrains General Mass Limits
Route Network for Roadtrains Higher Mass Limits
Converter Dolly Route Network General Mass Limits
117
APPENDI X E
Converter Dolly Route Network Higher Mass Limits
Commodity Routes for Roadtrains.
To determine the Higher Mass Limits (HML) route network for Roadtrains or Roadtrains towing converter
dollies, an operator must refer to the maps titled Route Network for Roadtrains Higher Mass Limits or
Converter Dolly Route Network Higher Mass Limits, as appropriate. The Approved Route Network for
Roadtrains maps may include special conditions relating to travel on particular roads and bridges, as
well as turning requirements. In Figure 8 examples are shown for two regions in Australia.
Operating Conditions
To protect the environment and road system, as well as to ensure the safety of vehicle operators and
other road users, further operating conditions can be specified in addition to the requirements of the
Road Traffic Act 1961 and Regulations. These additional conditions are detailed in the Code of
Practice for Roadtrains, which must be carried in the prime mover when operating as a Roadtrain
combination.
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
The following are the advantages of the Roadtrain mode of transport, relative to other modes of
transport, e.g. rail and conveyor:
Low capital investment which is ideally suited for short term or uncertain contracts.
Has unparalleled low risk due to:
~ Being extremely flexible both in terms of origin and destination, but can also be easily upscaled
or downscaled.
~ Production volume changes, i.e. contractual volumes change over time.
~ Route changes i.e. if there is a road problem then the trucks avoid the problem, or take an
alternative route.
~ Investment that can be easily resold in the event of contractual changes in volume or lead.
118
APPENDI X E
Can be used to effectively eliminate double handing costs by travelling to the coal face.
Can be easily transported from site to site by 'breaking up' into legal components.
Do not require any special heavy haul road, as damage to the road is no more than a normal truck
carrying a legal load would produce.
Less drivers per tonne of product.
Skills in maintenance for this operation exist already in well established conventional road transport
industry.
Less wind resistance relative to off-highway trucks, thus reducing fuel consumption (at 80 km/h, 30%
of fuel is used to overcome wind resistance alone).
Lowtyre and other vehicle costs are comparable to off-highway trucks and conventional road transport.
Does not need to comply with public road legislation, although for safety reasons off-the-shelf
Roadtrains already comply and will therefore conformto mine and power station safety standards.
Can move significant volumes in a short space of time at a relatively high speed.
Can use current loading and offloading systems and equipment already used in road transport.
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
Sensitive to even moderate gradients of 2% (can be extended to 6% with powered trailers).
Relatively expensive per tonne kilometre when compared to rail or conveyor on long lifespan
contracts, e.g. 20 years.
Requires building of a private road with road construction and maintenance cost.
Crossing of public roads can be problematic other than in remote areas.
Servitudes for the private roads need to be negotiated.
Need to maintain private road status by law, which has an additional administrative burden.
Complex to manage especially when multiple origin and destinations are in operation. This can be
significantly complicated when differing payloads or vehicles capabilities are operated within one
system.
Not viable at long lead distances in excess of approximately 200 to 300 km.
Require Roadtrain specific trucks and trailers.
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
The optimum operating conditions for Roadtrains are:
Flat terrain
Few bridges
Wide sweeping corners
No reversing required
Lead distances from a few km to up to 200 km
Dry weather conditions.
119
APPENDI X E
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operational parameters.
The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance, significantly impact on the
selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in the following sub-paragraphs.
3.1 CAPACITY
As mentioned previously, there are no limits on the size of a Roadtrain operation, which means that the
number of Roadtrains in the system will directly influence capacity and is therefore one of the significant
advantages of the system.
Caution is needed where a large density of Roadtrains operate on a particular route and high levels of
management will be needed to guard against vehicle congestion. It is crucial that Roadtrains of very
similar capacities and capabilities are used otherwise bunching will occur when lighter or higher
capability Roadtrains catch up with heavier or lower capacity ones.
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
In terms of lead distance, theoretically any distance can be travelled, with examples of a few kilometres
up to thousands of kilometres existing in countries such as Australia, although it should be clearly
understood that the Roadtrains travel this far due to a lack of any alternative mode of transport. In South
Africa, distances of between a few kilometres to approximately 100 km are practical.
4. SYSTEM COST
In the South African application and for the foreseeable future, Roadtrains will operate on privately constructed
and maintained roads on private property. A number of civil engineering consultancies, the CSIR, the University
of Pretoria and SIVEST were consulted informally with respect to road costs (CAPEX and OPEX) per km. The
potential for variation in design requirements and associated costs can vary from as low as R500,000/km to
over R8 million/km, depending on the specific route (hilly, flat, bridge requirements, construction material
proximity to the road, etc), throughput and safety requirements, significantly changing the sub-layer and road
surface specifications. To accommodate this phenomenon, no single road cost was assumed, but rather a set of
four different road costs were assumed and modelled. These costs were included in the model and added to the
unit cost of transport. All costs associated with land rights for the use or building of private roads have not been
included in the calculations as they are an unknown entity.
Due to the fact that only a few examples of Roadtrain applications exist within South Africa, and with only a few
highly competitive companies able to supply actual transport costs, a vehicle costing model called Proftrans was
used to estimate the cost of Roadtrain transport. Results were routinely checked against HTM Transolve 2007,
which includes a route simulation model. Costs and inputs used in the model were sourced from the few local
operators. Where figures were not available and to substantiate the southern African sourced figures, costs from
Australian operations were used after a normalising procedure to make them applicable to the South African
environment. This procedure included sourcing both Roadtrain cost figures as well as cost figures for an interlink
type operation in Australia and then modifying the Roadtrain cost figures in proportion to the ratio of the cost
figures of the South African and Australian interlinks.
120
APPENDI X E
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
Two different scenarios were modelled, namely a 105 t payload Roadtrain and a 180 t Roadtrain, both
of which have the potential to be operated easily in South Africa. Applications of the off-highway type
Roadtrains are not modelled (a) because figures on these specific vehicles were not readily available
and no applications were found within South Africa, and (b) these vehicles were not within the scope of
this study due to their very specific applications. Results are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Capital Costs
105 tonne
Payload
180 tonne
Payload
Purchase Price of Truck Chassis and Cab (R) 1,874,235 2,249,082
Purchase Price of Body and Trailer (R) 2,420,000 4,033,333
Total Purchase Price Per Vehicle (R) 4,294,235 6,282,415
Insurance Percentage of Value 9.00% 9.00%
Lending Rate 10% 10%
Overheads (Percentage of Total Fixed Costs) 5% 5%
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Again two scenarios were modelled for the 105 t and 180 t payload scenarios. It was assumed that loading
and off-loading included some queuing time based on an estimate. It should be noted that the systemis very
sensitive to these parameters, as can be seen in Table 2. Most parameters were either sourced from actual
applications in southern Africa (e.g. Zimplat or RBM) or extrapolated where figures were not available.
Table 2: Roadtrain Operations and Maintenance Cost
105 tonne
Payload
180 tonne
Payload
Loading (minutes) 82 82
Offloading (minutes) 50 50
Number of Shifts 2 2
Hours per Shift 10 10
Time Utilisation % 95 95
Average Speed Loaded and Empty Kilometres per Hour 55 50
Average Fuel Consumption L/100 km Class 'B' Road 120 140
Maintenance Contract Rate for Combination (R/km) 2.66 3.19
Tyre Contract Rate for Combination (R/km) 2.35 4.76
Fuel Cost per Litre (R) 6.66 6.66
Driver Wage Rate per Day (R) 163.18 163.18
Driver Bonus per Day (R) 12.27 12.27
Driver Overheads per Day (R) 12.51 12.51
121
APPENDI X E
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
A number of scenarios were modelled to better understand the characteristics of the system under
varying factors, namely:
Two payload scenarios (105 t and 180 t)
Four road costs scenarios (R0.50, R1.00, R2.00 and R3.00 M/km)
Three volume scenarios (1, 5 and 50 MTPA).
Three scenarios are presented in this document, demonstrating the effect of changing model input
parameters and the sensitivity of the system to the various likely variables:
105 t payload Roadtrain without any associated road cost (simulating the Australian legislative
environment and C-triple Roadtrain)
South African top end scenario (high payload, high volume with high road cost due to large volumes)
South African bottom end (low payload, low volume and low road cost).
Results are presented relative to current road transport rates to show the relative saving. It is assumed in
the modelling procedure that product is moved from prepared stockpile to stockpile, and that the
product has been sufficiently beneficiated to allow for road transport to be effectively operated. No
loading or offloading costs are included in the modelling.
Figure 9 shows the cents/t/km (CPTK) for the current transport, a 180 t Roadtrain, with and without a
privately constructed and maintained private road. It can be clearly seen that the Roadtrain is
significantly cheaper than the current mode of transport (47 to 50%) even with the additional cost of
road construction and maintenance. It is also clear that with large volumes of product the infrastructure
cost is relatively insignificant, with little appreciable difference between the CPTK cost with and without
the privately constructed road. In addition, at lead distances in excess of 200 km, the cost levels out at
approximately 37 CPTK for the 180 t Roadtrain and 50 CPTK for the 105 t Roadtrain.
122
APPENDI X E
Figure 10 shows the effect of lowering the annual volumes transported in combination with a lower
payload of 105 t. The cost savings in this scenario are reduced to 29 to 37% over current trucks, even
when the cost of a relatively low cost private road is included.
When comparing the two scenarios relative to each other, Figure 11 below shows the relative cost
differential, demonstrating that the 180 t payload Roadtrain is by far the lowest cost option even when a
relatively high cost road is included in the transport rate.
123
APPENDI X E
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly considered
in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
A Roadtrain system promises the following benefits:
a) Driver Safety
As the Roadtrains carry a significantly higher payload, the number of drivers will be significantly
reduced, putting fewer drivers at risk of accidents, e.g. a reduction to at least a third of the drivers,
or even lower, will be required.
b) Public Safety
In the South African context and for the foreseeable future, Roadtrains will need to travel on private
roads on private property. Therefore, the trucks will not be able to come into contact with the
public, thereby eliminating accidents involving the public. Where Roadtrains travel long distances,
it is likely that they will need to cross public roads (similar to rail crossings). At these intersections,
extreme caution will need to be observed to prevent accidents.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Roadtrains have a reduced impact on the environment, due to the following issues:
a) Transport Related Pollution
The amount of fuel burnt per tonne of coal transported is reduced, given the significantly high
payloads and payload to tare ratios.
b) Air and Water Pollution
In many applications automatic open or close tarpaulins are used to prevent dust escaping from
the trailers thereby negating pollution of the air and any water systems encountered en route.
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Like most long distance transport technologies, the Roadtrain system will have a general social impact.
These impacts might include:
a) Land Rights
The Roadtrain will require the acquisition of land rights for the entire distance of the private road.
b) Administration
The entire length of the road will need to maintain private road status by law to allow the
Roadtrains to operate legally at a significantly higher gross combination mass. This will require
that access to the roads is sufficiently restricted to prevent public travelling on the road. Similar
legal requirements would apply for a semi-private-road.
124
APPENDI X E
c) Crossings
The system will need to cross some rivers, roads and railroads, which will require tunnelling,
bridges or road crossings.
d) Congestion
As the Roadtrains in South Africa will travel on private roads, congestion on public roads should
not be increased, except for the congestion caused by road crossings.
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Roadtrain systemshould not necessarily have any negative economic impact and in fact may have a
positive impact on local communities due to the private road maintenance requirement providing
employment. In addition the burden on the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL)
budget to repair and maintain roads would be reduced.
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
Roadtrains are used in various operations across the globe with applications on all continents.
6.1 AUSTRALIA
Australia has the largest and heaviest road-legal vehicles in the world, with some configurations
grossing at nearly 200 t, although the majority are between 80 t and 120 t (Figure 12). Roadtrains are
permitted to operate on public roads, but on approved routes only. Routes are categorised on
Roadtrain length. Two-trailer Roadtrains or doubles are allowed in most parts of Australia, with the
exception of some urban areas. Three trailer Roadtrains (triples) operate in Western New South Wales,
Western Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory; with the last three
states also allowing AB-Quads (3.5 trailers). Darwin is the only capital city in the world that will allow
triples and quads to within 1 km of the CBD. Victoria and Tasmania do not allow the operation of
Roadtrains on any of their roads.
125
APPENDI X E
Each state has specific, strict regulations regarding licensing, registration, weights and driving
experience which apply to all operators of Roadtrains throughout Australia (Figure 13). An official
Code of Practice has to be adhered to.
Roadtrains are used for transporting all manner of materials, with livestock, fuel, mineral ores and
general freight being the most common. Cost effective Roadtrains have played a significant part in the
economic development of remote areas, with some communities totally reliant on a regular service.
The multiple trailers (Figure 14) can be unhooked, (the dollies are removed in the case of drawbar type
trailers) and then connected individually to multiple trucks at assembly yards when the Roadtrain gets
close to populated areas.
126
APPENDI X E
6.2 CANADA
In Canada, Roadtrains are more commonly referred to as Long Combination Vehicles (LCVs), Extended
Length Vehicles (ELVs) or Energy Efficient Motor Vehicles (EEMVs). Four types of LCV are permitted:
turnpike doubles, triples, rocky mountain doubles and queen city triples, some of which are shown
below. Figure 15 shows different types of combination vehicles.
Turnpike doubles consist of a tractor unit pulling a semi-trailer up to 16 m long. An A-type or C-type
converter is connected to the rear of the trailer and carries a second trailer. Alternatively, the lead trailer
may have a hideaway fifth wheel that enables direct coupling of the second trailer without a converter.
The total permissible length is 38 m.
Triples may be up to 35 m in length when using A or C converters, or 38 m in B-train configuration.
Rocky mountain doubles are limited to 31 m in overall length, but have the advantage of being legal on
two-lane, undivided roads. A, B and C-train variants are used. Other LCVs may only be used on divided
highways.
Queen city triples consist of a tractor unit pulling one semi-trailer up to 16 mlong and two shorter pup
trailers up to 9.8 m long. Queen city triples are permitted only between the cities of Saskatoon and
Regina, Saskatchewan. These are the longest combinations allowed in North America on public
highways.
127
APPENDI X E
6.3 UNITED STATES
In the United States, trucks on public roads are limited to three trailers (in some states only two) and the
term Roadtrain is not commonly used. Triples are used for long-distance less-than-truckload (LTL)
freight hauling (in which case the trailers are shorter than a typical single-unit trailer) or resource hauling
in the interior west (such as ore or aggregate). Triples are typically marked with "Long Load" banners on
both the front and rear of the vehicle.
6.4 EUROPE
In Finland, Sweden and in Denmark (for a period of three years commencing November 24, 2008),
Germany and the Netherlands, trucks with trailers are allowed to be 25.25 m long. This is in contrast to
the rest of the European Union, where they can be only 18.75 m long, except in Norway where 19.5 m
is allowed. The trucks have a flat front, a high floor, about 1.2 m above ground, and a cab-over-engine
design. The Scandinavian countries are less densely inhabited than the rest of the EU countries, and
distances, especially in Finland and Sweden, are long. Until the late 1960s, vehicle lengths were
unlimited, giving rise to long vehicles for economic goods handling. With heavier traffic this became a
concern and the lengths where limited, albeit at a more generous level than in the rest of Europe.
6.5 MEXICO
Mexico allows LCVs consisting of double trailers around 12.5 m in length. They must display a sign on
the rear of the vehicle which reads, "Caution: Double Semi Trailer". Mexico does not place special road
restrictions on LCVs other than those already in place for conventional tractor-trailers.
6.6 BRAZIL
Rigid and drawbar type Roadtrain fleets operate at a number of sugar mills in Brazil transporting
sugarcane from fields to mills. The Roadtrains are over 30 m in length and carry in excess of 60 t
payloads (Figure 16). The Roadtrains are permitted to travel on the pubic roads.
128
APPENDI X E
6.7 SOUTHERN AFRICA
a) South Africa
At least four Roadtrain projects are under way in South Africa. The largest single Roadtrain operation
is at Richards Bay Minerals, where each month more than 300,000 t of raw material is transported
for an average of 20 km on a private road. The application uses the so-called A-triple comprising a
6x4 truck tractor with a three axle semi-trailer followed by a two axle dolly, coupled to another three
axle trailer, followed by another two axle dolly and three axle trailer. Each of the trailers can carry a
payload of around 35 t, offering a total payload of between 105 and 110 t, and the total rig would
weigh in at a total mass of around 150 t. This 45 m combination can safely travel and stop from a
cruise speed of 80 km/h. Although travelling on a private road, axle loadings are not designed to
exceed the normal 9,000 kg/axle and therefore no special road designs are required. The vehicle
combination has an overall length of 38.6 m, carries a payload of 108 t and is plated by
DaimlerChrysler at 150,000 kg GCM for maximum grades of up to 7%. Roadtrain operations carry
lead, zinc or copper concentrate by road to the Loop 10 siding of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line.
The Roadtrain operation involves a number of vehicles operating 24 hours per day, seven days per
week under abnormal permit authority on a semi-private road, of which 149 km is gravel.
Roadtrains are also used to transport zinc ore at the Black Mountain Mine Project near Aggeneys in
the Northern Cape. Figure 17 shows examples of Roadtrains currently operating in South Africa.
b) Zimbabwe
Australian-style Roadtrains transport the ore mined from Zimplats' Ngezi mine to the Selous
Metallurgical Complex, which is located on the Hartley Geological Complex, in the northern half
of the Great Dyke, south-west of Harare, Zimbabwe. The operation includes open cast and
underground mines at Ngezi and the Selous Metallurgical Complex (SMC), 77 km to the north of
Ngezi. Ore mined at Ngezi is transported by Roadtrains to the SMC, where it is concentrated and
smelted prior to despatch to Impala Rustenburg's Mineral Processes in terms of a life-of-mine
agreement with IRS. Zimplats is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.
c) Mozambique
In Mozambique, 150 t Roadtrains operate at a lead of 40 km to carry a product from a mine near
Maxixe to the sea in the same area.
129
APPENDI X E
d) Swaziland
In Swaziland, Roadtrains transport sugarcane from the fields to a sugar mill at Simunya at a lead
distance of approximately 20 km. The trailers are designed to be unhitched and re-hitched quickly
to allow for a trailer shuttling operation to increase the productivity of vehicles. Payload is
approximately 55 tonnes and vehicles are limited to speeds of 60 km/h for safety reasons.
Vehicles operate on the sugar estate's own private road network. Figure 18 shows a Roadtrain
currently in use in Swaziland.
e) Zambia
A six-trailer Roadtrain fleet operates on certain sugarcane estates in Zambia. These Roadtrains are
designed for extreme manoeuvrability, low ground pressures and completely unpaved conditions
(travelling within sugarcane fields) (Figure 19). Payload is approximately 90 t and maximum
speeds of 40 km/h are attainable safely on private road networks on the sugar estates.
130
APPENDI X E
6.8 WORLDS LONGEST ROADTRAINS
Although not commercially applicable, records for Roadtrain lengths and payloads are regularly set
and broken and are presented to demonstrate the significant potential of this mode of transport, albeit
extreme.
In the early 1990s, a few transport operators at Bourke, New South Wales, got 30 trailers together
for something to do on a quiet weekend. That was the first record to be set. The trailers were towed
by a Mack SuperLiner.
In 1999, the town of Merredin, Western Australia, officially made it into the Guinness Book of
Records, when Marleys Transport made a successful attempt on the record for the world's longest
Roadtrain. The record was created when 45 trailers, weighing 603 t and measuring 610 m were
pulled by a Kenworth 8x10 K100G, driven by Greg Marley, for 8 km.
On October 19, 2000, Doug Gould set the first of his records at Kalgoorlie, Western Australia,
when a Roadtrain made up of 79 trailers, measuring 1,018.2 m and weighing 1,072.3 tonnes, was
pulled by a Kenworth C501T driven by Steven Matthews for a distance of 8 km.
On March 29, 2003, the record was surpassed near Mungindi, New South Wales, by a Roadtrain
consisting of 87 trailers, measuring 1,235.3 m in length, and pulled by a single prime mover.
The record returned to Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, on October 17, 2004, when Doug Gould
assembled 100 trailers with a total length of 1,442 m. The record nearly did not fall, as the first
prime mover's main driveshaft broke when taking off. A second truck was quickly made available
and pulled the train a distance of 1,600 m.
In 2006, a tri-drive Mack Titan truck with 112 semi-trailers (at a length of 1,479.3 m) claimed a new
record at Clifton, Queensland (Figure 20).
131
APPENDI X E
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
Adequate data is available on the operations and maintenance of a fully functional Roadtrain system.
Roadtrains have been proven in various applications and operating conditions in South Africa, although this is a
relatively unused mode of transport. However, the following aspects require further research with respect to
Roadtrains:
Roadtrain operation on public roads
Road requirements for Roadtrain applications
Private and semi-private road regulations
Private and semi-private safety requirements.
8. CONCLUSION
As Roadtrains in South Africa cannot legally travel on public roads, the Roadtrain concept must be viewed in a
different light when compared to countries such as Australia, USA or Canada, and therefore caution needs to be
exercised when making direct comparisons.
This said, examples of Roadtrains in South Africa do exist and have operated extremely successfully for many
years, with specifically designed vehicles operating on privately constructed and maintained roads.
Roadtrains certainly have a place as an efficient alternative to current transport modes, especially in logistic
environments where there is risk or uncertainly given the inherent extremely flexible nature of this mode of
transport. The typical risks associated with coal transport are origin and destination changes (e.g. pit
movement), route interruption associated risk (road closures due to natural or unnatural reasons), volume
changes (e.g. due to increased or decreased volume requirements throughout the life of the contract) or
contract associated risk (e.g. short term contracts or contract where the longevity is questionable).
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
Role-players confined to South Africa and selected role-players in Australia are as follows:
Unitrans Freight
No 1 Charles Crescent
Eastgate Ext. 4
Sandton
2090
Tel: (011) 445 5001
Fax: (011) 268 0907
Http://www.unitrans.co.za/freightOverview.asp
132
APPENDI X E
Western star
PO Box 1717
Pretoria
0001
Tell: +27 12 677-1589
Fax: +27 12 677 1900
Duncan Price
http://www.westernstar.co.za/
Afrit
7 Phillips Street
Rosslyn
Pretoria, 0200
Tel +27 (012) 541 2123
Fax +27 (012) 541 2609
Leon van de Wetering, Sales Manager
leon@afrit.co.za
http://www.afrit.co.za/
LCR Mining Group
17 Ardurad Rd,
Blackwater, QLD, 4717
PO Box 312, Blackwater, QLD, 4717
Tel +61 (07) 4982 5666
Fax +61 (07) 4982 5677
Peter Koschel
pkoschel@lcrgroup.com.au
URL: http://www.lcrgroup.com.au/mining_overview.cfm?CFID=2365734&CFTOKEN=14586395
Powertrans Pty Ltd
PO Box 330
Brisbane Market
Queensland 4106
Australia
Tel: +61 73716 6100
Fax: +61 73716 6199
Scott McFarlane
Email: SMcFarlane@ptrans.com.au
Email: enquiries@ptrans.com.au
URL: www.ptrans.com.au
133
APPENDI X E
10. REFERENCES
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadtrain
b) http://www.gouldtransport.com.au/world_records.html
c) http://www.jowells.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=94
d) http://www.haulmore.co.za/services.htm
e) http://www.fleetwatch.co.za/magazines/aug01/27-UnitransRBM.htm
f) http://www.miningweekly.com/article/transport-safety-milestone-at-rbm-2004-07-09
g) http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/
h) http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/freight/route_maps/418%20Road%20Train%20Information%20
Guide%20April%202008.pdf
i) http://www.etftrucks.nl/Products/Roadtrains/
j) Personal communications:
a. Peter Koschel - LCR Mining Group
b. Scott McFarlane - Powertrans
c. Prof Alex Visser - University of Pretoria
d. Dr Phil Paige-Green - CSIR
134
APPENDI X E
1
APPENDI X F
Rai l Transport
1. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 139
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 140
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
2.1.1 Railway Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
2.1.2 Signalling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
2.1.3 Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
2.1.4 Overhead Line Electrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
2.1.5 Locomotives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
2.1.6 Rolling Stock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2.1.7 Loading Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
2.1.8 Off-loading Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
2.2 RAIL TRANSPORT VARIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
2.2.1 Block Trains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
2.2.2 Merry-Go-Round Trains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
3. CAPACITY.................................................................................................................... 149
3.1 PAYLOAD CAPABILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.1.1 General Freight Trains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.1.2 Heavy Haul Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.1.3 International Payload Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.2 MAXIMUM TRAIN CAPACITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.2.1 General Freight Trains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.2.2 Heavy Haul Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.3 MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.4 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
136
APPENDI X F
4. SYSTEM COSTS............................................................................................................ 151
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.1.1 Fixed Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.1.2 Rolling Stock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 156
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 159
6.1 COALLINK EXPORT LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.2 SISHEN-SALDANHA IRON ORE LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7. STATUS QUO OF RAIL IN SOUTH AFRICA................................................................... 160
8. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 160
9. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 161
10. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 161
11. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 162
137
APPENDI X F
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Coal Train Headed for the Richards Bay Coal Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Figure 2: OHTE and Electric Loco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 3: Steam Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 4: Hopper Car/Bottom Discharge Wagon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 5: Wagons Loaded with a Front End Loader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 6: Rapid-Load-Out Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 7: Wagon Tippler System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 8: Open Top Container on a Back Tipping Road Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 9: Current Freight Rail Unit Transport Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 10: Rail Unit Transport Costs per Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Advantages of Rail Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Table 2: Disadvantages of Rail Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Table 3: Payloads on GFB Rail Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Table 4: Current Freight Rail Transport Unit Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Table 5: Rail Unit Transport Cost per Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
138
APPENDI X F
1. BACKGROUND
Rail transport is the conveyance of passengers and goods by means of wheeled vehicles running along fixed
railways, or railroads. As with most other transport options, rail transport can be subdivided into the physical
infrastructure, the vehicles and the operations that all need to be combined into a well managed system to
facilitate efficient transport.
The infrastructure, constituting the railway line, consists of steel tracks on ties and ballast. Alongside the rail line
is a signalling system, which manages the flow of the vehicles, and often includes an electrification system, which
is used to power the vehicles.
The vehicles, referred to as trains, consist of a locomotive pulling rolling stock, fitted with metal wheels, which
moves with low frictional resistance over the rail tracks, when compared with road vehicles. Power for the
locomotives is provided by a steam engine, a diesel engine, or electrical power obtained from the electrification
system.
The operation is carried out by a railway company, public or private, providing transport between train stations
or sidings. Traditionally, the infrastructure and rolling stock are owned and operated by the same company,
often resulting in the establishment of a national railway, whereas some countries and companies have private
railways. Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing tendency worldwide to split up railway companies, with
separate companies owning the stock and those owning the infrastructure, particularly in Europe, where this is
required by the European Union. This has allowed open access by any train operator to any portion of the
European railway network, which has increased competition, reliability and flexibility. This is not the case in
South Africa, where the entire system is still primarily state owned.
139
APPENDI X F
Rail is statistically the safest form of transport when compared to any other form of land transport and has
historically formed a vital link in the logistics chain of any country, facilitating both trade and economic growth.
Most rail systems serve a number of functions on the same track, carrying local, passengers and freight. This
decreases the capital cost apportioned to each train, which in turn increases the economic attractiveness of this
transport mode.
The remainder of this document will focus on the physical characteristics of rail transportation, as well as
investigating the capital and operational cost elements of this transport mode, while also evaluating the
socio-economic impact of an operational system.
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Although rail transport is capable of high throughput rates and is very energy efficient, it lacks flexibility and is
extremely capital intensive. The following sections explore these system characteristics in more detail.
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Rail transport consists of the physical railway infrastructure, the locomotives and rolling stock, ancillary
systems and the operating company which all combine to make this transport mode functional. There
are numerous variations in the required components for a railway system, depending on the specific
cargo, the geography and the throughput requirements, to name but a few. The following sections
provide a general overview of the basic system components.
2.1.1 Railway Track
Railway tracks consist of two parallel steel rails, anchored perpendicularly to sleepers of timber,
concrete or steel to maintain a constant distance apart, known as track gauge. In South Africa, the
standard rail gauge is also referred to as the Cape Gauge and is set at 1,067 mm. In comparison, 60%
of the world's railways use the Standard Gauge of 1,435 mm, and there are also countries using the
Broad Gauge, which is even wider than the Standard Gauge. Generally speaking, narrow gauge lines
are cheaper to construct and can negotiate sharper curves. Broad gauge lines offer greater stability, are
capable of carrying a heavier load and accommodate higher speeds.
The rails and sleepers are placed on a foundation of compressed earth, on top of which is placed a bed
of ballast. This distributes the load of the train from the sleepers and prevents the track from buckling
under the heavy loads. The ballast also serves as a means of drainage.
A railway track always has a number of turnouts, also known as points or switches, which allow the train to
be diverted onto a different piece of track. A turnout typically consists of a common crossing, check rails
and two switch rails that can be moved either left or right, thereby determining the route the train will
follow.
Maintenance of the railway track is vital. The sleepers can be replaced individually when required and
ballast needs to be replaced periodically to ensure adequate drainage at all times. Culverts and other
water passages need to be kept clear to avoid landslips. Additional protection is required where the
140
APPENDI X F
track runs along riverbeds to prevent soil erosion. The bridges require regular maintenance and
inspection, since they are subject to large surges of stress in a short period of time.
Railway tracks are laid upon land owned or leased by the Railway Company and trails through the
physical geography. Thus, the track geometry and design is limited by the physical geography. Since it is
desirable to maintain modest grades, rails will often be constructed in a circuit through different terrain,
quite often hilly and mountainous terrain. The route length and grade requirements can often be
reduced by the construction of bridges and tunnels. The downside is that high capital expenditure is
required to develop a right of way. Nevertheless, bridges and tunnels can greatly reduce operating costs
and allow for higher travelling speeds.
2.1.2 Signalling System
The signalling system is required to control railway traffic safely and prevent trains from colliding. Trains
are uniquely susceptible to collisions since they frequently operate at speeds that do not allow them to
stop quickly, or within the driver's sighting distance. Most forms of train control involve movement
authority being passed from those responsible for each section of a rail network to the train crew.
The signalling process differs significantly between countries and companies and is hugely dependent on
the infrastructure that is available along the railway line, specifically the communications infrastructure.
This also determines whether the signalling is localised or centralised.
Technological advances have enabled the signalling process to be more centralised, allowing vast
sections of track to be monitored from a single location. The common method of block signalling
divides the track into zones guarded by combinations of block signals, operating rules and automatic
control devices so that only one train may be in a block at any specific time.
2.1.3 Telecommunications
Efficient communication is required between signalling systems, control rooms and the moving trains to
effectively manage the rail system. Such telecommunications systems are once again dependent on
available infrastructure and can range from a completely fixed landline based system to a radio based
or wireless based communication infrastructure.
2.1.4 Overhead Line Electrification
Electric locomotives draw power from a stationary source via overhead wire or a third rail. In South
Africa, the standard is via overhead lines, also called Overhead Traction Equipment (OHTE) (Figure 2).
A transformer in the locomotive converts the high voltage, low current power to low voltage, high
current power used in the electric motors that power the wheels.
141
APPENDI X F
Electric locomotives have the most powerful traction, are the cheapest to run, are not noisy and produce
no air pollution. The major downside is the high capital expenditure required for the infrastructure
development, as the electricity needs to be supplied across the entire distance of the railway line.
2.1.5 Locomotives
A freight train consists of a group of freight cars pulled by a locomotive on a railway. This requires single
or multiple powered vehicles to be located at the front of the train to provide sufficient power to pull the
weight of the full train. Three main types of locomotives exist, namely steam locomotives (Figure 3)
electric locomotives, and diesel locomotives.
142
APPENDI X F
Steam locomotives use a steam engine to provide the necessary power. However, this type of
locomotive has largely been phased out in most parts of the world, due to economic and safety reasons.
Electric locomotives draw power from a stationary source via overhead wire or a third rail. Diesel
locomotives use a diesel engine to provide the required power.
2.1.6 Rolling Stock
The rolling stock or freight cars, used to carry the load, exist in a wide variety of types. Depending on the
products to be transported, each type of freight car has been adapted to haul the cargo in the most
efficient, safe and effective manner. The relevant types of coal transporting cars are discussed below.
a) Open Wagons / Tipper Wagons
This freight car has an open top and is commonly used to haul loose bulk materials. These wagons
have a level floor and solid sides and are offloaded by completely tipping the wagons over. This
method requires a solid under-frame to lift the car and tip it to empty the material.
b) Hopper Cars / Bottom Discharge Wagons
This type of car differs from the open wagon, in that it has opening doors on the underside or sides
of the car to unload the material being hauled, as indicated in Figure 4. Two types of hopper cars
exist, namely open and closed hopper cars. The open cars are used to carry materials that need
not be protected from the elements, mainly rain.
c) Side Tipping Wagons
These wagons are similar to the open wagons but have hydraulic, pneumatic or electric tipping
equipment that enables the car to be lifted on one side, thus tipping the material out of the car.
Depending on the design, these cars may be lifted on one or both sides.
d) Containers on Flatbeds
This type of rail car consists of a normal open top container, which is filled with coal and then
transported on a flatbed rail car.
143
APPENDI X F
2.1.7 Loading Stations
Most coal trains in South Africa are loaded manually by front-end loaders, such as depicted in Figure 5,
or through some form of automated or semi-automated loading systems.
The most efficient way of loading coal trains is the use of rapid-load-out stations, which use a flask
loading or flood loading system, as indicated in Figure 6. These systems generally consist of a silo,
equipped with a flow cone, which makes use of a controlled slot through which the coal is fed into a
weigh flask. The weighed load is then passed through a profile chute into the rail wagons.
144
APPENDI X F
The loading of trains via the rapid-load-out station concept further allows trains to be loaded while
moving at a very slow and steady speed, whereas loading via front end loaders obviously requires the
rail cars to be stationary.
2.1.8 Offloading Stations
The decanting, discharge or offloading of rail cars is mainly dependent on the physical design of the rail
car, as described in paragraph 2.1.6. The offloading of each rail car variant will, therefore, be
described accordingly.
a) Open Wagons / Tipper Wagons
The only way to empty these rail cars is by gravity offloading, through tipping the entire rail car
upside down. This is normally achieved through a rotary car dumper or a wagon tippler, as shown
in Figure 7.
Two types of tippler systems are available. The most commonplace is a system that tips each rail
car individually by decoupling each car, or through the use of a rotary coupling mechanism that
does not require decoupling. The more modern solution employs a mechanism that holds the car
to a section of track and rotates the track and car together to dump out the contents, which now
makes it possible to dump an entire unit train of coal without decoupling any of the cars.
b) Hopper Cars / Bottom Discharge Wagons
Hopper cars have opening doors on the underside which open up to discharge the coal into a
chute below the rail tracks.
145
APPENDI X F
c) Side Tipping Wagons
These wagons are similar to side tipping road trucks, which use a hydraulic tipping mechanism
that enables the car to be lifted on one side, thus tipping the material out of the car, into a chute or
onto a stockpile.
d) Containers on Flatbeds
The open top container is normally loaded and offloaded fromthe rail car using a reach stacker or
a forklift. The contents of the container then need to be dumped by tipping the entire container,
which usually occurs through placing the container on a back tipping road truck which discharges
the coal through a flap door at the back (Figure 8).
2.2 RAIL TRANSPORT VARIATIONS
Rail transport is generally based on the notion of a vehicle running on a fixed track. However, variations
on this theme have evolved over the years, which impact on the operations, throughput, reliability and
management aspects of this transport mode.
2.2.1 Block Trains
A block train, or unit train, is a railway train of which all the wagons are shipped from the same origin to
the same destination, without being split up or stored en route. This saves time and money, as well as
the workload, delays and confusion associated with assembling and disassembling trains at rail yards
and shunting stations along the route to the final destination. The trains running on the CoalLink line
between Mpumalanga and Richards Bay would be prime examples of block trains.
146
APPENDI X F
This also enables railways to compete more effectively with road transport in terms of turnaround times
and reliable delivery patterns. However, unit trains are economical only for high-volume customers,
since they carry only one commodity and all the wagons are of the same type. Oftentimes railway
companies also provide dedicated slots and customers pay for such a slot, regardless of whether a
loaded train is available or not.
2.2.2 Merry-Go-Round Trains
A merry-go-round train, often abbreviated to MGR, is a block train of hopper wagons which loads and
unloads the material being hauled while it is moving. These trains were first introduced in the United
Kingdom in the 1960s, where they transported coal between mines and power stations. These trains,
hauling on a dedicated shuttle concept, greatly improved the productivity and throughput of the system,
resulting in 80 MGR hopper cars replacing almost 1,500 normal open wagons, transporting 3 MTPA.
While there are limited South African examples where trains are loaded while moving, the concept has
not been extended to using hopper wagons in order to facilitate offloading while the trains are moving.
A clear distinction between the conventional rail system and MGR is the use of balloon loops. Balloon
loops are located at both the source and destination, eliminating the dangerous activity of shunting the
engine from one side of the train to the other. The loop thus allows the train to reverse direction, often
without stopping.
The advantages of balloon loops are generally accepted to such an extent that various conventional rail
systems now also employ the concept, especially where rapid-load-out systems are in use.
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
Rail transport systems generally provide the advantages listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Advantages of Rail Transportation
No. Advantage Description
1 Highly Economical Because the same infrastructure is shared by passengers and freight,
the capital cost is shared, which reduces the unit transport cost.
2 Increased Safety Rail transport is statistically the safest mode of land transport, as far
as accidents and derailments are concerned.
3 High Capacity Payloads can be as high as 84 tonnes per wagon, resulting in trains
carrying more than 20,000 tonnes of coal per trip.
4 High Travel Speeds On dedicated rail lines, trains can reach relatively high and constant
speeds, which reduce lead times.
5 Economical Over Long
Distances
Based on the relatively high capital investment required, rail
becomes very economical at long distances.
6 Alleviates Congested Road
Networks
Moving freight via rail reduces the congestion on road networks.
7 Greater Public Safety Rail transport is safer for the public than heavy road trucks running
on public roads.
8 Reduced Pollution Rail produces between 2 and 16% of road transport emission levels,
with 80% less carbon dioxide than road transport.
147
APPENDI X F
No. Advantage Description
9 Rarely Affected by Weather
Conditions
Rail is very reliable and harsh weather does not negatively influence
delivery schedules.
10 Predictable and Reliable Because freight trains run on dedicated schedules they are very
predictable and reliable.
11 Enhances Local Economy Because rail provides a shared infrastructure it enhances trade and
general logistics, which is beneficial to the local economy.
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
Although rail transport provides many benefits, it also has the disadvantages listed below in Table 2.
Table 2: Disadvantages of Rail Transportation
No. Advantage Description
1 Lack of Flexibility Because trains run on a fixed infrastructure they provide the opportunity
for transport only to areas where such infrastructure is available.
2 Capital Intensive Because of the various components making up a rail system it is very
capital intensive to establish.
4 Fixed Routes Trains can only travel where there are suitable railway lines.
5 Long Lead Times for One-off
Loads
Because trains generally need to travel between various stations and
shunting yards, the lead time for general freight is fairly long.
6 Lack of Competition In South Africa rail is dominated by one operating company, which
reduces its competitiveness and reliability, while slowing capital
investment and infrastructure development.
7 Takes Long to Establish It takes a long time to establish a new rail line when compared with
other modes of transport.
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Because of the reduced friction between rail tracks and train wheels, rail transport is very sensitive to
gradients. Furthermore, because of the narrow gauge system used in South Africa, trains become
unstable at high speeds, which impacts on the achievable turns and bends in a rail line.
a) Gradient
Generally speaking, rail transport can support a gradient of up to 4% (e.g. 40 m/km), whereas
freight trains can rarely tolerate more than 1%. This implies that an operational freight rail line
requires 50 km to climb 500 m.
b) Turns
The average curvature radius for bends and turns is approximately 400 m, with a minimal radius
of 100 m at very slow speeds.
The optimum operating conditions for rail transport is, therefore, a relatively flat and straight line
between source and destination.
148
APPENDI X F
3. CAPACITY
The maximum achievable operating capacity of a rail transport system depends entirely on the design
characteristics of the system itself. As is the case with most transport systems, however, this capacity is dominated
by the payload carrying capability of the system, as well as the transport lead distance. These aspects are further
explored in more detail.
3.1 PAYLOAD CAPABILITIES
The payload capability of a freight train depends on the type of wagon being used, and also on the type
of rail line that the train travels on.
3.1.1 General Freight Trains
Under South African conditions the majority of the country's rail lines are for general freight purposes
and are often referred to as General Freight Business (GFB). These lines are designed to carry rail
wagons with maximumaxle mass loads of 18, 20 or 22 t. With four axles per wagon, this equates to 72,
80 or 88 t per wagon - gross mass. The estimated payloads are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Payloads on GFB Rail Lines
No. Axle Mass (t)
Average Gross
Mass (t)
Estimated
Payload (t)
1 18 72 52
2 20 80 60
3 22 88 68
These payloads are calculated on an average tare wagon weight of 20 t, although it is generally
expected that the achievable payloads of wagons on GFB lines are between 58 and 60 t.
3.1.2 Heavy Haul Lines
In South Africa, heavy haul lines are constructed for the transportation of high volume freight on a
dedicated rail line, employing the block train concept. Two such major heavy haul lines exist: the
Mpumalanga to Richards Bay CoalLink Line, and the Sishen-Saldanha Iron Ore Line.
These lines are designed to carry rail wagons with maximum axle mass loads of approximately 26 t.
With four axles per wagon, this equates to 104 t per wagon - gross mass. Therefore, the estimated
payload is approximately 84 t per wagon.
3.1.3 International Payload Capabilities
In international terms, standard gauge rail lines have been built to support 40 t axle loads, equating to
160 t gross weight per wagon. In order to achieve this, very heavy rail lines of 68 kg/m was used, with
very strong couplers. Furthermore, this is only achievable where gradients are very low, curves are very
gentle and trains must use electronically controlled pneumatic (EPC) brakes.
149
APPENDI X F
3.2 MAXIMUM TRAIN CAPACITIES
The physical train carrying capacity is determined by the payload of the wagons, the motive power of the
locomotives, as well as the breaking system employed on the train.
3.2.1 General Freight Trains
The maximum number of wagons that could be coupled into one train for transportation on GFB lines is
entirely dependent on the characteristics of the specific line segment, the locomotive to be used and the
breaking system. However, it is generally accepted that train lengths will rarely exceed 50 wagons.
At a maximum train length of 50 wagons, the gross mass equates to between 3,600 and 4,400 t, with
an achievable average payload of approximately 3,000 t.
3.2.2 Heavy Haul Lines
The maximum number of wagons that are coupled to form one train for transportation on the CoalLink
heavy haul line is 200. This equates to a gross mass of approximately 20,800 t and an estimated
average payload of 16,800 t.
In 1989, South Africa set a world record when it coupled 660 wagons plus tank and caboose and
16 locomotives on the Sishen-Saldanha Ore line, comprising a total length of 7.3 km. This train had a
total gross weight of 69,393 t, with an estimated payload of approximately 56,000 t.
3.3 MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT
As explained previously, the maximum achievable operating capacity or throughput rate of a rail
transport system depends entirely on the design characteristics of the system itself. This capacity is
largely dominated by the payload carrying capability of the system, the capacity of the physical
infrastructure, and the transport lead distance. However, it is not uncommon for rail transport systems to
deliver in excess of 100 MTPA.
Theoretically the throughput capability of a rail system can be increased infinitely through maximising
the usage of the available infrastructure and then to build parallel railway lines.
3.4 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
Rail transportation becomes economically attractive at very long transport distances, which is one of its
greatest benefits. However, the maximum achievable operating distance is theoretically infinite because,
as long as the infrastructure is in place, the train will be able to keep travelling. The only problem with very
long lead distances is that a large number of trains need to be operated on the same line to maintain the
desired throughput rate, which significantly increases the capital requirements on the rolling stock.
The world's longest railway is the Trans-Siberian Railway in Russia, which is 9,297 km long. It runs from
Moscow to Vladivostok. If the auxiliary route to Nakhodka is included, the distance is increased to
9,436 km. The journey takes approximately seven days, two hours and crosses seven time zones. There
are nine tunnels, 139 large bridges or viaducts and 3,762 smaller bridges on the whole route. The line
is almost entirely electrified.
150
APPENDI X F
4. SYSTEM COSTS
The costs associated with rail transport are extremely difficult to quantify, based on the complexity of the physical
rail network and the intricacies around the public and private funding mechanisms involved. When researching
these costs, it becomes clear that the costs can vary significantly, based on whether existing infrastructural
capacity is available, whether existing infrastructures can be upgraded or whether new infrastructure needs to be
designed and constructed. All these issues can influence the eventual capital expenditure requirements hugely,
which obviously has a significant impact on the unit transport costs.
The following sections explore some of the basic cost elements in more detail and eventually provide an
estimated unit transport rate at various distances and annual throughputs.
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
The capital investment cost associated with rail transport is firstly comprised of the establishment of a
physical rail infrastructure, consisting of the railway line, signalling systems, telecommunications and so
forth, which forms the route along which freight will be transported. The second element comprises the
rolling stock, including locomotives and wagons, which are used as the vehicles travelling on the
physical infrastructure and transporting the freight.
4.1.1 Fixed Infrastructure
The Transnet Capital Projects and Planning Divisions were contacted to obtain relevant information for
these cost calculations. However, it is clear that these rates are extremely variable and highly dependent
on the existing infrastructure that is available, the characteristics of the specific terrain, the availability of
electricity and other utilities, land rights and accessibility, and the annual throughput requirements and
lead distance, to name but a few. Based on these factors, Transnet representatives have indicated that
the quoted capital costs might be only 30% accurate.
To further complicate the matter, it is standard practice in South Africa that the capital costs associated
with upgrading or establishing a new rail line are carried proportionately by the entire rail network and
not only the new line. This effectively means that only a certain percentage of the capital outlay will be
amortised and included in the transport cost calculation for the new line.
In order to improve the accuracy of such capital costs, Transnet Capital Projects will have to launch a
comprehensive concept study, with specific departure and destination points specified. As an example,
a recent study was conducted to investigate the options in terms of connecting the Waterberg coal field
at Lephalale to the existing CoalLink line through the Gauteng Freight Ring. The study resulted in 15
different route options, excluding the building of a dedicated completely new line, which produced costs
with a standard deviation of R5.2 million/km.
With all the abovementioned uncertainty in mind, no price estimate is given for the upgrading of an
existing infrastructure. In terms of the capital costs for the design and building of new rail lines, the
following estimates are provided:
a) General Freight 20 t/axle Lines: R22.7 million per kilometre
b) Heavy Haul 26 t/axle Lines: R29.9 million per kilometre
151
APPENDI X F
These capital rates are based on single lines, with passing loops, situated along the line to allow trains
travelling in opposite directions to pass each other.
4.1.2 Rolling Stock
As is the case with the fixed infrastructure cost, the rolling stock prices also vary significantly, based on
the method of propulsion, the size of the locomotive, the type of wagon, the type of break system and
the number of units purchased.
Prices ranging from R20 to R33 million/unit have been obtained for various types of locomotives, while
tipper wagons can cost up to R1 million/unit. The following figures are, therefore, rough order of
magnitude estimates, without specifying specific model types.
a) Dual Voltage CoalLink Locos: R25.5 million/unit
b) General Freight Locos: R20.9 million/unit
c) Standard Tipper Wagon (22 t/axle): R830,000/unit
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
According to Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) policy, and despite concerted efforts to overcome this,
Spoornet do not discuss or disclose any aspects of the operational or maintenance costs of running a
railway system with any external parties. These costs are included in the negotiated rail tariffs and from
very recently these costs are also capitalised and managed as sustaining capital, which can be as high
as six times the original expansion capital required to upgrade an existing rail infrastructure.
In order to obtain more detail regarding these costs, Transnet will require the signing of a confidentiality
agreement, which will make the resulting information unusable in this and future reports, which will be
publicly disseminated. However, it is advisable that Transnet be involved in subsequent phases of this
research in order to obtain more specific pricing, with specific routes and destinations in mind.
For the purposes of these cost estimates the current GFB and Heavy Haul freight rates were used as the
basis for any calculations, recognising that these rates already include the total operating and maintenance
costs.
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
Due to the fact that rail transport costs vary significantly, based on whether existing infrastructural
capacity is available or not, this section focuses on current market related rail freight rates, which
assume that existing capacity is in fact available. Escalated freight rates, which include additional
capital expenditure, will be discussed in the following section.
The presented rates have been calculated through information obtained from various companies
during interviews, as well as some contributions from the appropriate Transnet Freight Rail key account
managers.
152
APPENDI X F
Table 4 depicts the unit transport costs, in R/t/km, for both the GFB lines, as well as the Heavy Haul
lines. It should be noted that for distances longer than 500 km, the GFB transport rates are indicative
only and were derived from extrapolating the existing trend. Likewise, the Heavy Haul rates for distances
shorter than 100 kmare also for indicative purposes only and were also derived through extrapolation.
Table 4: Current Freight Rail Transport Unit Costs
Distance
(km)
GFBR/t/km
Heavy Haul
R/t/km
Distance
(km)
GFB R/t/km
Heavy Haul
R/t/km
1 29.58 21.07 60 0.67 0.48
2 14.88 10.60 70 0.60 0.43
3 9.98 7.11 80 0.55 0.39
4 7.53 5.37 90 0.51 0.36
5 6.06 4.32 100 0.48 0.34
6 5.08 3.62 200 0.33 0.24
7 4.38 3.12 300 0.28 0.20
8 3.86 2.75 400 0.26 0.18
9 3.45 2.46 500 0.24 0.17
10 3.12 2.23 600 0.23 0.17
20 1.65 1.18 700 0.23 0.16
30 1.16 0.83 800 0.22 0.16
40 0.92 0.66 900 0.22 0.16
50 0.77 0.55 1000 0.21 0.15
Figure 9 graphically depicts the unit transport costs, as discussed.
153
APPENDI X F
It is clear from the graph above that rail transport becomes more economically attractive as the distance
increases, but that it is prohibitively expensive at very short distances. This is predominantly caused by
the fact that total cost is dominated by the initial capital investment cost required.
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The total unit transport cost is particularly influenced by the lead distance, but also by the annual
throughput. If the throughput increases and the same physical infrastructure is capable of handling the
increased volumes, the unit cost decreases because the fixed capital cost is shared by a larger volume of
material. To illustrate this concept, three scenarios were identified to show the unit transport cost at 1, 5
and 50 Mt throughputs per annum, respectively.
To calculate the unit transport costs for both the GFB and the Heavy Haul options, at the various
throughput rates indicated, the following assumptions were made:
a) All the scenarios covered under this section will require additional capital investment in the form of
new railway lines and associated infrastructure.
b) The full capital cost was included in the cost calculations, which effectively means that these
transport unit costs would be the top-end figures.
c) The capital investment charges were calculated at a 20-year design life and a 10% effective
interest rate on the fixed capital portion only.
d) The current rail freight transport rates were used as a basis and escalated with additional capital
charges, for the fixed infrastructure only.
e) No additional capital was added for rolling stock, as it was assumed that the current freight rates
adequately cover this capital expense. This is possible because the rolling stock capital expense
will remain a constant incremental charge as the volume increases.
f) It is assumed that the current rail freight rates include a negligible portion of fixed infrastructure
capital, as these assets have already been depreciated. The current rates, therefore, represent the
rolling stock capital, operating costs and maintenance charges.
g) GFB rail lines are constructed at a fixed cost of R22.7 million/km and Heavy Haul lines at R29.9
million/km.
h) Single rail lines are constructed with crossing loops.
Based on the assumptions above, as well as the fact mentioned previously that Transnet apportions the
capital cost of a new line across the entire rail network, it is further logical to assume that these
theoretically calculated transport rates would be more expensive than the actual achievable rates, if
calculated based on the standard Transnet principles. Effectively, these inflated transport rates for new
rail lines, where the single line carries the entire capital investment, could almost be compared to
establishing and operating a new private rail entity, operating on one line only.
The unit transport rates fromthe resulting calculations are depicted in Table 5, ranging from1 to 1,000
km for each scenario.
154
APPENDI X F
Table 5: Rail Unit Transport Cost per Scenario
Distance Current Rates
Fixed Capital@ 1
MTPA
Fixed Capital@ 5
MTPA
Fixed Capital@ 50
MTPA
GFB
Heavy
Haul
GFB
Heavy
Haul
GFB
Heavy
Haul
GFB
Heavy
Haul
(km) R/t/km R/t/km R/t/km R/t/km R/t/km R/t/km R/t/km R/t/km
1 29.58 21.07 32.20 24.53 30.10 21.76 29.63 21.14
2 14.88 10.60 17.50 14.06 15.40 11.29 14.93 10.67
3 9.98 7.11 12.61 10.57 10.51 7.80 10.03 7.18
4 7.53 5.37 10.16 8.82 8.06 6.06 7.58 5.43
5 6.06 4.32 8.69 7.78 6.59 5.01 6.12 4.39
6 5.08 3.62 7.71 7.08 5.61 4.31 5.14 3.69
7 4.38 3.12 7.01 6.58 4.91 3.81 4.44 3.19
8 3.86 2.75 6.48 6.21 4.38 3.44 3.91 2.82
9 3.45 2.46 6.07 5.92 3.98 3.15 3.50 2.53
10 3.12 2.23 5.75 5.68 3.65 2.92 3.18 2.29
20 1.65 1.18 4.28 4.64 2.18 1.87 1.71 1.25
30 1.16 0.83 3.79 4.29 1.69 1.52 1.22 0.90
40 0.92 0.66 3.54 4.11 1.44 1.35 0.97 0.72
50 0.77 0.55 3.40 4.01 1.30 1.24 0.83 0.62
60 0.67 0.48 3.30 3.94 1.20 1.17 0.73 0.55
70 0.60 0.43 3.23 3.89 1.13 1.12 0.66 0.50
80 0.55 0.39 3.18 3.85 1.08 1.09 0.60 0.46
90 0.51 0.36 3.14 3.82 1.04 1.06 0.56 0.43
100 0.48 0.34 3.10 3.80 1.00 1.03 0.53 0.41
200 0.33 0.24 2.96 3.70 0.86 0.93 0.38 0.31
300 0.28 0.20 2.91 3.66 0.81 0.89 0.34 0.27
400 0.26 0.18 2.88 3.64 0.78 0.88 0.31 0.25
500 0.24 0.17 2.87 3.63 0.77 0.87 0.30 0.24
600 0.23 0.17 2.86 3.63 0.76 0.86 0.29 0.24
700 0.23 0.16 2.85 3.62 0.75 0.85 0.28 0.23
800 0.22 0.16 2.85 3.62 0.75 0.85 0.27 0.23
900 0.22 0.16 2.84 3.61 0.74 0.85 0.27 0.22
1,000 0.21 0.15 2.84 3.61 0.74 0.84 0.26 0.22
It should once again be noted that, for distances longer than 500 km, the GFB transport rates are only
indicative and derived from extrapolating the existing trend. Likewise, the Heavy Haul rates for distances
shorter than 100 km are also for indicative purposes only. The relative difference in unit costs is
graphically depicted in Figure 10.
155
APPENDI X F
From the graph it is clear that fixed infrastructure capital costs have a significant impact on the overall
transport rates, which show a marked increase fromthe current rates. However, it is also evident that rail
becomes more economically attractive as the throughput increases and, even with the additional
capital investment burden, the unit costs at 50 MTPA throughput rapidly decreases and once again
approaches the original figures.
It can further be deduced that rail transport is a very expensive option for short distance or low volume
transport. This strengthens the business case for an open rail system which could be shared by other
industries, to increase the throughput rate and ultimately to reduce the transport unit costs. Such an
investment also requires a life expectancy of at least 20 years and a constant freight supply.
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
Rail transport systems are built into the landscape to suit the physical and human geography. The following
sections explore in more detail the socio-economic impact of rail transport.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
Rail transport systems have a positive and a negative health and safety impact, due to the following
issues:
a) Reduced Conventional Coal Transport
The adoption of rail freight will lead to fewer coal trucks on the roads, which would reduce air and
noise pollution, while reducing the impact on the road infrastructure and public safety.
156
APPENDI X F
b) Operator Injuries and Fatalities
Freight rail operations require trains to be "built" before a journey and broken apart afterwards.
Both are skilled operations carried out by shunters, and this activity has proven to be extremely
unsafe in the past. Shunting requires rail personnel to operate in close proximity to moving rail
vehicles, and sometimes even riding on them. The vehicles are unforgiving and one slip or wrong
move can easily lead to serious injuries or fatalities.
c) Public Injuries and Fatalities
Rail lines generally travel through rural and industrial areas, which requires vehicle and pedestrian
level crossings at various points along the rail line. These crossings are frequently the source of
incidents and accidents.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Rail Transport systems have a positive and negative impact on the environment, due to the following issues:
a) Reduced Energy Requirements
Rail is extremely energy efficient. The tracks provide smooth and hard surfaces on which the
wheels of the train can roll with minimum friction. The track distributes the weight of the train
evenly, allowing significantly greater loads per axle and wheel, leading to less wear and tear on
infrastructure. Trains also have a small frontal area in relation to the load they are carrying,
reducing air resistance and thus energy usage. Per ton of material carried, rail typically produces
80% less carbon dioxide than road transport. This reduction in carbon emission can even be used
as a source of income when traded on the international carbon market.
b) Fauna and Flora
A railway physically impacts on the flora, both by the excavation of foundations and the
construction of the railway track. Damaging flora inherently has a negative impact on the fauna.
c) Road Construction
Permanent access roads may need to be constructed where no provincial or farm road exist that
lead to the temporary service roads required to transport material and labour to the construction
zone. These permanent roads are also required to provide access to railway maintenance during
the operational phase.
d) Water Quality and Quantity
The construction of a railway line can potentially affect water sources. Issues include impeding the
flow of water, causing quality problems, causing water to collect, causing erosion through the
channelling of water and interfering with fountains.
e) Air Quality
Construction of the railway will increase air pollution by dust. Another issue is the generation of
coal dust during transportation. This dust may impact on water quality and is known to sterilise
agricultural land at very high concentrations.
157
APPENDI X F
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Like most long distance transport technologies, rail will have a general social impact. These impacts
might include:
a) Land Rights and Negotiations
Negotiations need to take place with landowners regarding buying parts of or entire properties,
where relevant.
b) Crossings
The system will need to cross some rivers, roads and other fixed infrastructure, which will require
level crossings, tunnelling or bridges.
c) Quality of life
Lifestyles may change profoundly, especially for those who reside in close proximity to the railway.
The level of noise will increase drastically, due to the trains passing by.
d) Job Creation
The construction and operation of the railway line requires human labour, thereby creating jobs
for the local community.
e) Poaching and Crime
These occurrences may increase, since service roads give easy access to the area.
f) Limited Effect on Communities
While rail would not necessarily displace communities, it will be intrusive and it could potentially
restrict free movement.
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
Rail transport systems will have a major anticipated direct economic impact, since they normally
operate as an open system. The following benefits are expected:
a) Local Production Capability
There are specialist South African based companies capable of designing, manufacturing, installing,
operating and maintaining rail transport systems, which will have a positive impact on the economy.
b) Local Sourcing
Most of the materials used for railway construction will be sourced locally.
c) Job Creation Opportunities
The construction of a new railway line and rolling stock should create additional job opportunities
during the construction phase. Furthermore, an operational railway system will require various
planning functions, operators, maintenance crews and numerous other categories of labour.
158
APPENDI X F
d) Integration with Other Industries
The establishment of an open rail system will enable other industries along the rail line to make
use of such new infrastructure, which will further enhance local and international trade.
e) Stimulation of the Local Economy
A new railway line could potentially stimulate the local and provincial economy of all the areas
through which it runs. This will include enhanced trade opportunities, increased accessibility,
improved logistics efficiency and the enablement of new business opportunities.
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
The rail transport system in South Africa has been operational since the late 19th Century, and is arguably the
most important of the country's transportation infrastructures. Nearly all railways in South Africa use a 1,067 mm
narrow gauge track and the network transports passengers as well as freight.
Freight transportation in the country is managed by Transnet Freight Rail, the largest division of Transnet Limited.
Transnet Freight Rail's core business lies in freight logistics solutions designed for customers in industry based
business segments such as mining and heavy and light manufacturing. In delivering this service, rail transport is
divided into General Freight and Heavy Haul lines, with the latter arguably the most important and profitable rail
systems in the country. The following sections explore the two major heavy haul lines in more detail.
6.1 COALLINK EXPORT LINE
The main mode of transport into the Richards Bay Coal Terminal is undoubtedly the CoalLink rail line,
running from Blackhill, Mpumalanga, through KwaZulu-Natal, into Richards Bay, across a total
distance of 580 km. This line is capable of transporting approximately 72 MTPA and Transnet Freight
Rail indicated that the capacity will be upgraded to 81 MTPA by June 2010. The line is managed by
CoalLink, a specialist business unit that provides transport for South Africa's export coal.
The railway is a double line and is bi-directionally signalled and fully electrified. The current fleet
consists of 8,012 wagons, of which 7,327 are continually available for use, and 310 locomotives, of
which 285 are continually available for use.
The wagons are usually joined at Ermelo, Mpumalanga, typically using CCL type wagons. These trains
are made up of 200 wagons and can reach lengths of 2.5 km and carry a gross load of 20,800 t.
6.2 SISHEN-SALDANHA IRON ORE LINE
This line is also commonly known as the Ore Export Line or Orex. It connects the iron ore mines near
Sishen, Northern Cape, with the port in Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, across a total distance of 861
km. This line is capable of transporting approximately 38 MTPA.
The Orex line was originally funded, constructed and operated by industry but has since been
incorporated into the Transnet rail network. The railway is a single, heavy haul line, with crossing loops
situated along the line to allow trains travelling in opposite directions to pass each other. Currently, the
line has 19 crossing loops positioned at intervals of approximately 45 km.
159
APPENDI X F
7. STATUS QUO OF RAIL IN SOUTH AFRICA
While most commentators on and critics of rail transportation in South Africa argue that the current state of the
rail network in the country and rail transportation in general is below average, Transnet maintains that the
condition of the network is fair. However, it is clear that due to increased demand by various industry sectors,
significant capacity improvements will be required over the next 10 to 12 years, especially on the main corridors.
While the current network needs to be upgraded and strategically expanded, these initiatives are severely
hampered by inadequate electricity supply, theft and vandalism, as well as the unavailability of rolling stock,
which negatively impacts on operating capacity and ultimately service delivery.
However, Transnet has recently indicated that the main focus over the next five years will be on eradicating
investment backlogs and focusing on operational improvements. The 30-year national infrastructure plan will
focus on capacity expansions, in line with economic and industrial policies.
With regards to coal transportation, the most important current corridor is the Coalink line between Blackhill
and Richards Bay, with a current capacity of 72 MTPA, which will be upgraded to 81 MTPA by 2010. Transnet
further plans to increase the capacity to 91 MTPA and will be completed by approximately 2020, whereafter it
will remain constant until at least 2037.
With regards to linking the emerging Waterberg coal field with Mpumalanga and the Coallink line, Transnet
agrees that the current Waterberg infrastructure does not have any surplus capacity and needs to be upgraded
or a new line needs to be constructed. To this end the company is investigating various alternatives, with the
eventual completion date of 2020 to 2025 in mind.
8. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
The research regarding rail transportation to date was conducted with the objective of being as impartial and
unrestricted as possible. This meant that all cost calculations, advantages, disadvantages and impacts were
generalised, without having any specific geographical locations, routes or destinations in mind. Although this
might be useful to determine the general applicability of rail across various distances, which assists in
determining cross-over points between transport modes, this is not sufficient for any investment decisions.
It was stated previously that the accuracy of the cost estimates, especially related to capital investment costs,
could be as low as 30%, due to the large number of variables present in such cost calculations. When planning
a new railway line, it could include a substantial portion of existing infrastructure or it could require significant
investment in completely new infrastructure, which has a massive bearing on the eventual outcome. Therefore, it
is important to be more specific in terms of the requirements and to specify a distinct origin and destination.
Capacity requirements, annual throughput requirements, system design life, loading and offloading
requirements, rolling stock requirements and various other aspects must also be included in the research. This is
the only way to ensure the most accurate cost estimate.
160
APPENDI X F
9. CONCLUSION
The investigation into Rail Transportation revealed that the systemis a proven, safe and well established mode of
transport, offering reliable and cost effective transport, especially across long distances. Rail transport is capable
of very high throughput rates and, where the terrain is relatively flat, very long and heavy trains can effectively be
operated on the track. When faced with a transport requirement over a long distance, crossing relatively flat
terrain, with few obstacles and where most of the crossed land is owned or accessible, rail transport is arguably
superior to most other transport options.
The downside to the technology is that the initial capital investment is very high and therefore the system requires
a life expectancy of at least 20 years, with a guaranteed high product volume throughout the lifespan of the rail
line. Rail transport is extremely inflexible and allows freight to be transported only where the required
infrastructure is available. In addition, the physical infrastructure is exposed and prone to damage caused by
vandalism, and rail lines and electrical cables are often targeted for theft.
It has further been found that while the rolling stock capital costs present a constant incremental charge with
increased volumes, the initial capital investment required in the fixed infrastructure is substantial and greatly
influences the overall transport unit rate. This characteristic strengthens the argument for a public and open rail
system where multiple commodities are transported by various companies. In doing this, the annual freight
throughput will significantly increase and so reduce the capital cost portion that needs to be apportioned to each
tonne of freight being moved, which will ultimately ensure a very competitive transport rate.
Apart from the obvious advantages described above, rail transport is perfectly placed to play a crucial part in a
multimodal and fully integrated coal supply chain. This transport mode is perfect for transporting coal across
long distances between coal fields and inland hubs or coal pantries, from where the coal can be further
distributed to its final destination through a network of other technologies; provided such technology is
supported by efficient management and technical skills.
10. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
Rail transport in South Africa is dominated by Transnet Limited, a public company with the South African
government as its sole shareholder. Any further research into rail transport should include representatives from
the following Transnet divisions:
a) Transnet Capital Projects
b) Transnet Rail Engineering
c) Transnet Freight Rail (TFR)
Various other consultancies that specialise in rail transport are available and these companies can assist with
various aspects of future research. Such companies should be identified and approached as and when needed.
161
APPENDI X F
11. REFERENCES
Commercial Benefits (2009). Retrieved: 28 July 2009, Available at
http://www.railfreightgroup.com/new/why/
Freight Train (2009). Retrieved: 28 July 2009, Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Freight
Rail Transport (2009). Retrieved: 28 July 2009, Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Transport
Rail Transport Operations (2009). Retrieved: 28 July 2009, Available at
http://ww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_operations
Transnet Freight Rail (2009). Retrieved: 28 July 2009, Available at http://www.transnet.co.za
Mpumalanga to Richards Bay Freight Coal Line, South Africa (2009). Retrieved: 20 August 2009, Available
at http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/richardsbay-coaline/
Why we need rail freight (2009). Retrieved: 28 July 2009, Available at
http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/PDF/FoR%20Flyer%20Final.pdf
Stander, H J, Pienaar W J, Perspectives on freight movement by road and rail in South Africa. Retrieved: 5
August 2009, Available at http://hdl.handle.net/2263/7696
Conditions critical to ensuring vibrant freight and passenger rail:
http://www.transportationvision.org/docs/vision_FreightRail.pdf
Merry-go-round train (2009). Retrieved 7 August 2009, Available at
http://ww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry-go-round_train
Hopper car (2009). Retrieved 7 August 2009, Available at http://ww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopper_car
Unit train (2009). Retrieved 7 August 2009, Available at http://ww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_train
Balloon loop (2009). Retrieved 7 August 2009, Available at http://ww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon-loop
Transnet National Infrastructure Plan (2009). Retrieved 16 September 2009, Available at:
http://www.transnet.net/TNIfraPlans.Html
Jorgensen AA (2004). The regeneration of railways in South Africa and intermodal opportunities for the road
transport sector. 16 September 2009, Available at:
https://repository.up.ac.za/upspace/handle/2263/5698
Personal communications and interviews with various parties involved in rail transport.
162
APPENDI X F
1
APPENDI X G
Coal Log Pi pel i nes
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 166
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 166
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
2.1.1 Inlet Sub-system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
2.1.2 Outlet Sub-system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
2.1.3 Booster Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
2.1.4 The Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
2.3 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
2.3.1 Coal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
2.3.2 Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 168
3.1 CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4. SYSTEM COST.............................................................................................................. 169
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 174
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
164
APPENDI X G
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 175
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 175
8. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 175
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 176
10. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 176
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Compressed Coal Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Figure 2: Coal Log Pipeline Unit Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 3: CLP Transport Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Coal Log Pipeline Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Table 2: Coal Log Pipeline Throughput per Pipe Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Table 3: Coal Log Pipeline Capital Investment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Table 4: Coal Log Pipeline Operating and Maintenance Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Table 5: CLP Throughput Rates at Various Pipe Diameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Table 6: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
165
APPENDI X G
1. INTRODUCTION
The Coal Log Pipeline (CLP) concept is an innovative emerging technology for coal transportation using
pipelines. In the CLP process, coal at the mine is first compacted into cylinders (logs) of a diameter 5 to 10%
smaller than that of the pipe through which the logs are transported. The length of the log is usually twice the log
diameter. Water is used to suspend and transport the logs through the pipe, via pumps.
CLP transportation is often compared with Coal Slurry Pipelines, but in Coal Slurry Pipelines the coal is
transported as a slurry (paste) and not as a solid log. CLP therefore requires much less water, the dewatering of
the coal at the destination is much easier, less energy is used to transport each tonne of coal and the clean-up
process is much easier in the event of spills.
The CLP concept is still experimental and has only been tested under pilot plant conditions. Additional research
and development is needed before this technology can be utilised commercially.
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The CLP is based on the concept that coal can be compacted into
large cylindrical shapes called Coal Logs, as depicted in Figure 1, for
pipeline transportation using water or another liquid as the carrier
fluid. When transported via pipeline in water at 2.5 to 3 metres per
second, sufficient hydrodynamic lift is generated to move the coal logs.
The logs become waterborne and they make only light contact with the
pipe. Consequently, the wear of coal logs and the pipe are both
minimal and the power required for pumping is also minimal.
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The CLP system consists of four major sub-systems: inlet sub-system, outlet sub-system, booster pumps
and pipeline. These sub-systems can be expanded upon as follows.
2.1.1 Inlet Sub-system
a) Coal preparation, including crushing, conveying, heating and mixing with binder.
b) Compaction of coal logs.
c) Injection of coal logs into the pipeline.
2.1.2 Outlet Sub-system
a) A coal log ejection sub-system.
b) A reservoir to collect water effluent.
c) An effluent water treatment facility.
d) A conveyor belt to transport coal logs to the stockpile.
e) A dewatering and crusher plant.
166
APPENDI X G
2.1.3 Booster Pumps
a) A specialised pumping system consisting of a network of pumps and valves.
2.1.4 The Pipeline
a) The pipeline itself consists of a series of interconnected pipes, with an internal diameter suitable
for the required throughput rate and a wall thickness suitable for the operating pressure in the
pipe.
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
The CLP system provides the advantages given in Table 1.
Table 1: Coal Log Pipeline Advantages
No. Advantage Description
1 Uses less water than coal
slurry pipelines
The coal-to-water ratio in a CLP is 3/4 to 1, depending on the
pipeline size. In comparison, the solid-to-water ratio for a coal
slurry pipeline is 1:1. Therefore, CLP uses only one-third to
one-fourth of the water needed by coal slurry pipelines to
transport the same amount of coal.
2 Simplified dewatering
required at the destination
Coal logs are water-resistant, because they are compacted
under very high pressure, which squeezes air and water out of
the pores. The logs therefore contain less water than raw coal
and do not require significant dewatering.
3 Low energy required to
transport coal
CLP uses electricity and significantly less energy than other
pipeline methods used for transporting coal.
4 Simplifies the clean-up
process in the event of spills
Because coal logs are compacted, the clean-up process is
much easier than for coal slurry.
5 Less pollution from coal dust Because coal logs are compacted and are transported inside a
pipeline, there is no significant coal dust pollution.
6 Reduces carbon emissions CLP reduces the number of coal trucks and trains needed for
coal transportation, which reduces carbon emissions.
7 Increased throughput The CLP system has twice the throughput rate of a normal coal
slurry pipeline of the same diameter.
2.3 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
2.3.1 Coal Characteristics
The biggest disadvantage of CLP transport is the fact that the success of the initiative depends entirely on
the type of coal being transported. Coal type and the compacting method will determine the
characteristics and durability of the coal log during transportation.
Under trial conditions, the worst coal logs that were made broke up readily upon leaving the
compaction mould, which made them unsuitable for transportation by pipeline. On the other hand,
167
APPENDI X G
very strong logs have been created. During a field test in Conway, Kansas, the weakest logs broke up in
the pipe, but did not clog the flow, while the best logs lost only around 0.5% of their weight during an 8
km run through the pipeline. During laboratory testing, the strongest of small logs were circulated
through a 2-inch diameter pipe loop for a distance of approximately 380 kmwith only a 5%weight loss.
Generally speaking, under test conditions, the strongest logs were made from sub bituminous coal,
which was mined at the Powder River Basin, in Wyoming. The weakest coal logs made during testing,
which proved to be the most difficult to successfully compact, were compacted from anthracite coal.
In order to accurately ascertain whether coal mined from a specific area could be successfully
transported via CLP, such coal needs to be tested in trial applications first, which is relatively expensive.
The quality and durability of the coal logs can be further increased through the use of a binder or
binding agent, which could be mixed into the coal. This improves the systemperformance, but obviously
has a further cost implication.
2.3.2 Water Usage
The other major limiting factor of the CLP systemis the necessity for large quantities of water to transport
the coal efficiently. For every tonne of coal transported, the system requires 250 to 333 litres of water.
This rapidly grows into a substantial water requirement as the throughput increases, as can be seen in
Table 2. Under South African conditions these water requirements could render the systeminfeasible, or
it would significantly increase the system operating cost, if the water needs to be recycled and pumped
back to the input station.
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
The optimum operating conditions for the CLP would be a relatively flat typography with few river and
road crossings, where water is freely available. The coal type will be bituminous and the transport
distance should be longer than 30 km.
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operational
parameters. The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance,
significantly impact on the selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in
the following sub-paragraphs.
3.1 CAPACITY
The maximum achievable capacity of the CLP is currently a theoretical calculation and depends on
various factors, including pipeline distance, pipe diameter, pumping system and coal characteristics, to
name a few. However, the pilot plant tests revealed the throughput rates given in Table 2, based on a
24-hour operation and 95% availability.
168
APPENDI X G
Table 2: Coal Log Pipeline Throughput per Pipe Diameter
Pipe Diameter Coal Throughput Water Required
(mm) (Inches) (t/hr) (MT/year) Kilolitre/hr)
(Megalitre/
year)
101.6 4 58 0.48 19 0.16
152.4 6 159 1.32 53 0.44
203.2 8 281 2.34 94 0.78
304.8 12 678 5.64 226 1.88
406.4 16 1145 9.53 382 3.18
508.0 20 2006 16.69 668 5.56
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
A sophisticated and detailed cost analysis of CLP was conducted at the Capsule Pipeline Research
Center (CPRC) in the USA. This analysis was conducted on CLP systems with various diameters, ranging
from 102 to 508 mm and lengths ranging from 16 to 3,218 km.
4. SYSTEM COSTS
As mentioned above, a sophisticated cost analysis of CLP was conducted at the CPRC. This analysis calculated
the anticipated price or tariff for transporting coal in dollars per ton ($/t) and was based on the cost, plus a
12.5% after-tax return. This tariff was determined for CLPs of various diameters and lengths and plotted as a
function of length and diameter (throughput).
It is important to note that, because CLP is an emerging technology, the actual costs of some of the components,
such as coal log manufacturing, cannot be accurately predicted. Nor can the lifespan and the operating and
maintenance costs be accurately predicted. Therefore, the results contained herein, as is the case with any other
major emerging technology, should not be taken without reservation. These costs should be regarded as
preliminary and should be revised in future as more is learnt from the process.
For the purposes of the cost calculations, the following logic and assumptions apply:
a) Basic System: The CLP system cost described in the following sections are based on a 203 mm diameter
pipe, at a distance of 160 km, with pumping stations every 26 km. The pipeline was assumed to operate
at 85% lift-off velocity, which is equal to 2.67 m/s. At 90% linefill and 95% system availability; this
equates to a throughput rate of 2.34 MTPA.
b) All costs were based on the average prevailing rates in the USA in 1994.
c) Capital Investment Costs were escalated using the USA PPI inflation index (42.82%).
d) Operational Costs were escalated using the USA CPI inflation index (44.08%).
e) Costs were escalated to June 2009.
f) An effective interest rate of 10% was applied to all capital expenses.
g) The June 2009 exchange rate of R8.05/$1.00 was used.
169
APPENDI X G
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
The initial capital investment costs for the CLP system (Table 3) included the cost for planning, land,
right-of-way acquisitions, permit applications, design and construction. All these cost estimates were
based on the average prevailing rates in the USA in 1994.
Table 3: Coal Log Pipeline Capital Investment Costs
Item Original Cost ($M) Current Cost ($M) Current Cost (RM)
Inlet Sub-system 13.7804 19.681 158.436
Outlet Sub-system 2.0064 2.866 23.068
Booster Stations 1.5756 2.250 18.115
Pipeline (160km) 18.5426 26.483 213.187
Total Capital Cost 35.90 51.28 412.81
The capital investment costs indicate an average cost of R2.6 million/km for this specific configuration.
However, it should be noted that the inlet sub-system cost has a significant impact on the transport unit
cost and decreases the attractiveness of the system over short distances. It is thus advisable that the CLP
system should be considered for transport distances longer than approximately 30 km.
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operating and maintenance costs for the CLP system (Table 4) include the cost for energy, water,
binder, materials, supplies, repairs and maintenance, wages and salaries and all other miscellaneous
costs expected to be encountered each year. Once again, all these cost estimates were based on the
average prevailing rates in the USA in 1994.
Table 4: Coal Log Pipeline Operating and Maintenance Costs
Item Original Cost ($M) Current Cost ($M) Current Cost (RM)
Inlet Sub-system 5.657 8.151 65.612
Outlet Sub-system 0.456 0.657 5.289
Booster Stations 0.681 0.981 7.899
Pipeline (160 km) 0.185 0.267 2.146
Total Capital Cost 7.08 10.06 80.95
The system operating and maintenance costs indicate an average cost of R34.60/t of throughput for
this specific configuration.
170
APPENDI X G
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
It was indicated in the previous paragraphs that the installation cost is R2.6 million/km, while the
average operating cost is R34.60/t. The system is further designed with a theoretical life expectancy of
30 years. Taking all these elements into consideration, the transport unit cost of the described CLP
system equates to R75.13/t for the 203 mm pipeline.
However, this transport unit cost is highly dependent on the pipeline characteristics, as well as the
transport distance. This dependency is illustrated in Figure 2 below.
FromFigure 2 it is evident that the total cost is dominated by the initial inlet sub-systemcost and that the
booster station cost thereafter has a significant impact. This means that when the distance is short, little
saving can be achieved by using shorter pipelines, so whether the coal is transported for a distance of
50 km or 2 km, it makes little difference in the total cost.
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The total transport unit cost is particularly influenced by the lead distance, but also by the annual
throughput. If the throughput increases and the same physical infrastructure is capable of handling the
increased volumes, the unit cost decreases because the fixed capital cost is shared by a larger volume of
material. To illustrate this concept, three scenarios were identified to show the transport unit cost at 1, 5
and 17 MTPA throughputs, respectively.
The only effective method for increasing the annual throughput is to increase the pipe diameter, in order
to allow a larger volume of coal to be pumped through the system. The CLP system has been
theoretically designed at different pipe diameters to achieve the annual throughput rates depicted in
Table 5.
171
APPENDI X G
Table 5: CLP Throughput Rates at Various Pipe Diameters
Pipe Diameter Throughput
(mm) (Inches) (MTPA)
101.6 4 0.48
152.4 6 1.32
203.2 8 2.34
304.8 12 5.64
406.4 16 9.53
508.0 20 16.69
However, when decreasing the throughput to 1 MTPA it is only the cost associated with the reduced
pipeline diameter that drops slightly. The bulk of the capital infrastructure is still required to establish all
the sub-systems, and the transport unit cost becomes exceedingly high.
When increasing the annual throughput the costs increase marginally due to the increased pipe
diameter, larger pumps and an increase in plant capacity. The CLP system, therefore, becomes more
competitive as the throughput increases.
Table 6 summarises the transport unit cost, across distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km for different
throughput scenarios.
Table 6: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates
Distance
(km)
1 MTPA
(R/t/km)
5 MTPA
(R/t/km)
17 MTPA
(R/t/km)
1 36.23 23.76 19.84
2 18.30 11.95 9.96
3 12.33 8.01 6.67
4 9.34 6.04 5.02
5 7.55 4.86 4.03
6 6.35 4.07 3.37
7 5.50 3.51 2.90
8 4.86 3.09 2.55
9 4.36 2.76 2.28
10 3.96 2.50 2.06
20 2.17 1.32 1.07
30 1.57 0.92 0.74
40 1.27 0.73 0.57
50 1.10 0.61 0.48
60 0.98 0.53 0.41
70 0.89 0.47 0.36
172
APPENDI X G
Distance
(km)
1 MTPA
(R/t/km)
5 MTPA
(R/t/km)
17 MTPA
(R/t/km)
80 0.83 0.43 0.33
90 0.78 0.40 0.30
100 0.74 0.37 0.28
200 0.56 0.25 0.18
300 0.50 0.22 0.15
400 0.47 0.20 0.13
500 0.45 0.18 0.12
600 0.44 0.18 0.11
700 0.43 0.17 0.11
800 0.42 0.17 0.11
900 0.42 0.16 0.10
1,000 0.41 0.16 0.10
The relative difference in unit costs is graphically depicted in Figure 3 below.
Fromthese figures, it is clear that Coal Log Pipelines become increasingly competitive as the throughput
increases, due to the apportioning of the fixed capital costs over a higher tonnage.
However, it should be borne in mind that the increased throughput rate of the coal also requires an
equivalent increase in the volume of water required as the transport medium. The maximum achievable
throughput of these systems is, therefore, not entirely dependent on the design capacity, but rather the
availability of water in the area. Therefore, in South African conditions it is very unlikely that annual
throughputs higher than 5 Mt would be sustainable.
173
APPENDI X G
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly
considered in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
The CLP system has no significant health and safety impact.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The CLP system has a very low impact on the environment, due to the following issues:
a) Water
CLPs use much less water than other pipeline transport systems.
b) Transport Related Pollution
CLPs will lead to fewer coal trucks and fewer coal trains, which would reduce air and noise
pollution, while reducing the impact on the road transport infrastructure and public safety.
c) Air and Water Pollution
Because coal logs are compacted, this system will also mean less coal dust and cleaner operating
plants.
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
As with most long distance transport technologies, the CLP system will have general social impacts.
These impacts might include:
a) Land Rights
The CLP will be either an overland or underground piping system, which requires the acquisition of
land rights for the entire distance of the pipeline.
b) Crossings
The CLP will need to cross some rivers, roads and railroads, which will either require tunnelling or
bridges.
While the CLP system will not necessarily displace communities, it will be intrusive and could potentially
restrict free movement.
174
APPENDI X G
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The CLP system will not have any anticipated direct economic impact, although it is anticipated that
when the CLP is used commercially, it will lead to the development and use of other types of capsule
pipelines. These may include pipelines for transporting of grain, other agricultural products and solid
wastes, which will provide benefits to farmers and the general public.
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
It was originally planned that the research and development of the process would be completed in 1999, before
CLP could be reliably used commercially. However, due to insufficient funds the project was halted in 2001,
after the concept was demonstrated in a pilot plant at the university.
No commercial application of the technology has taken place since its demonstration in 2001. The main
stumbling block against using this new technology is that the ability of coal logs to resist wear (abrasion) in the
pipeline depends on both the coal properties and the process used to compact/fabricate the logs. Therefore, the
coal from any given mine must be tested for compaction properties and the logs produced must be tested in a
pilot plant pipeline to ensure that they can be transported through the entire length of the pipeline with no more
than a 3 to 5% weight loss due to abrasion. Such experiments are expensive and it would take a minimum of 12
months to complete.
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
The most productive further research and development required to move the CLP technology closer to
commercial use is an experiment that was proposed by its inventor, Dr Henry Liu, a few years ago, but was never
carried out due to lack of research support.
The experiment involves testing coal logs of three different sizes, 2, 4 and 8 inch (nominal), in three pipe loops of
similar nominal pipe sizes, respectively, with all coal log to pipe diameter ratios being 0.95:1. The data on the
coal log wear rates collected from the three sizes of pipes would potentially enable the testing of the validity of a
modelling law developed by Dr Liu, based on dimensional analysis. Once the modelling law for coal log wear is
established through such an experiment, the modelling law could be used to predict prototype behaviour from
model test results. This will enable prospective commercial users of this new technology to predict the wear rate
of their coal logs in large diameter, long pipelines, at a relatively low cost.
Dr Liu indicated that he is willing to partner any organisation in South Africa that is interested in funding such a
research project, in order to bring this technology into commercial use in South Africa.
8. CONCLUSION
The investigation into CLP revealed various advantages of using this transport technology, especially when
compared with other pipeline transport systems. There are also indications that it is a cost effective way of
transporting coal, especially across medium to long distances.
175
APPENDI X G
However, it does seem that although the system promises significant advantages, industry is reluctant to further
test, develop and implement the system, as can be seen in the lack of progress since 2001. It is also clear that
the specific coal characteristics play an important role in the feasibility and performance of the system, which
requires extensive and expensive trials to be conducted before such a system can be considered.
In conclusion, CLP would appear to be a very high risk option, while promising significant savings potential if the
coal characteristics match the optimum operating conditions. However, this will require much more research
and investment to accurately determine.
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
The CLP concept was originally created and tested by the Capsule Pipeline Research Center (CPRC), University
of Missouri-Columbia, under the guidance of Dr Henry Liu. Dr Liu and his company significantly contributed to
this research:
Henry Liu, PhD, PE
President
Freight Pipeline Company
2601 Maguire Blvd.
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: 573-442-0080
FAX: 573-442-0810
E-Mail: fpc_liuh@yahoo.com
Company Web: www.freightpipelinecompany.com
10. REFERENCES
a) Capsu.org (1998). Facts About Coal Log Pipeline. Retrieved: 12 June 2009, Available from:
http://www.capsu.org/library/documents/0027.html
b) TR Marrero (1995). Long-Distance Transport of Coal by Coal Log Pipeline, Capsule Pipeline Research
Center, University of Missouri Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Innovative Concepts Program 590240.
c) Dr Henry Liu (2002) Coal Log Fuel Pipeline Transportation System. Office Of Industrial Technologies
Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy, U.S. Department Of Energy, Inventions and Innovation Project
Fact Sheet, Retrieved: 29 May 2009, Available from: www.cclabs.missouri.edu/~cprc.
176
APPENDI X G
178
APPENDI X H
Sl urry Pi pel i nes
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 180
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 180
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.1.1 Slurry Preparation Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.1.2 Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.1.3 Pump Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2.1.4 Terminal and Dewatering Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
2.1.5 Supporting Storage Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
2.3. SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
2.3.1 Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 183
3.1 CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4. SYSTEM COST.............................................................................................................. 184
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 189
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
178
APPENDI X H
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 190
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 190
8. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 191
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 191
10. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 191
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Slurry Pumps in Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Figure 2: Slurry Pipeline Unit Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Figure 3: Transport Unit Costs at Different Annual Throughputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Coal Slurry Pipeline Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Table 2: Coal Slurry Pipeline Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Table 3: Slurry Pipeline Capital Investment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Table 4: Slurry Pipeline Operating and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Table 5: Slurry Pipeline Unit Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Table 6: Transport Unit Costs at Different Throughput Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
179
APPENDI X H
1. INTRODUCTION
Slurry pipelines are used in mining to transport mineral concentrate from a processing plant near a mine, to
ports or other intermediate or final destinations. Coal slurry pipelines use a slurry of water and pulverized coal,
mixed to a ratio of approximately one tonne (t) of coal to one tonne of water. The coal slurry is then pumped over
a long distance, through a dedicated pipeline, to a processing facility where dewatering takes place. At the
dewatering plant, the material is separated from the slurry and dried before it can be used. The resulting water is
usually subjected to a waste treatment process before disposal. As an alternative the treated water can be
returned to the station of origin (at an additional cost) where it will be reused.
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The slurry pipeline concept is based on the principle that coal can be crushed and mixed into a transport
medium such as water, to enable it to be transported via pipeline. The following sections describe the system
characteristics and the subsystems required for slurry pipelines.
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The Slurry Pipeline System consists of five major subsystems: slurry preparation plant, pipeline, pump
stations, terminal and dewatering plant and supporting storage facilities. These subsystems can be
expanded upon as follows:
2.1.1 Slurry Preparation Plant
The preparation plant is where the coal is crushed and mixed into a slurry for transportation. The plant
output is dictated by the pipeline and the dewatering requirements. The slurry must not be too coarse for
stable pipeline operation and also not too fine, or dewatering becomes expensive.
Dry coal is passed through initial screens to separate the naturally occurring fines from the coal.
Crushers then break down the oversized coal into the required size specification, after which the slurry is
prepared. The slurry is then passed over a safety screen into a storage facility.
2.1.2 Pipeline
The pipeline is designed according to the desired throughput rate per annum and provides the
mechanism and route through which the slurry is transported. Further critical design criteria include
slurry velocity and pressure, system life expectancy, distance, pipe diameter, pipe wall thickness and
system utilisation rates.
2.1.3 Pump Stations
Pump stations are required at intermediate distances along the pipeline to physically pump the slurry to
the final destination. The general design assumption is that fewer, but larger pump stations are
desirable, as it is more cost effective and makes the system less complex to operate.
180
APPENDI X H
The number of pump stations required is once again dependent on the distance, the pipe diameter, the
throughput rate and the inclination of the route. Figure 1 below shows a number of slurry pumps
connected in series to increase the pumping pressure.
2.1.4 Terminal and Dewatering Plant
In order to use the coal at the final destination, it is necessary to remove the water from the coal and
then to dry the coal to a total moisture content of less than 10%. Several methods of dewatering are
available, including filtration, pressing, and evaporation or centrifugal dewatering, all of which require
specialised equipment. The removed water then needs to be treated to remove any contaminants before
it can be disposed of. Alternatively, the water can be treated and pumped back to the Slurry Preparation
Plant, to be reused in the system. This obviously requires an additional pipeline to be built back to the
origin, which increases both the capital and operating costs of the system.
2.1.5 Supporting Storage Facilities
The slurry transportation system requires slurry storage capacity to accommodate a buffering function.
These storage tanks are normally situated at both the Preparation Plant and the Terminal Station. The
buffer tanks at both ends of the pipeline will provide enough slurry to continue operating in the case of
equipment failure at either of the two plants at the origin or destination. The size of the storage facilities
is directly proportionate to the throughput rate of the system and should provide storage capacity for at
least eight hours, or one shift, while the problem is identified and rectified.
181
APPENDI X H
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
The Slurry Pipeline System provides the advantages given in Table 1.
Table 1: Coal Slurry Pipeline Advantages
No. Advantage Description
1 Unobtrusive Line buried, low visibility, low environmental impact, lower footprint
2 More secure Better protected, less likely to be vandalised
3 Safer Local population better protected, no moving parts to clash with
4 Continuous flow No stop/start operation, less likely to experience product delay at
destination station
5 Low maintenance None on pipeline, minor on pumps, high on filters
6 Flexible alignment Easily adjustable around villages or obstacles
7 Shorter route Fewer vertical and horizontal alignment constraints, resulting in more
direct route
8 Easier stream crossings Can pass buried under streams without bridging
9 Environmentally friendly Lower footprint, less clearing, does not isolate habitat, no noise or dust
10 Less pollution from coal
dust
Because coal slurry is transported inside a pipeline, there is no
significant coal dust pollution
11 Reduces carbon emissions Pipelines reduce the number of coal trucks and trains needed for coal
transportation, which reduces carbon emissions
2.3 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
The Slurry Pipeline System has the disadvantages given in Table 2.
Table 2: Coal Slurry Pipeline Disadvantages
No. Advantage Description
1 High capital and
operating costs
The Slurry Preparation and Slurry Dewatering processes increases the
capital and operating expenses significantly, regardless of the system
length
2 Water usage Large water requirement for slurry transport (approximately one tonne of
water per one tonne of coal)
3 Blockages May be difficult to locate and remove
4 Dewatering management Expensive to return filtered water to mine and alternatively water disposal
at end station may require further expensive treatment
5 Pipeline life Long-term pipeline performance can be influenced by
higher-than-expected internal corrosion and erosion
6 Environmental issues If water is disposed, downstream environmental issues my occur
182
APPENDI X H
2.3.1 Water Usage
The single biggest limiting factor of the Slurry Pipeline System, especially under South African
conditions, is the necessity for large quantities of water to transport the coal efficiently. For every tonne
of coal transported, the system requires approximately 1,000 litres of water. This rapidly grows into a
substantial water requirement as the throughput increases.
Under South African conditions, these water requirements could render the system infeasible, or would
significantly increase the system operating cost if the water needs to be recycled and pumped back to
the input station. An application will need to be filed with the Department of Water and Environmental
Affairs (DWEA) to obtain permission to use the large volumes of water required.
As an example, previous studies funded by private organisations to evaluate the feasibility of coal slurry
pipelines from the Waterberg area have involved inputs from DWEA. These studies have all indicated
that it is unlikely that water would be allocated from this water scarce region for pumping coal.
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
The optimum operating conditions for the slurry pipeline would be a relatively flat typography, with
inclines of less than approximately 16%, with fewriver and road crossings, where water is freely available.
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operating parameters.
The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance significantly impact on
the selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in the following
sub-paragraphs.
3.1 CAPACITY
The maximum achievable capacity of a Slurry Pipeline System depends on various factors, including
pipeline distance, pipe diameter, pumping system, material density, dewatering requirements and water
availability, to name a few. Theoretically, therefore, the throughput can be increased incrementally by
increasing the pipe diameter and the pumping capacity.
However, most coal slurry pipelines in operation today transport less than five million tonnes per annum
(MTPA), which seems to be a practical limit. As an example, the worlds largest coal slurry pipeline is the
Black Mesa pipeline in the United States. Built in 1970, this 457 mm pipeline transports 4.8 million
tonnes (Mt) of coal per year from Black Mesa, Arizona, to a power station in southern Nevada, over a
distance of 436 km.
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
Once again, the maximum achievable transport lead distance of a Slurry Pipeline System depends on
various factors, very similar to the characteristics described under the previous section. However, the
basic premise is that the longer the pipeline, the higher the pumping capacity required. Theoretically,
183
APPENDI X H
the slurry pipeline can be extended infinitely, by adding additional pump booster stations along the
route. However, the capital and operation costs soon make this economically unattractive.
As an example, the Black Mesa coal slurry pipeline is currently the longest in the world at 436 km. A
close second is the Germano Mine's iron slurry pipeline in Brazil, across a distance of 396 km.
4. SYSTEM COST
Based on the custom-built nature of the Slurry Pipeline System, and depending on throughput requirements,
inclination of the route and transport distance, the system cost is calculated accordingly. To present some
guideline figures, the following cost estimates are based on current installations and several proposals and
quotations.
For the purposes of the cost calculations, the following logic and assumptions apply:
a) The basic Slurry Pipeline System used was designed for an annual throughput of 5 Mt, with a total life
expectancy of 20 years.
b) All costs were based on the average prevailing rates at the time when they were made available, and in
the currency in which they were published.
c) Capital investment costs were escalated using the South African PPI inflation index.
d) Operational costs were escalated using the South African CPI inflation index.
e) An effective interest rate of 10% was applied to all capital costs.
f) Costs were escalated to June 2009.
g) The June 2009 exchange rate of R8.05/$1.00 was used.
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
The initial capital investment costs for the Slurry Pipeline System included the cost for the preparation
plant, pipeline, terminal station, dewatering plant and pump stations.
From data obtained, it was established that the average capital cost equates to R19.2 millio/km for
installation, with a standard deviation of R7.7 million/km, depending on the site layout and system
characteristics.
However, it should be noted that this capital cost excluded cost of land, permits, customs fees, import
duties, taxes, and interest incurred during construction and escalations. Because of the significant
variance, Table 3 summarises only the total capital cost over distance.
184
APPENDI X H
Table 3: Slurry Pipeline Capital Investment Costs
Distance(m) Total CapEx(R) CapEx Rate(R/km)
100 3,890,967,273 38,909,673
200 5,002,672,208 25,013,361
300 6,114,377,143 20,381,257
400 7,226,082,078 18,065,205
500 8,337,787,013 16,675,574
600 9,449,491,949 15,749,153
700 10,561,196,884 15,087,424
800 11,672,901,819 14,591,127
900 12,784,606,754 14,205,119
1000 13,896,311,689 13,896,312
Note: CapEx = Capital Expenditure
From Table 3 it is clear that the up-front capital costs are dominated by the construction of the
preparation plant and terminal station, which remain constant regardless of the pipeline length. For this
reason, Slurry Pipelines are more suited to longer distance transport.
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The system operating and maintenance costs for the Slurry Pipeline System includes the cost for energy,
water, materials, supplies, repairs and maintenance, wages and salaries and all other miscellaneous
costs expected to be encountered each year and is summarised in Table 4.
Table 4: Slurry Pipeline Operating and Maintenance Costs
Distance(km) OpEx(R/annum) OpEx(R/Total Life) OpEx Rate(R/t)
100 73,200,000 1,464,000,000 14.64
200 74,400,000 1,488,000,000 14.88
300 75,600,000 1,512,000,000 15.12
400 76,800,000 1,536,000,000 15.36
500 78,000,000 1,560,000,000 15.60
600 79,200,000 1,584,000,000 15.84
700 80,400,000 1,608,000,000 16.08
800 81,600,000 1,632,000,000 16.32
900 82,800,000 1,656,000,000 16.56
1000 84,000,000 1,680,000,000 16.80
Note: OpEx = Operating Expenditure
Water and energy charges dominate the operational expenses for slurry pipelines, but although the
energy cost increases incrementally with distance, the water charge remains constant if the throughput
remains unchanged. Consequently, as was the case with the capital costs, Slurry Pipelines are more
economical over long distances.
185
APPENDI X H
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
The transport unit cost for the Slurry Pipeline is highly dependent on the pipeline characteristics, and the
transport distance. This dependency is illustrated in Table 5, where transport costs are given for different
distances, at a constant throughput of 5 MTPA.
Table 5: Slurry Pipeline Unit Cost
Distance
(km)
CapEx Rate
(R/t)
OpEx Rate
(R/t)
Total Transport
Cost (R/t)
Unit Cost
(R/t/km)
100 38.91 14.64 53.55 0.54
200 50.03 14.88 64.91 0.32
300 61.14 15.12 76.26 0.25
400 72.26 15.36 87.62 0.22
500 83.38 15.60 98.98 0.20
600 94.49 15.84 110.33 0.18
700 105.61 16.08 121.69 0.17
800 116.73 16.32 133.05 0.17
900 127.85 16.56 144.41 0.16
1,000 138.96 16.80 155.76 0.16
From the above it is clear that Slurry Pipelines become economically attractive at longer lead distances,
with the transport unit cost flattening out from approximately 500 km.
Figure 2 graphically illustrates these transport cost parameters.
186
APPENDI X H
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The total transport unit cost is particularly influenced by the lead distance, and also by annual
throughput. When the throughput increases and the same physical infrastructure is capable of handling
the increased volumes, the unit cost decreases because the fixed capital cost is shared by a larger
volume of material. To illustrate this concept, three scenarios were identified to show transport unit cost
at 1, 5 and 50 MTPA, ranging from lead distances of 1 to 1,000 km. This will also enable all transport
modes to be compared against the same basic parameters.
However, in the case of slurry pipelines, it is not feasible to calculate costs for throughput volumes
higher than 5 MTPA, as this is simply not achievable under South African conditions, based on the
substantial water requirement. Only the 1 and the 5 MTPA scenarios were therefore considered.
When decreasing the throughput to 1 MTPA, the bulk of the capital costs remain unchanged, due to the
investment in the preparation plant, the terminal station and the dewatering plant, although the relative
capacities are slightly reduced. The cost of the pipeline is also further reduced, based on a smaller pipe
diameter. In relation, the operating expenses would reduce proportionally due to the decreased energy
and water requirements.
Table 6 summarises the transport unit cost, across distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km, for
throughput rates of 1 and 5 MTPA. However, it should be noted that the figures for lead distances below
100 km should be treated as indicative only, as Slurry Pipelines are not normally designed for such short
applications, and therefore the costs are not expected to be accurate.
Table 6: Transport Unit Costs at Different Throughput Rates
Distance
(km)
1 MTPATransport Unit
Cost(R/t/km)
5 MTPATransport Unit
Cost(R/t/km)
1 166.61 43.15
2 83.51 21.63
3 55.81 14.46
4 41.96 10.87
5 33.65 8.72
6 28.11 7.29
7 24.15 6.26
8 21.18 5.49
9 18.87 4.90
10 17.03 4.42
20 8.72 2.27
30 5.95 1.55
40 4.56 1.19
50 3.73 0.97
60 3.18 0.83
187
APPENDI X H
Distance
(km)
1 MTPATransport Unit
Cost(R/t/km)
5 MTPATransport Unit
Cost(R/t/km)
70 2.78 0.73
80 2.48 0.65
90 2.25 0.59
100 2.07 0.54
200 1.24 0.33
300 0.96 0.26
400 0.82 0.22
500 0.74 0.20
600 0.68 0.19
700 0.64 0.18
800 0.61 0.17
900 0.59 0.16
1000 0.57 0.16
The relative difference in transport unit costs is graphically depicted in Figure 3 below.
From these figures it is clear that Slurry Pipelines become very expensive at low volumes and that the
optimum application of the technology is found around the designed maximum throughput rate of
approximately 5 MTPA, at distances beyond 500 km.
188
APPENDI X H
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly
considered in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
Coal Slurry Pipeline Systems promise the following benefits:
a) Reduced Conventional Coal Transport
The adoption of the pipeline system will lead to fewer coal trucks and fewer coal trains, which will
reduce the negative impact on the road transport infrastructure and improve public safety.
b) No Noise Pollution
Apart fromwithin pumping stations, there is absolutely no noise pollution caused by the pipeline.
c) Increased Operator and Public Safety
Operators are located in control rooms and there are no moving parts in the pipeline which could
cause public safety risks.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Slurry Pipeline System has a very low impact on the environment, due to the following issues:
a) Transport Related Pollution
The reduction in the number of coal trucks and trains will reduce air pollution.
b) No Dust Emissions
Coal is transported within a closed pipeline, and therefore prevents coal dust from escaping.
c) Reduced Energy Requirements
Compared with most other coal transport systems, the pipeline system uses significantly less
energy in the form of electricity.
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Like most long distance transport technologies, the Slurry Pipeline System will have general social
impacts. These impacts might include:
a) Land Rights
The pipeline will either be an overland or underground piping system, which requires the
acquisition of land rights for the entire distance of the pipeline.
189
APPENDI X H
b) Crossings
The pipeline will need to cross some rivers, roads and railroads, which will either require
tunnelling or bridging.
c) Limited Effect on Communities
Due to the low noise levels and the fact that the pipeline will mostly be buried, it will have a very
limited effect on residents close to the pipeline.
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Slurry Pipeline System will not have any major anticipated direct economic impact, since it will
operate as a closed loop and dedicated system. However, the following minor benefits are:
a) Local Production Capability
There are specialist South African based companies that can design, manufacture, install, operate
and maintain Slurry Pipeline systems.
b) Job Creation Opportunities
An implemented pipeline system will require operators in the control room, preparation plant,
terminal station, dewatering plant and pump stations, as well as an extended maintenance crew.
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
The most successful slurry operation is the dedicated pipeline that serves the 1,580 MW Mohave Power Station
in southern Nevada, USA. The plant receives all of its coal via a 437 km pipeline, built in 1970, that originates
at the Black Mesa mine in Arizona. Coarsely ground coal is mixed with water (the slurry is about 47% solids by
weight) and pumped through a 46 cm pipe. At the plant the coal is dewatered using centrifuges. The pipeline
has a capacity of approximately 4.5 Mt annually.
The Slurry Pipeline System is also used extensively in the transportation of iron ore and bauxite all over the world,
with multiple successful installations. In South Africa there are no known implementations of this technology.
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
The feasibility and benefits of Slurry Pipelines are well proven and established. The biggest constraint in South
African terms is that the system requires significant amounts of water, which is a relatively scarce resource in
most parts of the country. To determine the specific applicability of the technology under local conditions, the
exact location of the origin station will need to be determined and an extensive evaluation of water availability
will need to be performed.
190
APPENDI X H
8. CONCLUSION
The investigation into coal Slurry Pipelines revealed various advantages in the use of this transport technology,
especially when compared with conventional transport modes. The initial capital investment requirements are
rather substantial and the system is, therefore, more suited for medium to long distance transportation. A
relatively long project duration is also required, preferably in excess of 20 years. The system would therefore not
be suited to short hauls between mines and power stations or coal hubs and final destinations.
The biggest risk to the feasibility of this technology is the extensive water requirement and the strain that it would
place on the local water supply, especially in most inland locations within South Africa. This factor alone would
render the pipeline concept infeasible and would need to be evaluated and tested at specific origins.
One of the most prominent newly emerging South African coal fields is in the Waterberg area. and the
Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (DWEA) has indicated previously that it is not likely that any
allocations would be made available in the Waterberg area for pumping coal, given the current water supply.
Therefore, slurry pipelines would not be an option in this water scarce region unless additional supply sources
are introduced, which would increase the capital and operating costs of the system.
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
The research was conducted independent of specific vendors or industry role players, but rather through the
participation of various mining houses. Such companies will need to be identified and involved in future
research.
10. REFERENCES
a) Wikipedia (2009). Slurry Pipeline. Retrieved: 27 July 2009, Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slurry_pipeline
b) BookRags (2009). Transportation and Storage of Coal. Retrieved: 10 June 2009, Available from:
http://www.bookrags.com/research/coal-transportation-and-storage-of-mee-01/
c) T Cunningham (2008). Long-Distance Transport Of Bauxite By Slurry Pipeline, E-Book, Accessed: 10
June 2006, Available from: http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/TechJournal/
M&M%2002%20Long%20Distance%20Transport%20Final.pdf
191
APPENDI X H
192
194
APPENDI X I
Troughed and Pi pe Conveyor Systems
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 196
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 196
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
2.2 SYSTEM AUTOMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 200
3.1 PRODUCTIVITY AND THROUGHPUTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
4. SYSTEM COST.............................................................................................................. 202
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 205
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 205
6.1 BATEMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
6.2 THYSSENKRUPP ROBINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 206
194
APPENDI X I
8. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 206
9. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 207
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: ThyssenKrupp Robins - Overland Conveyor References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic Layout of a Typical Troughed Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Figure 2: Transition Idlers on a Pipe Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Figure 3: Typical Hexagonal Idler Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Figure 4: Basic Design Concept of a Pipe Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Figure 5: Longest Single Flight Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Figure 6: Longest Overland Conveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Figure 7: Graphic Representation of Conveyor Unit Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Recommended Belt Speeds for Belt Widths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Table 2: Capital Expenditure for Troughed Conveyors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Table 3: Operating Expenditure for Troughed Conveyors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
195
APPENDI X I
1. INTRODUCTION
Conveyor-based systems have been around for over a century, beginning with the typical movement of light
weight materials over a short distance, using lightweight equipment. As soon as the applicability of conveying
larger and heavier materials over longer distances took hold, there was a natural progression in design. The use
of rubber belts suspended between two pulleys and the concept of the three roll idler by Thomas Robins Sr,
working with Thomas Edison in 1891, signalled the beginning of a new era and provided the foundation for
modern belt conveyor design.
The quest to improve efficiency and "push the development envelope", while reducing costs and socio-economic
impacts, has led to a variety of conveyor belt types, suited to various applications. The most common forms of
conveyor belt designs being used at present are as follows:
Troughed Conveyor
Curved Trough Conveyor
Straight Trough Conveyor
Pipe Conveyor
Sandwich Conveyor
Pocket Conveyor
Pouch Conveyor
Sicon Conveyor.
Conveyor systems are synonymous with bulk material handling and are often the first technology considered
when material needs to be moved. For the purpose of this study, which is to determine the most applicable
material handling technology over a variety of distances, inter-plant conveyor systems such as Sandwich, Pocket,
Pouch and Sicon are excluded. Troughed and Pipe Conveyor Systems are commonplace where transport
distances exceed the normal inter-plant distances.
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Troughed and Pipe Conveyor Systems are widely claimed to offer an efficient means of transporting bulk
materials. In the remainder of this section, applicability and reported versatility will be tested by exploring,
amongst others, the components of the system, optimal operating conditions, and the advantages and
disadvantages of Troughed and Pipe Conveyor Systems. Where appropriate, distinctions will be made between
Troughed and Pipe Conveyors.
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
As mentioned previously, the major components of Troughed Conveyors are the rubberised belt, the
idlers and the pulleys (Figure 1). More details of the conveyor's ancillary equipment and its functioning
are given below.
196
APPENDI X I
1. The Troughed Conveyor has an endless, rubberised flat belt (a).
2. The rubberised flat belt is suspended between pulleys at either end. The pulleys in turn are defined
as a head pulley (c), due to it being the pulley driven by a motor and the tail-end pulley, which is
not driven (o). The tension of the belt is achieved by a sliding pulley (d) which is tied to a gravity
take-up unit (e). In addition to the above pulleys, on occasion snub pulleys (m) are incorporated so
that the angle of wrap (n) of the belt on the drive pulley can be increased. The angle of wrap is very
important in long and high capacity conveyors as a larger wrap angle on the pulley allows more
power to be introduced in the belt.
3. The entire length of the belt is supported by a number of rotating carrying idler rollers (b). Impact
idlers (j) are located at the loading point, supporting the belt from forces generated by loading the
bulk material down the chute (g). Return idlers (l) are located on the return part of the belt. The
spacing of the carrying and return idlers differs because the load on the carrying side of the belt (h)
is greater, and therefore the tension in the belt is selected based on the heaviest load the conveyor
will carry.
4. The bulk material (f) is loaded onto the conveyor and transported to the head pulley on the
carrying side (h) of the belt, whereupon the material is dumped into a discharge chute (i).
5. Once the material has been discharged from the carrying belt, the return belt (k) is guided back to
the tail pulley on return idlers (l).
For Pipe Conveyors, the basic design concepts remain the same as for the Troughed Conveyor, at the
tail end where the material is loaded. The difference in structure occurs when the belt passes through a
series of transition idlers, which transformthe belt froma troughed shape into a pipe shape as illustrated
in Figure 2.
197
APPENDI X I
The pipe shape is maintained by passing the belt through a hexagonal idler layout, (Figure 3), as
opposed to the traditional three idler layout of a Troughed Conveyor. Near the discharge chute the belt
is opened again, to discharge the material from the Pipe Conveyor.
Figure 4 depicts the basic design concept of the pipe conveyor.
198
APPENDI X I
2.2 SYSTEM AUTOMATION
By nature, conveyor systems are more automated than other forms of transport, such as rail and road.
Conveyor systems are generally controlled remotely from a control room. Operational information, such
as throughput is often conveyed back to the central control room via SCADA systems. Furthermore,
certain maintenance elements such as cleaning the belt can be incorporated into the design of the
overall system.
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
Troughed Conveyor Systems offer a host of advantages:
Can traverse gradients of 30 to 35% as opposed to road transport, which is limited to approximately
5 to 8%, thereby offering a cost advantage over road transport.
Provide continuous feed of material. Therefore, this systemdoes not have the scheduling requirements
of other transport modes and can operate under all weather conditions.
Can provide high levels of throughput, with some conveyors moving as much as 11,000 t/h.
Conveyors can create their own energy on downhill slopes, which in turn can be used to power the
conveyor on flat stretches and inclines.
A good level of availability with less than 2% of total operational time allocated to unplanned outages
is achievable in well maintained scenarios, otherwise 90% availability is common.
Low operating costs when compared to other transport systems, such as road.
Needs only a few personnel to run and maintain the system.
Pipe Conveyors share the same basic systemadvantages as Troughed Conveyors over other conventional
transport systems, such as road haulage. However, Pipe Conveyor Systems offer the following additional
advantages over Troughed Conveyers:
The round configuration of the belt completely encloses the material to be conveyed, and thus minimises
both material contamination and material spillage in comparison to Troughed Conveyors.
Pipe Conveyors can traverse steep gradients of up to 35 degrees as opposed to Troughed
Conveyors.
Conveyors can be curved horizontally and vertically at the same time, minimising the need for
transfer stations as with Troughed Conveyor applications.
The return belt can be used to convey other material.
Pipe Conveyors require less installation space than Troughed Conveyors. From a design perspective
the Pipe Conveyor is narrower and there is no necessity to include overhead coverage installations.
199
APPENDI X I
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
The disadvantages of conveyor installations are as follows:
Relative to road haulage, conveyor systems represent higher fixed capital cost investments.
As conveyors formpart of a fixed infrastructure, they are not appropriate for areas where the life time
of operation is short as they are less flexible from a movement perspective.
Large volume operations are often required to justify the high capital requirements of conveyor
systems and, as a result, conveyor systems are not suited to small-scale operations.
Conveyor systems can contribute to a "feast or famine" scenario as a result of their design, where a
breakdown will cause all material flow to stop.
With the exception of Pipe Conveyors, if material needs to be covered then additional infrastructure
needs to be built, as is the case when using Troughed Conveyors.
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
The optimum operating conditions for a conveyor system are mainly determined by the volume of
product to be moved over the conveyor over the lifetime of the conveyor system. As a result conveyors
perform better from a cost per tonne perspective where volumes are large and the lifetime of the
installation is long, typically in the region of 20 years.
Although steep and varying terrain can be overcome when using Troughed Conveyors with various
transfer stations, the less undulating the terrain the better the conveyor will function, and the less capital
infrastructure will be required.
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operational
parameters. The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance, significantly
impact on the selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in the
following sub-paragraphs.
3.1 PRODUCTIVITY AND THROUGHPUTS
Conveyor productivity and throughput is determined by a number of factors such as belt width and belt
speed (Table 1). These in turn affect the drive pulley and subsequent power requirements, which
increases capital and operating costs. In addition, the factors of belt width and speed are continually
being increased in the pursuit of higher productivity.
200
APPENDI X I
Table 1: Recommended Belt Speeds for Belt Widths
Belt Width (mm)
Material and Recommended Belt Speeds (m/s)
Free Flowing
(Grain, etc.)
Run of Mine
Abrasive
Coarse, Lumpy
Fine
300 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.0
450 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5
500 3.0 1.5 1.8 2.0
600 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.5
750 3.6 1.8 2.2 3.0
900 4.0 1.8 2.2 3.0
1,050 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.5
1,200 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.5
1,350 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.5
1,500 5.0 2.3 3.0 4.0
1,800 5.0 2.3 3.0 4.0
2,100 5.0 2.6 3.5 4.5
2,400 5.0 2.6 3.5 4.5
Although Table 1 refers to recommended speeds for various belt widths, belt speeds in excess of 6 m/s
have been utilised. Where in the 1980s a belt throughput of 1,500 t/h on a 1,500 mm belt would have
been considered large, conveyor systems with a capacity of up to 30,000 t/h are now in production.
However, it must be mentioned that the high capacity conveyor systems can operate only over fairly
short lead distances, typically below 10 km.
3.2. FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
Troughed Conveyors have typically been used for
overland conveying. There are numerous examples from
the 1980s of overland conveyors reaching lengths of
approximately 15 km. However, in the 1990s they generally
reached lengths of 24 km.
The longest single flight conveyor, which was commissioned
in 2005, is operating in India, bringing limestone froma mine
to a cement plant in Bangladesh. There are no intermediate
drives or transfers between both end pulleys and the conveyor
has a total length of 16.5 km (see Figure 5).
The importance of increasing the length of single flights is
realised when consideration is given to the worlds longest
belt conveyor of approximately 100 km, operating in Western
201
APPENDI X I
Sahara conveying phosphate from the Bu Craa mine to the coast at El Aain. This conveyor was
commissioned in 1970 and consists of 11 conveyor flights.
It stands to reason that if multiple flights of 17 km are used, the overall conveyor length can be
increased to in excess of 150 km. Refer to Figure 6 for a satellite image of the world's longest conveyor,
with a 2,000 t/h throughput.
4. SYSTEM COSTS
System costs have been developed based on an extensive cost analysis done for three conveyor scenarios, as
well as from supplier inputs and comparative system costings derived from publications. System costs are
affected by the terrain, and the configuration of the loading and offloading points. As a result, the following
assumptions have been made:
Life of equipment has been set at 20 years.
Interest on capital expenditure has been set at 10% per annum.
All costs were based on the average prevailing rates at the time they were made available. The costs were
then inflated to June 2009, as follows:
~ Capital Investment Costs were escalated using the South African PPI inflation index.
~ Operational Costs were escalated using the South African CPI inflation index.
Two throughput scenarios were catered for: 5 and 50 MTPA.
Costs were extrapolated over a total distance of 1,000 km.
202
APPENDI X I
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS
Capital investment costs for Troughed Conveyors include financing costs as discussed in paragraph 4.
Capital costs include a portion of funds allocated to project, engineering and design management
functions, in addition to land acquisition and compensation. The capital costs have been summarised
for both throughput scenarios at various lead distance categories given in Table 2, for Troughed
Conveyors.
Pipe Conveyors costs are approximately 25% higher than those stated below.
Table 2: Capital Expenditure for Troughed Conveyors
Distance (km)
R/t @ Annual Tonnage R/t/km @ Annual Tonnage
5 million 50 million 5 million 50 million
10 7.45 1.34 0.75 0.13
20 12.50 2.25 0.62 0.11
30 17.54 3.16 0.58 0.11
40 22.58 4.07 0.56 0.10
50 27.63 4.97 0.55 0.10
60 32.67 5.88 0.54 0.10
70 37.72 6.79 0.54 0.10
80 42.76 7.70 0.53 0.10
90 47.80 8.60 0.53 0.10
100 52.85 9.51 0.53 0.10
200 103.29 18.59 0.52 0.09
300 153.72 27.67 0.51 0.09
400 204.16 36.75 0.51 0.09
500 254.60 45.83 0.51 0.09
600 305.04 54.91 0.51 0.09
700 355.48 63.99 0.51 0.09
800 405.92 73.07 0.51 0.09
900 456.36 82.14 0.51 0.09
1000 506.80 91.22 0.51 0.09
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The expected system operating and maintenance costs for the Troughed Conveyor System include the
cost for energy, water, materials, supplies, repairs, maintenance, fuels, lubricants, wages and salaries
and all other miscellaneous costs, and is represented in Table 3 below.
203
APPENDI X I
Table 3: Operating Expenditure for Troughed Conveyors
Distance (km)
R/t @ Annual Tonnage R/t/km @ Annual Tonnage
5 million 50 million 5 million 50 million
10 0.68 0.12 0.07 0.01
20 1.29 0.23 0.06 0.01
30 1.90 0.34 0.06 0.01
40 2.52 0.45 0.06 0.01
50 3.13 0.56 0.06 0.01
60 3.74 0.67 0.06 0.01
70 4.36 0.78 0.06 0.01
80 4.97 0.89 0.06 0.01
90 5.59 1.01 0.06 0.01
100 6.20 1.12 0.06 0.01
200 12.34 2.22 0.06 0.01
300 18.48 3.33 0.06 0.01
400 24.61 4.43 0.06 0.01
500 30.75 5.54 0.06 0.01
600 36.89 6.64 0.06 0.01
700 43.03 7.74 0.06 0.01
800 49.17 8.85 0.06 0.01
900 55.30 9.95 0.06 0.01
1000 61.44 11.06 0.06 0.01
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
The transport unit cost for conveyors is dependent on the conveyor characteristics and the transport
distance. This dependency is illustrated in Figure 7.
204
APPENDI X I
205
APPENDI X I
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly
considered in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
Due to the highly automated nature of conveyors in contrast to haulage, the resultant personnel
requirement is low, thereby reducing safety risks. Furthermore, most of the electrical components used
on conveyors are protected via lock-out switches that provide further safety. In addition, over-carriage
protection can be installed, as well as walkways to aid the movement of people around conveyor
structures.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Conveyor systems, similar to road, can be contoured to fit the landscape, offering lower environmental
impacts as conveyor paths can be manipulated to conform to terrain sensitivities, such as stream
crossings. Furthermore, conveyors can be elevated, or subterranean, thereby reducing noise pollution
levels. The most significant impact is that conveyors consume less power (kWh) than most transportation
systems, such as road haulage. This is in part due to the fact that conveyors can generate their own
energy on downhill slopes. Pipe Conveyors offer additional environmental advantages as they
completely contain the material thereby reducing material spillages.
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
The most significant impacts would be the acquisition of land rights for the entire distance of conveyor.
Furthermore, where the conveyor would have to cross roads, railroads and streams, tunnelling and/or
bridging would be required. This in turn could cause inconvenience to the population and possible
disruptions to traffic flow. Due to the low noise levels, there would be a limited effect on residents close
to the conveyor other than scenic disturbance.
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The conveyor system will not have any major anticipated direct economic impact, other than the fact
there are numerous specialist conveyor suppliers in South African, who would benefit from designing,
manufacturing, installing, operating and maintaining a conveyor system. This in turn would increase job
opportunities within these businesses.
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
Both Troughed and, more recently, Pipe Conveyors have found wide-ranging usage over a range of
applications. It should suffice to say that they are commonplace and often the first choice when handling of bulk
materials is considered.
Internationally and locally there are numerous conveyor systems that have been designed and implemented.
Furthermore, most conveyor companies offer a resume of conveyors built and completed. Some of the
conveyors built by two suppliers with a local presence, namely Bateman and ThyssenKrupp Robins, are as
follows:
6.1 BATEMAN
Ingwe's CRUII 14.4 km overland conveyor system conveying 1,800 t/h of coal. The longest section
of 8.9 km utilises a variable-speed drive and has both horizontal and vertical curves.
Zisco Steel's 15.6 km single flight curved overland conveyor transports 500 t/h of blended iron ore
in Zimbabwe.
Saldanha Steel's overland conveyor, 2.6 km, conveying 1,500 t/h at 3.5 m/s.
6.2 THYSSENKRUPP ROBINS
Sasol Secunda, 21.2 km overland conveyor with 2,000 t/h capacity.
Sasol Wonderfontein, 3.5 km conveyor with 900 t/h capacity on 900 mm belt.
A complete list of installation by ThyssenKrupp Robins can be found in Appendix 1.
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
Due to recent strides in conveyor technology, which includes the benefits of distributed power, dynamic analysis,
horizontal and vertical lift angles and mass flow simulation conveyors are becoming increasingly efficient.
Conveyor systems have traditionally offered low transport costs, but require a significant and constant supply of
raw materials. The single biggest challenge for conveyors is to locate the required material supply. The
introduction of merchandising yards to feed large overland conveyors is an area that would require further
research.
8. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
During the research phase, contact was made with two local conveyor manufacturers, namely Bateman and
ThyssenKrupp Robins, already mentioned in paragraph 6. However, due to the long history of conveyor
technology, there are numerous service providers. A comprehensive list of most conveyor suppliers can be
obtained from the Conveyors Equipment Manufacture Association (CEMA). The function of CEMA is, To
promote, among its members and the industry, standardisation of design manufacture and application on a
voluntary basis and in such manner as will not impede development of conveying machinery and component
parts or lessen competition.
206
APPENDI X I
9. REFERENCES
a) Howard L Hartman, SME mining engineering handbook, Volume 1, pg 1350
b) Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association, Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials, 6th Edition, 2nd
Printing, pg 1-15
c) Brad Lawson and Laing O'Rourke, Bulk Materials Handling Efficiency through Advanced Overland
Conveyor Technology, pg 1-16
d) Mark A Alspaugh and Grzegorz Dewicki, Advanced Design Considerations for Overland Aggregate
Conveyors, retrieved from www.overlandconveyor.com, pg 1-10.
e) WAC Smith and GH Spriggs, Long Overland Conveyors, retrieved from
http://www.saimh.co.za/beltcon/beltcon1/paper112.html, pg 1-11
f) http://www.thomasandmuller.com/belt_conveyors.htm
g) http://www.bateman.co.za
h) http://www.batemanengineering.com/TECHNOLOGY/ConveyorSystemsBrochure.pdf
i) http://www.batemanengineering.com/TECHNOLOGY/JapanPipeConveyors%20bro.pdf
j) http://www.krupprobins.com/References/Conveyors/overland.html
k) http://www.krupprobins.com/References/Conveyors/1019-TKR-Ref-CV-Overland-2006.pdf
l) http://books.smenet.org/Surf_Min_2ndEd/sm-ch06-sc05-ss03-bod.cfm
m) http://www.ckit.co.za/
n) http://www.bulk-online.com/forum/
o) MA Alspaugh, Overland Conveyor Co Inc, Latest Developments in Belt Conveyor Technology, presented
at MINExpo 2004
207
APPENDI X I
APPENDIX 1
ThyssenKrupp Robins - Overland Conveyor References
208
APPENDI X I
209
APPENDI X I
210
APPENDI X I
1
APPENDI X J
Aeri al Ropeway Systems
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 214
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 215
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
2.1.1 Loading Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
2.1.2 Towers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
2.1.3 Carriages/Haulage Buckets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
2.1.4 Track Ropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
2.1.5 Haulage Ropes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
2.1.6 Off-loading Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
2.1.7 Transfer Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
2.3 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 218
3.1 CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
4. SYSTEM COST.............................................................................................................. 219
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 225
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
212
APPENDI X J
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 226
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 226
7.1 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER TRANSPORT SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
8. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 227
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 227
10. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 228
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Aerial Ropeway Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Figure 2: Aerial Ropeway Loading Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Figure 3: Aerial Ropeway Towers, Ropes and Carriages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Figure 4: Aerial Ropeway Off-loading Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Figure 5: Aerial Ropeway Crossing Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Figure 6: Aerial Ropeway Unit Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Figure 7: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Aerial Ropeway Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Table 2: Aerial Ropeway Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Table 3: Aerial Ropeway Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Table 4: Aerial Ropeway System Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Table 5: Aerial Ropeway Capital Investment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Table 6: Aerial Ropeway Operating and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Table 7: Aerial Ropeway Unit Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Table 8: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
213
APPENDI X J
1. INTRODUCTION
An Aerial Ropeway is essentially a subtype of cable car, from which bucket containers or passenger cars are
suspended. Aerial Ropeways are operated worldwide with a wide range of application areas, based on specific
requirements. They are usually employed across difficult terrains, where conventional transport is challenging,
such as steep inclines and declines of up to 45 degrees. These systems are used with success to transport bulk
material, unit loads and even passengers, sometimes all on the same system. Figure 1 provides examples of
such systems.
The Aerial Ropeway concept has also been employed for transporting coal via suspended haulage buckets, with
the use of a cabled system. The system consists of one or two fixed cables called track ropes, one loop of cable
called a haulage rope and the carriages or haulage buckets. The fixed cables provide support for the buckets
while the haulage rope, by means of a grip, is solidly connected to the bucket, via the wheel set that rolls on the
track cables. The haulage rope is usually driven by an electric motor and, being connected to the buckets,
moves them up or down the cable way, usually traversing a steep incline or other obstacles.
Aerial Ropeway systems are designed in various configurations, ranging from gondola type systems, which use
several smaller buckets suspended from a circulating looped cable, to jig-back systems, where only two buckets
are in operation, so that effectively one bucket is pulled up an incline, using the other bucket's weight while
moving down the slope. Systems further differ in terms of their bucket design, ranging from fixed-grip
attachments to detachable buckets, which are loaded separately before being reattached to the ropeway.
214
APPENDI X J
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The Aerial Ropeway systems have almost limitless application possibilities for the transportation of any type of
bulk material between two points. Systems are usually individually designed for a specific application, and two
or more systems can be operated in parallel to increase throughput. The following sections describe the basic
system components in more detail.
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The Aerial Ropeway systemconsists of seven major components: loading terminals, towers, carriages or
haulage buckets, track ropes, haulage ropes, offloading terminals and transfer stations. These
components can be expanded upon as follows:
2.1.1 Loading Terminal
Loading terminals are normally configured to load bulk materials via hoppers and chutes, as indicated
in Figure 2. Two types of loading configurations are employed:
a) Stationary Loading
The carriages or buckets are detached from the ropeway and loaded while stationary. Once
loaded, the buckets are then reattached to the ropeway, while moving.
b) In Transit Loading
The carriages or buckets are filled while the ropeway moves around a loading loop.
215
APPENDI X J
2.1.2 Towers
Several types of towers are used to suspend the
cables above the ground, based on the specific
requirements of the system. The most common
tower configuration is similar to the pylons used
for high voltage electricity transmission, as shown
in Figure 3.
2.1.3 Carriages / Haulage Buckets
Carriages or haulage buckets are customdesigned
for specific bulk transport application in order to
efficiently transport the material type, as well as to
integrate with the loading and off-loading systems.
Most carriages are designed as side-tipping units (Figure 3), or bottom-dumping units.
2.1.4 Track Ropes
Track ropes are the suspended cables that are used to support the weight of the load, as indicated in
Figure 3.
2.1.5 Haulage Ropes
Haulage ropes are connected to the buckets, normally via the wheel sets that roll on the track ropes.
These haulage ropes are normally driven by an electric motor via a pulley system, which moves the
buckets up or down the cable way, as can be seen in Figure 3.
2.1.6 Offloading Terminals
Offloading terminals are configured to rapidly
decant the transported bulk materials via side
tipping buckets (Figure 4) or bottom dumping
buckets.
2.1.7 Transfer Stations
Ropeway systems are designed to operate across
maximum distances of around 10 to 15 km,
depending on the slope and the required material
transfer rate. For transport lead distances longer
than this, transfer stations are employed to transfer
the loaded buckets from one segment of the
ropeway to the following section while moving.
This in effect means that the ropeway system can be infinitely long.
216
APPENDI X J
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
The Aerial Ropeway system provides the advantages given in Table 1.
Table 1: Aerial Ropeway Advantages
No. Advantage Description
1 Minimises transport lead
distance
Because the system can cross obstacles and traverse steep inclines, it
can be erected across the shortest possible distance between two
points.
2 Minimal intrusion Towers are erected between 100 and 1,500 m apart, and are the
only footprint on the ground.
3 Simplified crossings Through the suspended cables, obstacles such as mountains, rivers,
public roads and even settlements can be easily crossed and can be
done so cost effectively (Figure 5).
4 Simplified operating and
maintenance procedures
The Aerial Ropeway system is fully automated, which dramatically
simplifies the operating and maintenance requirements.
5 Reduced operating costs Due to the limited friction between the wheels and cables, the system
requires very little energy, which reduces the operating costs.
6 Cost effective medium
distance transport
Due to the capital required for the loading and offloading stations,
the system becomes competitive only over lead distances of longer
than 10 km.
7 Transport via steep inclines The system is capable of functioning effectively on very steep inclines
of up to 45 degrees.
Figure 5 shows the small footprint of an Aerial Ropeway tower when crossing a settlement.
217
APPENDI X J
2.3 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
The Aerial Ropeway system presents the disadvantages given in Table 2.
Table 2: Aerial Ropeway Disadvantages
No. Disadvantage Description
1 Uneconomical at short
distances
Due to the capital required for the loading and offloading stations,
the system becomes uncompetitive at lead distances of less than
approximately 8 km.
2 Uneconomical at low
volumes
Because of the initial capital investment, as well as the continuous
transport mechanism, the system becomes uneconomical for low
volume transport.
3 Not ideal for short contract
periods
Due to the initial capital required, the system becomes uneconomical
at contract periods shorter than approximately 10 years.
4 Not ideal for flat terrain In cases where the terrain is relatively flat, where there are no
obstacles to cross and the land belongs to the mine or customer,
conventional transport methods are generally more economical.
5 Relatively unknown in South
Africa
Although there are more than 13,000 Aerial Ropeways installed
worldwide, this technology is relatively unknown in South Africa.
6 Relative complexity of land
rights negotiations
Over long distances it would be relatively complex to obtain permission
from land owners to erect towers on different pieces of land, but it
would be markedly simpler than obtaining full land ownership.
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Unlike most conventional transport modes, the Aerial Ropeway system is ideally suited to the following
conditions:
Where multiple obstacles need to be crossed, such as mountains, rivers, public roads, forests,
buildings or settlements.
Where the land rights are expensive or difficult to obtain for the entire length of the lead distance.
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operational
parameters. The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance, have a
significant impact on selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in the
following sub-paragraphs:
3.1 CAPACITY
The maximum achievable throughput capacity of the Aerial Ropeway system is difficult to quantify and
depends on various factors, including transport lead distance, slopes, loading and offloading
requirements, material density and coal characteristics, to name a few.
218
APPENDI X J
However, research has indicated that in South Africa all systems are designed according to SABS 0148
(1979) - Design of Aerial Ropeways and Guidelines OITAF Standards. Table 3 provides some further
typical design criteria.
Table 3: Aerial Ropeway Design Criteria
No. Design Criteria Range
1 Typical span lengths between towers 100 to 1,500 m
2 Average speed 4 m/s
3 Maximum single bucket load 40 t
4 Maximum line inclination 45 degrees
5 Maximum single conveying length 10 to 15 km
6 Maximum assumed rope sag 5%
7 Minimum ground clearance 3 m
8 Average availability 90 to 95%
9 Average utilisation 99% of available time
Based on the generally accepted design criteria described in Table 3, the following throughput rates
are achievable:
Maximum throughput per single installation: 5 MTPA
Maximum throughput per two parallel installations: 10 MTPA.
It is thus conceivable that additional, parallel systems can be implemented until the required throughput
rate is achieved. However, it should be noted that the generally accepted maximum throughput rate is
approximately 1,500 t/h.
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
Ropeway systems are designed to operate across a maximum distance of approximately 10 to 15 km,
depending on the slope and the required material transfer rate. For transport lead distances longer than
this, transfer stations are employed to carry the loaded buckets from one segment of the ropeway to the
following section, while moving. This effectively means that the Aerial Ropeway system can be infinitely
long.
4. SYSTEM COST
Based on the custom built nature of the Aerial Ropeway system, which is dependent on the throughput
requirements, the typography of the terrain and the transport distance, the system cost is calculated accordingly.
To present some guideline figures, the following cost estimates are based on the design criteria in Table 4.
219
APPENDI X J
Table 4: Aerial Ropeway System Design Criteria
Design Element Value Unit
Average throughput per hour 670 t/hr
Average throughput per month 416,667 t/month
Average throughput per annum 5,000,000 t/annum
Average operating days per month 30 days
Average operating hours per day 22 hours
Approximate system availability 95 %
Lead distance 40 km
System design life 15 years
Throughput over total life of system 75,000,000 t
Effective interest rate 12 %
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
The capital investment cost for an Aerial Ropeway systemincludes the loading terminal, towers, carriages,
the ropeway, off-loading terminal and transfer stations, if the lead distance is longer than 10 to 15 km.
However, the capital costs do not include land rights negotiations, property ownership, servitudes or
access rights. All these elements vary significantly, depending on the geographical area and the terrain
and these will all obviously influence the capital costs.
Because of the significant variance, Table 5 summarises only the total capital cost over distance.
Table 5: Aerial Ropeway Capital Investment Costs
Distance (km) CapEx (R) Rate (R/km) Rate (R/t)
5 68,000,000 13,600,000 0.91
10 123,000,000 12,300,000 1.64
20 233,000,000 11,650,000 3.11
40 453,000,000 11,325,000 6.04
50 563,000,000 11,260,000 7.51
75 838,000,000 11,173,333 11.17
100 1,113,000,000 11,130,000 14.84
From Table 5 it is evident that the described 40 km Aerial Ropeway system will cost R453 million to
erect, which equates to R11.3 million/km. Over various distance intervals, the average capital cost
equates to R11.5 million, with a standard deviation of approximately R600,000.
220
APPENDI X J
However, it should be noted that the loading and offloading stations have a significant impact on the
total system cost, which decreases the attractiveness of the system over short distances. Equally, for
distances longer than 10 to 15 km, depending on the terrain, additional transfer stations need to be
included, which adds further incremental charges.
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operating and maintenance costs for an Aerial Ropeway system include electricity charges, labour
and standard system maintenance. Table 6 summarises maintenance costs over various distances.
Table 6: Aerial Ropeway Operating and Maintenance Costs
Distance (km) OpEx (R) Rate (R/km) Rate (R/t)
5 283,605,547 56,721,109 3.78
10 493,438,868 49,343,886 6.58
20 847,747,677 42,387,383 11.30
40 1,441,779,195 36,044,479 19.22
50 1,707,156,083 34,143,121 22.76
75 2,314,750,751 30,863,343 30.86
100 2,867,063,622 28,670,636 38.23
Table 6 shows that the described 40 km Aerial Ropeway system has operating and maintenance costs
of approximately R19.22/t. Over various distance intervals, these costs decrease exponentially as the
distance increases.
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
It was indicated in the previous paragraphs that the installation cost for the example system is R11.3
million/km, while the average operating cost is R19.22/t. The system is further designed with a
theoretical life expectancy of 15 years, at an effective interest rate of 12%. Taking all these elements into
consideration, the transport unit cost of the described Aerial Ropeway system equates to R25.26/t for
the described configuration, transporting approximately 5 MTPA, as indicated in Table 7.
Table 7: Aerial Ropeway Unit Cost
Distance (km) CapEx (R/t)
OpEx & Maint
(R/t)
Total (R/t)
Unit Cost
(R/t/km)
1 0.60 0.67 1.27 1.27
2 0.67 1.63 2.29 1.15
5 0.91 4.09 5.00 1.00
10 1.64 7.37 9.01 0.90
15 2.37 10.35 12.72 0.85
20 3.11 13.14 16.24 0.81
221
APPENDI X J
Distance (km) CapEx (R/t)
OpEx & Maint
(R/t)
Total (R/t)
Unit Cost
(R/t/km)
30 4.57 18.36 22.93 0.76
40 6.04 23.24 29.28 0.73
50 7.51 27.89 35.40 0.71
60 8.97 32.36 41.33 0.69
70 10.44 36.68 47.12 0.67
80 11.91 40.87 52.78 0.66
90 13.37 44.96 58.34 0.65
100 14.84 48.96 63.80 0.64
150 22.17 67.88 90.05 0.60
200 29.51 85.49 115.00 0.58
Figure 6 shows that the total cost is dominated by the initial loading and offloading subsystem cost and
that the transfer station cost then has a significant impact thereafter. This means that when the distance
is short, little savings can be achieved by using shorter ropeways, so whether the coal is transported for a
distance of 5 or 1 km, it makes little difference to the total and unit costs. However, the transport unit
cost is highly dependent on the ropeway characteristics
It should also be noted that the costs associated with land rights, ownership and access are relatively
low with this type of technology, as it generally only requires servitudes, similar to those negotiated for
electricity lines. Essentially all that is required is a 10 m wide servitude for the length of the ropeway,
which can generally be purchased at prevailing market rates. The owners of the land will be able to
continue operating beneath the ropeway, with the exception of the areas where the towers are erected.
It has been found that the influence of land rights costs are generally less than 1% of the total capital
costs of a project.
222
APPENDI X J
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The total transport unit cost is heavily influenced not only by lead distance, but also by annual
throughput. If the throughput increases and the same physical infrastructure is capable of handling the
increased volumes, the unit cost decreases because the fixed capital cost is shared by a larger volume of
material. To illustrate this concept, three scenarios were identified to show the transport unit cost at
throughputs of 1, 5 and 50 MTPA. The transport unit costs for these scenarios were then calculated at a
20 year design life and a 10% effective interest rate, which is slightly different from the costs in the
previous sections.
However, when decreasing the throughput to 1 MTPA, the bulk of the capital cost remains unchanged,
due to the investment in towers, cables, loading and offloading stations, and the cars themselves.
However, smaller towers, thinner cables and fewer cars would be required, which reduce the capital
costs somewhat. In relation, the operating expenses would also reduce proportionally due to the
decreased energy requirements, as well as reduced labour and maintenance.
When increasing the annual throughput to 50 MTPA, there is a substantial increase in costs, because
the Aerial Ropeway systems are not inherently designed for large volumes of material. Essentially 5
MTPA is the optimum throughput rate for these systems and increased throughputs will require parallel
lines in multiples of 5 MTPA throughput per line.
Table 8 summarises the transport unit cost, across distances ranging from 1 to 200 km.
Table 8: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates
Distance (km) 1 MTPA (R/t/km) 5 MTPA (R/t/km) 50 MTPA (R/t/km)
1 3.43 1.14 1.14
2 3.22 1.07 1.07
3 3.08 1.03 1.03
4 2.97 0.99 0.99
5 2.88 0.96 0.96
6 2.80 0.93 0.93
7 2.74 0.91 0.91
8 2.69 0.90 0.90
9 2.64 0.88 0.88
10 2.60 0.87 0.87
20 2.34 0.78 0.78
30 2.19 0.73 0.73
40 2.10 0.70 0.70
50 2.03 0.68 0.68
60 1.97 0.66 0.66
70 1.92 0.64 0.64
80 1.88 0.63 0.63
223
APPENDI X J
Distance (km) 1 MTPA (R/t/km) 5 MTPA (R/t/km) 50 MTPA (R/t/km)
90 1.85 0.62 0.62
100 1.82 0.61 0.61
200 1.63 0.54 0.54
300 1.53 0.51 0.51
400 1.46 0.49 0.49
500 1.41 0.47 0.47
600 1.37 0.46 0.46
700 1.33 0.44 0.44
800 1.31 0.44 0.44
900 1.28 0.43 0.43
1,000 1.26 0.42 0.42
The relative difference in unit costs is graphically depicted in Figure 7 below.
It is clear that Aerial Ropeways become prohibitively expensive at very low volumes and that the
optimum application of the technology is found around the designed maximum throughput rate of
approximately 5 MTPA and multiples thereof. For this reason, the unit cost at 50 MTPA is identical to
that of the 5 MTPA and this will always be the case at full multiples of 5 MTPA, because essentially
various systems are run in parallel and as the costs multiply, so does the volume, which keeps the unit
costs constant.
224
APPENDI X J
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly
considered in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
The Aerial Ropeway system has a positive health and safety impact, due to the following issues:
a) No Dust Emissions
Carriages can be covered with lids to prevent coal dust from escaping.
b) No Noise Pollution
Due to the wheel-on-rope transport mechanism, very low noise levels are achieved away from the
loading and off-loading facilities.
c) Increased Operator and Public Safety
No rope breakage has been reported worldwide for the past 10 years, which statistically makes
this an unlikely event.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Aerial Ropeway system has a very low impact on the environment, due to the following issues:
a) Reduced Pollution
The system uses electricity and there are thus no direct fuel emissions.
b) Simplified Rehabilitation
The system has a very small footprint, comparable to Eskom power lines. At the end of a system
lifespan, the environment can easily be rehabilitated to its original state simply by removing the towers.
c) Visual Intrusion
When compared to more conventional transport such as road, rail or conveyor, Aerial Ropeways
generally have a much lower environmental impact, with the biggest impact being the visual
intrusion of the system.
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Compared to most medium to long distance transport technologies, the Aerial Ropeway system will
have a less significant social impact, based on the following:
a) Limited Effect on Communities
Due to the low noise levels and the fact that the system has a very small footprint, it will have a very
limited effect on residents close to the Aerial Ropeway.
225
APPENDI X J
b) Land Rights
The Aerial Ropeway does not require the acquisition of full land rights and ownership for the entire
distance of the ropeway, but only a 10 m wide servitude, similar to that required for high voltage
electricity lines. This allows land owners to continue with their operations, farming or otherwise,
below the ropeway, except for the areas where the towers are erected. Furthermore, the system
only requires maintenance access to the ropeway, which access should be mainly by 4x4 vehicles.
c) Crossings
The Aerial Ropeway system was specifically designed to alleviate the inconvenience and costs
associated with crossing rivers, roads, railroads and other obstacles.
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Aerial Ropeway system will not have any major anticipated direct economic impact, since it will
operate as a closed loop and dedicated system. However, the following minor benefits are expected:
a) Local Production Capability
There are specialist South African based companies capable of designing, manufacturing,
installing, operating and maintaining Aerial Ropeway systems.
b) Job Creation Opportunities
An implemented ropeway system will require one operator per shift, at each loading and
offloading station, as well as an extended maintenance crew.
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
Aerial Ropeway transport is a very old and well established technology that is used worldwide in various
applications. It is estimated that there are more than 13,000 Aerial Ropeway installations around the world, and
that industrial ropeways account for approximately 10% of the total number of ropeway systems in use.
From a South African perspective, Fairview Mine near Barberton operates a 27 km Aerial Ropeway system
producing around 150,000 t/annum. The system is now about 50 years old. It is interesting to note that the
Havelock Ropeway system (also near Barberton) built in the 1930s but now defunct, was the largest Aerial
Ropeway system in the world at the time.
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
The design parameters, advantages and cost effectiveness, within specific applications, of Aerial Ropeways is well
established and widely published. However, it is clear that further research is required, based on the following:
7.1 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
The Aerial Ropeway system is an ideal system to link into an existing transport infrastructure where
certain connections within the supply chain are missing. It could be used, for example, to link two rail
226
APPENDI X J
sidings on opposite banks of a river or to link a heavy haul rail line with a destination where no
secondary rail line exists. This integrative approach and the applicability of Aerial Ropeways in such
applications, needs further research.
8. CONCLUSION
The investigation into Aerial Ropeways revealed that the system was specifically developed to address certain
shortcomings in conventional transport solutions, predominantly to provide a cost effective way of crossing
obstacles such as mountains, rivers, roads, railway lines, forests and settlements. In particular, the Aerial
Ropeway technology is superior to most other technologies in transporting people and material up and down
steep inclines, such as mountains, or even out of open cast mining pits.
The downside to the technology is that the initial capital investment is relatively high, and, therefore the system
requires a life expectancy of at least 10 years, with a high product volume and a significant cost benefit realised
for transport distances above 8 km. When faced with a transport requirement over a relatively flat terrain, with
few obstacles and where most of the crossed land is owned or accessible, other transport options become more
economical than Aerial Ropeways.
Apart from the obvious advantageous application areas described above, Aerial Ropeways are perfectly placed
to play a crucial part in a multimodal and fully integrated coal supply chain. The technology could be
successfully applied to breach the gap between other transport modes in specific cases where existing
infrastructures need to be linked with minimal cost to cross obstructions, or to transport coal over medium
distances into the final destinations from hubs or coal pantries.
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
The following companies are actively involved with Aerial Ropeways and contributed to this research:
a) Kuka Mining Logistics
Louis van der Walt
Mobile: +27 82 949 2333
Fax: +27 86 521 2230
Email: louis@kmls.co.za
Company Web: www.kmls.co.za
b) REM Construction Consultants
(REM represents Doppelmayr Transport Systems of Austria)
William L. Robinson
Tell: +27 11 781 3066
Mobile: +27 82 555 0498
Fax: +27 11 781 3067
Email: willr@remcons.co.za
Company Web: www.remcons.co.za
227
APPENDI X J
10. REFERENCES
a) Doppelmayr (2009). Material Ropeways. Retrieved: 6 August 2009, Available from:
http://www.doppelmayr.com/default.php?lid=2&frs=210
b) Wikipedia (2009). Aerial Tramway. Retrieved: 6 August 2009, Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_tramway
c) Van der Walt L (2009). Industrial Aerial Ropeways. Presentation provided by Kuka Mining Logistics,
Date: 6 August 2009.
228
APPENDI X J
1
APPENDI X K
Rope Conveyor Systems
1. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 232
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 233
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.1.1 Loading Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.1.2 Towers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.1.3 Head Pulley/ Driving Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.1.4 Tail Pulley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
2.1.5 Belt and Wheel Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2.1.6 Track Ropes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2.1.7 Off-loading Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2.1.8 Transfer Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2.1.9 Roof Coverings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2.3 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 238
3.1 CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4. SYSTEM COST.............................................................................................................. 239
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 244
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
5.4. ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
230
APPENDI X K
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE........................................................................................... 246
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 246
8. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 246
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 247
10. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 247
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: RopeCon Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Figure 2: RopeCon System - Monopole Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Figure 3: RopeCon System - Tail Pulley and Off-loading Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Figure 4: RopeCon System - Belt and Wheel Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Figure 5: RopeCon System - Crossing Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Figure 6: RopeCon System - Maintenance Trolley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Figure 7: RopeCon Unit Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Figure 8: RopeCon Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: RopeCon System Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Table 2: RopeCon Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Table 3: RopeCon Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Table 4: Ropecon - System Design Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Table 5: Aerial Ropeway Capital Investment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Table 6: Ropecon Operating and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Table 7: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
231
APPENDI X K
1. BACKGROUND
The RopeCon System, which is based on the concept of Ropeway Conveyors, was developed by the Austrian
company Doppelmayr and is currently the market leader. It is a suspended, long distance, continuous conveyor
system suitable for the transportation of bulk materials and unit loads of any kind. RopeCon Systems are
operated worldwide with a wide range of application areas, based on specific requirements. They are usually
employed across difficult terrain, where conventional transport is challenging, such as steep inclines and
declines, or where obstacles need to be crossed cost effectively. These bulk transport systems, depicted in
Figure 1, are used with great success.
In laymen's terms, the RopeCon System can be described as a continuous conveyor system in the air, running on
ropes. However, a very significant difference between conventional conveyors and the RopeCon Systemis that in
conventional conveyors the belt itself moves over a series of rollers, whereas in the RopeCon System, movement
is obtained by attaching the conveyor belt to a wheel set and the wheels then roll across the static suspended
232
APPENDI X K
ropes, much like rail cars on tracks. The RopeCon belt also differs fromconventional conveyor belts in that it has
built up, corrugated sides, which provide a channel-like shape, as apposed to a flat surface.
RopeCon systems are designed in various configurations, depending on the requirements of the specific
application. Systems differ in terms of their belt design, the inclination of the terrain, the tower designs,
conveyance speeds and throughput rate.
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The RopeCon System has almost limitless application possibilities for the transport of any type of bulk material
between two points. Systems are usually individually designed for a specific application, but the basic system
configuration normally remains constant.
2.1 SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The RopeCon System consists of eight major components: loading terminals, towers, head
pulley/driving station, tail pulley, belt and wheel sets, track ropes, offloading terminals, transfer stations
and optional roof coverings. These components can be expanded upon as follows:
2.1.1 Loading Terminals
Loading terminals are normally configured to load bulk materials via hoppers and chutes, similar to
conventional conveyor systems.
2.1.2 Towers
Several types of towers are used to suspend
the RopeCon System above the ground,
based on the weight and height requirements
of the system. Towers range from designs
similar to the pylons used for high voltage
electricity transmission lines to monopole
configurations, as indicated in Figure 2.
2.1.3 Head Pulley/Driving Station
The head pulley is very similar to conventional
conveyor systems, where the belt is drawn
over a large barrel which is turned via an
electric motor, and the friction between the
barrel and the belt causes the movement of
the belt.
233
APPENDI X K
2.1.4 Tail Pulley
The tail pulley is located at the other end of the RopeCon Systemand is similar to the head pulley, except
that it is not driven. The tensioning of the belt is achieved through the tail pulley.
The RopeCon System is unique in that the tail pulley can be moved to any position on the suspended
cableway, which effectively means that the system length can be adjusted and the offloading position
can be changed by moving the tail pulley. This is illustrated in Figure 3.
Another unique aspect of the RopeCon System is that the tail pulley configuration twists the belt through
180 degrees after offloading, which ensures that the "dirty" side of the belt always travels on top, thus
minimising any spillage and dust pollution. This can be seen in the blue portion of the systemin Figure 3.
234
APPENDI X K
2.1.5 Belt and Wheel Sets
The system employs a standard conveyor belt, with corrugated side walls attached to the belt, giving it
the channel-like shape seen in Figure 4. Side wall heights can be as high as 40 cm. Furthermore, the
wheel sets are bolted onto the top/outside of the conveyor belt, thus ensuring that the belt runs flush
against the head and tail pulleys at both ends. The attached wheel sets run on top of the suspended
cables, similar to train wheels on train tracks.
2.1.6 Track Ropes
Track ropes are the suspended cables that are used to support the weight of the load, as shown above.
2.1.7 Offloading Terminal
Offloading terminals are configured to rapidly decant the bulk material in a manner similar to that of
conventional conveyors as featured in Figure 3. This gravity tipping methodology is easily integrated
with current silo systems or other existing offloading terminals.
2.1.8 Transfer Stations
RopeCon Systems are designed to operate across a maximum distance of approximately 20 to 25 km,
depending on the slope and the required material transfer rate. For longer transport lead distances,
transfer stations are employed to transfer the material from one belt segment of the system to the
following section, while moving. This means that the ropeway system can be infinitely long.
235
APPENDI X K
2.1.9 Roof Coverings
In certain applications it is advisable to provide the RopeCon System with a roof and side covers to
protect the bulk material fromthe elements. The covers will also prevent spillage and minimise potential
pollution. In such cases, custom-made coverings are attached around the belts and wheel sets.
2.2 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
RopeCon Systems provide the advantages listed in Table 1.
Table 1: RopeCon System Advantages
No. Advantage Description
1 Minimises transport lead
distances
Because the system can cross obstacles and traverse steep inclines,
it can be erected across the shortest possible distance between two
points.
2 Minimal space,
structures and intrusion
Towers are erected between 1,000 and 2,600 m apart, and are the
only footprint on the ground.
3 Simplified crossings Through the suspended cables, obstacles such as mountains, rivers,
public roads and even settlements can easily and cost effectively be
crossed (Figure 5).
4 Simplified operating and
maintenance procedures
The system is fully automated, which dramatically simplifies the
operating and maintenance requirements. In addition, no
maintenance platforms are required, since maintenance crews are
transported via carriages (Figure 6).
5 Reduced operating costs Due to the limited friction between the wheels and cables, the
system requires very little energy, which reduces the operating costs.
6 Low noise factor Because the system runs on turning wheels, the noise levels are
extremely low.
7 Can traverse steep
inclines
The system is capable of functioning effectively at very steep inclines
of up to 65 degrees.
8 No belt skewing Because the belt is guided by the wheels, no belt skewing occurs,
as is the case with conventional conveyors.
9 Operates in strong winds The system has been tested to provide 100% availability at wind
speeds of up to 130 km/h.
10 Generates electricity Possibly the biggest benefit of the RopeCon system is that it is
capable of generating electricity through the tail pulley system,
when the loaded belt travels downhill.
236
APPENDI X K
237
APPENDI X K
2.3 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
The RopeCon System presents the disadvantages listed in Table 2.
Table 2: RopeCon Disadvantages
No.
Advantage Description
1 Uneconomical at
short distances
Due to the capital required for the loading and offloading stations, the
system becomes uncompetitive at short lead distances.
2 Uneconomical at low
volumes
Because of the initial capital investment, as well as the continuous
transport mechanism, the system is uneconomical for low volume
transport.
3 Not ideal for short
contract periods
Due to the initial capital required, the system is uneconomical for
contract periods shorter than approximately 10 years.
4 Not ideal for flat
terrain
In cases where the terrain is relatively flat, there are no obstacles to cross
and the land belongs to the mine or customer, conventional transport
methods are generally more economical.
5 Relatively unknown in
South Africa
Although there are more than 13,800 Ropeway Systems installed
worldwide, the technology is relatively unknown in South Africa.
2.4 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Unlike most conventional transport modes, the RopeCon Systems are ideal for the following conditions:
Where multiple obstacles need to be crossed, such as mountains, rivers, public roads, forests,
buildings or settlements.
Where the land rights are expensive or difficult to obtain for the entire length of the lead distance.
Where the throughput rate and product volumes are high.
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operational
parameters. The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance,
significantly impact on the selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in
the following sub-paragraphs:
3.1 CAPACITY
The maximum achievable throughput capacity of the RopeCon System is difficult to quantify and
depends on various factors, including transport lead distances, slopes, belt speeds, loading and
offloading requirements, material density and coal characteristics.
238
APPENDI X K
However, the research has indicated that all systems are designed and manufactured according to the
strictest local and European standards. Table 3 provides some typical design criteria.
Table 3: RopeCon Design Criteria
No. Design Criteria Range
1 Typical span lengths between towers 1,000 to 2,600 m
2 Average speed Up to 8 m/s
3 Maximum conveying capacity 10,000 to 20,000 t/h
4 Maximum line inclination 65 degrees
5 Maximum single conveying length 20 to 25 km
6 Maximum vertical rise per section 1,000 m
7 Belt type EP or Steel Cord
8 Average availability 90 to 95%
9 Maximum lump size 600 mm
Based on the generally accepted design criteria above, the system manufacturers indicate that
throughput rates of below 10,000 t/h are best, but that the rate can be increased to 20,000 t/h under
ideal conditions.
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
RopeCon Systems are designed to operate across a maximum distance of approximately 20 to 25 km,
depending on the slope and the required material transfer rate. For transport lead distances longer than
this, transfer stations are employed to transfer the bulk material between belt segments. This means that
the RopeCon System can be infinitely long.
4. SYSTEM COST
Based on the custom-built nature of the RopeCon System, which depends on the throughput requirements, the
typography of the terrain and the transport distance, the system cost is calculated accordingly. In addition, some
systems are capable of producing their own electricity, which reduces the overall cost. There are at present no
installations in South Africa and costs for installations in other countries are not readily available. This makes it
exceedingly difficult to obtain an accurate cost indication for the system.
To present some guideline figures, the following cost estimates are based on the limited figures that were
obtained from an implemented system in Jamaica, as well as a few quotations for the installation of local
systems. Where possible, available data was used to standardise on the design criteria listed in Table 4.
239
APPENDI X K
Table 4: Ropecon System Design Criteria
Design Element Value Unit
Average throughput per hour 2,500 t/h
Average throughput per month 1,6700,000 t/month
Average throughput per annum 20,000,000 t/annum
Average operating days per month 30 days
Average operating hours per day 22 hours
Approximate system availability 95 %
Lead distance 51 km
System design lifespan 20 years
Throughput over total life of system 400,000,000 t
Effective interest rate 10 %
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
If the lead distance is longer than 20 to 25 km, the capital investment cost for a RopeCon System
includes the loading terminal, towers, belts and wheel sets, the ropeway, offloading terminal and
transfer stations. All these elements vary significantly, depending on the terrain, and do not include costs
for land rights, servitudes, access roads, extraordinary civil works, transfer of the goods to the site, duties
and taxes, site establishment fees, site services, equipment hiring costs and/or power supply costs.
Because of these significant variances, Table 5 summarises only the estimated total capital cost over
distance.
Table 5: Aerial Ropeway Capital Investment Costs
Distance (km) Basic CapEx (R) Basic Rate (R/km)
Rate (R/km), Incl.
10% Finance Charge
1 39,700,000 39,700,000 91,947,262
5 198,500,000 39,700,000 91,947,262
10 366,380,000 36,638,000 84,855,511
20 722,700,000 36,135,000 83,690,537
30 1,142,370,000 38,079,000 88,192,942
40 1,558,120,000 38,953,000 90,217,172
50 1,663,800,000 33,276,000 77,068,945
100 3,442,800,000 34,428,000 79,737,036
200 6,418,200,000 32,091,000 74,324,423
From Table 5 it can be deduced that the described 51 km RopeCon system will cost approximately
R1,351 million to erect, which equates to R26.5 million/km.
240
APPENDI X K
Over various distance intervals, the basic average capital cost equates to approximately R27
million/km, with a standard deviation of approximately R13.2 million/km.
However, it should be noted that the basic infrastructure, consisting of the loading terminal, towers,
belts and wheel sets, the ropeway and offloading terminal have a significant impact on the total system
cost, which decreases the attractiveness of the system over short distances. Equally, for distances longer
than 20 to 25 km, depending on the terrain, additional transfer stations need to be included, which
adds further incremental charges.
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operating and maintenance costs for a RopeCon System include electricity charges, labour and
standard system maintenance. However, as is the case with the capital cost, these costs are heavily
dependent on the specific installation and are not readily available.
Table 6 summarises the estimated maintenance cost over various distances, for the same system
described under the previous sections.
Table 6: Ropecon Operating and Maintenance Costs
Distance (km)
Total OpEx &
Maintenance (R)
Rate(R/annum) Rate(R/t)
1 2,339,600,000 116,980,000 5.85
5 2,898,000,000 144,900,000 7.25
10 3,596,000,000 179,800,000 8.99
20 4,992,000,000 249,600,000 12.48
30 6,388,000,000 319,400,000 15.97
40 7,784,000,000 389,200,000 19.46
50 9,180,000,000 459,000,000 22.95
100 16,160,000,000 808,000,000 40.40
200 30,120,000,000 1,506,000,000 75.30
Table 6 shows that the prescribed 51 km RopeCon System has an operating and maintenance cost of
approximately R23.30/t. Over various distance intervals, the operations and maintenance cost
increases in a near linear relationship as the distance increases.
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
As indicated previously, detailed costing for the RopeCon System is not readily available. However, it
was possible to construct the per unit cost curve shown in Figure 7, which roughly estimates the unit
transport rate in R/t over distance, for the described system with a throughput of 20 million metric
tonnes per annum (MTPA).
241
APPENDI X K
From Figure 7 it is evident that the total cost is dominated by the up-front capital investment required,
which makes the system more suitable for medium distances. At a lead distance of approximately 5 km,
the transport unit cost equates to 1.68 R/t/km, while the same cost at 51 km equates to approximately
0.66 R/t/km.
It should be noted that the transport unit cost could be improved by increasing the throughput rate or by
having the system generating electricity on downward slopes. However, significant further research is
required before any real certainty can be obtained around the capital, operational and maintenance
costs of the RopeCon System.
4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The total transport unit cost is heavily influenced not only by the lead distance, but also by the annual
throughput. If the throughput increases and the same physical infrastructure is capable of handling the
increased volumes, the unit cost decreases because the fixed capital cost is shared by a larger volume of
material. To illustrate this concept, three scenarios were identified to show the transport unit cost at 1, 5
and 50 MTPA throughputs, respectively.
When decreasing the throughput to 1 MTPA, the bulk of the capital cost remains unchanged, due to the
investment in towers, cables, belts, wheel sets, loading and offloading terminals, and the drive
mechanism. However, smaller towers, thinner cables and a narrower belt would be required, which
reduces the capital cost somewhat. In relation, the operating expenses would also reduce proportionally
due to the decreased energy requirements, as well as reduced labour and maintenance charges.
When increasing the annual throughput to 50 MTPA, there is not a substantial increase in costs,
because the RopeCon System is inherently designed for large volume transfers of material. Therefore,
the majority of the capital infrastructure remains the same, with a marginal increase in costs due to the
carrying capacity of the cables and towers increasing, as well as a wider belt being employed.
242
APPENDI X K
Table 7 summarises the transport unit cost, across distances ranging from 1 to 1,000 km, for the three
defined scenarios.
Table 7: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates
Distance (km) 1 MTPA(R/t/km) 5 MTPA(R/t/km) 50 MTPA (R/t/km)
1 72.95 15.81 2.95
2 39.95 8.66 1.63
3 28.95 6.27 1.19
4 23.45 5.08 0.97
5 20.15 4.37 0.83
6 17.63 3.82 0.73
7 16.21 3.51 0.67
8 15.19 3.29 0.64
9 14.05 3.04 0.59
10 13.33 2.89 0.56
20 9.86 2.14 0.42
30 8.95 1.94 0.38
40 8.23 1.78 0.35
50 8.13 1.76 0.35
60 8.03 1.74 0.35
70 7.73 1.68 0.34
80 7.42 1.61 0.32
90 7.51 1.63 0.33
100 7.55 1.64 0.33
200 6.72 1.46 0.29
300 6.40 1.39 0.28
400 6.32 1.37 0.27
500 6.55 1.42 0.28
600 6.42 1.39 0.28
700 6.42 1.39 0.28
800 6.30 1.37 0.27
900 6.45 1.40 0.28
1,000 6.42 1.39 0.28
243
APPENDI X K
The relative difference in unit costs is graphically depicted in Figure 8 below.
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly
considered in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
The RopeCon System has a positive health and safety impact, due to the following issues:
a) No Dust Emissions
Systems can be covered to prevent coal dust from escaping.
b) No Noise Pollution
Due to the wheel on rope transport mechanism, very low noise levels are achieved away from the
loading facilities.
c) Increased Operator the Public Safety
No rope breakage was reported worldwide for the past 10 years, which statistically makes this an
unlikely event.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The RopeCon System has a very low impact on the environment, due to the following issues:
244
APPENDI X K
a) Reduced Pollution
The system uses electricity and, therefore, there are no direct fuel emissions.
b) Simplified Rehabilitation
The system has a footprint comparable to Eskom power lines. At the end of the system's lifespan,
removing the towers will restore the environment to its original state.
c) Visual Intrusion
When compared to more conventional transport systems, such as road, rail or conveyor systems,
the RopeCon System generally has a much lower environmental impact, with the biggest impact
mostly being that the systems are visually intrusive.
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Compared to most medium to long distance transport technologies, the RopeCon System will have a
less significant social impact, based on the following:
a) Limited Effect on Communities
Due to the low noise levels and the small footprint, the system will have a very limited effect on
residents close to the ropeway.
b) Land Rights
The RopeCon System does not require the acquisition of land rights for the entire distance of the
line, but only for the piece of property where the tower is erected. Furthermore, the system only
requires maintenance access.
c) Crossings
The RopeCon System was specifically designed to alleviate the potential difficulties and costs
associated with crossing rivers, roads, railroads and other obstacles.
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
Because it operates as a closed loop and dedicated system, it is not anticipated that the RopeCon
System will have any major direct economic impact. However, the following minor benefits are
expected:
a) Limited Local Production Capability
There are specialist South African based companies capable of installing, operating and
maintaining the ropeway systems.
b) Job Creation Opportunities
An implemented ropeway system will require one operator per shift, as well as an extended
maintenance crew.
245
APPENDI X K
6. CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
RopeCon Systems are used worldwide in various applications and it is estimated that there are more than
13,800 operational ropeway installations around the world. RopeCon is used extensively in countries such us
Austria, Switzerland and Jamaica. However, South Africa has no known installations.
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
The design parameters, advantages and cost effectiveness, within specific applications of RopeCon Systems are
well established and widely published. However, it is clear that there are other areas where further research is
required, based on the following:
a) Integration With Other Transport Systems
RopeCon is an ideal system to link into an existing transport infrastructure where certain links within the
supply chain are missing. It could be used, as an example, to link two rail sidings on opposite sides of a
river or to link a heavy haul rail line with a destination where no secondary rail line exists. This integrative
approach and the applicability of RopeCon Systems in such applications needs further research.
b) Detailed Cost Calculation
Due to the fact that the system is custom-built and that there are no installations in South Africa, further
research is required into the capital and operational costs associated with RopeCon Systems. Detailed
cost figures for other installations need to be obtained and scrutinised.
8. CONCLUSION
The investigation into RopeCon Systems revealed that the system was specifically developed to address certain
shortcomings in conventional transport solutions, predominantly to provide a cost effective way of crossing
obstacles such as mountains, rivers, roads, railway lines, forests and settlements. In particular, the RopeCon
technology is superior to most other technologies for the transport of material up and down steep inclines, such
as mountains, or even out of open cast mining pits.
The downside to the technology is that the initial capital investment is relatively high and the system therefore
requires a relatively long contract period and a high annual product volume. When faced with a transport
requirement over relatively flat terrain, with few obstacles and where most of the crossed land is owned or
accessible, other transport options become more economical than RopeCon.
Apart fromthe obvious advantageous application areas described above, RopeCon is perfectly placed to play a
crucial part in a multimodal and fully integrated coal supply chain. The technology could be successfully applied
to breach the gap between other transport modes in specific cases where existing infrastructures need to be
linked at minimal cost. Ropecon can also be used for crossing obstructions, or for transporting coal over
medium distances from hubs or coal pantries to final destinations.
246
APPENDI X K
9. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
The following company is actively involved with the RopeCon System, as the sole distributor for Doppelmeyr in
South Africa and contributed to this research:
REM Construction Consultants
(REM represents Doppelmayr Transport Systems of Austria)
William L. Robinson
Tell: +27 11 781 3066
Mobile: +27 82 555 0498
Fax: +27 11 781 3067
Email: willr@remcons.co.za
Company Web: www.remcons.co.za
10. REFERENCES
a) Doppelmayr (2009). RopeCon Simberi. Obtained: 1 August 2009, Available from: REM Construction
Consultants.
b) Doppelmayr (2009). RopeCon - The Innovation in Bulk Material Handling. Obtained:
1 August 2009, Available from: REM Construction Consultants.
c) Doppelmayr (2009). RopeCon. Accessed: 1 August 2009, Available from:
http://www.doppelmayr.com/default.php?lid=2&frs=210.
d) Robinson WL (2009). RopeCon Systems. Emails provided by REM Construction Consultants,
Date: 6 August 2009.
247
APPENDI X K
248
1
APPENDI X L
Rai l - Veyor Transport System
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 252
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 252
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
2.1.1 Loading Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
2.1.2 Loading and Tipping Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
2.1.3 Rail System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
2.1.4 Cars/Trains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
2.1.5 Drive Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2.1.6 SystemCovering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
2.1.7 Control Room. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
2.1.8 Safety Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
2.2 SYSTEM AUTOMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 260
3.1 CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
4. SYSTEM COST.............................................................................................................. 261
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
4.4 TRANSPORT UNIT COST PER KILOMETER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
4.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT........................................................................................ 267
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
250
APPENDI X L
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
6. TRIAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 269
6.1 CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
6.2 EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL SYSTEM USAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 270
8. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS........................................................................................... 270
9. REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 270
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Rail-Veyor Transport System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Figure 2: Rail-Veyor Loading and Tipping Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Figure 3: Rail-Veyor Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Figure 4: Rail-Veyor Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Figure 5: Dual Track System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Figure 6: Rail-Veyor Covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Figure 7: Marshals Device and Pull Wire System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Figure 8: Rail-Veyor Unit Cost by Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Figure 9: Transport Unit Cost at Different Throughput Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Advantages of the Rail-Veyor System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Table 2: Rail-Veyor - System Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Table 3: Rail-Veyor Capital Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Table 4: Rail-Veyor Operating and Maintenance Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Table 5: Rail-Veyor Transport Unit Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Table 6: Rail-Veyor System Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Table 7: Rail-Veyor Unit Cost by Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Table 8: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
251
APPENDI X L
1. INTRODUCTION
The Rail-Veyor Transport system, indicated in Figure 1, represents a novel, practical approach to moving
materials economically over short, intermediate and long distances. The Rail-Veyor moves materials by use of
a light rail track system with a series of two-wheeled, inter-connected cars that effectively represent a long, open
trough moving along the track. Each car is connected to the car in front with a joint that allows articulated
movement for curves and dumping. The gap between cars is sealed by overlapping urethane flaps, which
prevent leakage of the material and act as discharge chutes for dumping loads at their destination.
The driving force to move the train consists of a series of equally spaced, dual stationary drive stations.
AC motors and gear reducers turn horizontal, foam filled tyres against the side drive plates of the cars,
providing forward thrust. Speed is controlled by an inverter, which allows operation in both forward or
reverse directions with sufficient power to start a loaded train from any position on the track.
2. SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The Rail-Veyor system is claimed to combine the best characteristics of conventional railroads, overland
conveyors, trucks and slurry pipeline transport, to provide a viable alternative for short to medium distance coal
transportation.
2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
The design of the Rail-Veyortrain allows for operation on a single flat track froma customised loading
arrangement to the tipping loop, where the train is offloaded, and back again.
At the tipping loop, the cars are held in place by a double set of parallel rails, which allows for
continuous dumping. During the entire process the train is always in contact with one or more sets of
drive stations, for complete train control.
252
APPENDI X L
The following sections describe the system and its components in more detail.
2.1.1 Loading Station
The Rail-Veyor system is designed to load while moving, at an average rate of 2 m/s or at a rate that
can be accommodated by the specific material loading system. In order to accommodate this loading
requirement, the train is slowed down while loading and then speeded up after loading, to a maximum
of approximately 12 m/s (32 km/h).
The loading system normally consists of a conveyor head chute which feeds into a bin, with the bin
dumping onto a feeder which carries the material to a discharge chute which feeds the Rail-Veyor.
The rock size of the bulk material to be transported should not exceed 300 mm in diameter, and it is
imperative that the loading system is designed accordingly and that the mine supplies the material
consistently at the required rate.
2.1.2 Loading and Tipping Loops
Loading and Tipping Loops are erected at the ends of the Rail-Veyor system, in order to
accommodate loading and offloading while the train is moving. The Loop consists of a steel structure
fitted with double rails to allow the cars to pass through, to facilitate the tipping of the load and to return
the inverted train back to the upright position required for reloading. The Loop is depicted in Figure 2.
When tipping, the train enters the loop in the upright position on a horizontal plane. As it moves through
the loop the train turns 180 degrees on a vertical plane, effectively inverting the train. During this
movement the loaded cars discharge the material by means of gravity. The train is then returned to the
upright position for reloading.
253
APPENDI X L
2.1.3 Rail System
The lightweight rail system is completely customisable and is specifically designed for the transport
application in mind. Therefore, the rail types, the rail gauge and the axle mass requirements will be designed
according to specific requirements. The following points provide an example of a typical system:
The normal rail installation is a 22 kg rail, fitted on Grinaker sleepers. These sleepers are spaced at
3 m intervals and installed on ballast stone.
The rails are crucible welded (Thermit welding) joints, complete with an OEM approved clipping
arrangement and studded rubber rail pad.
The normal rail gauge is 762 mm and is suitably elevated at the bends to prevent side thrust at high
speeds.
The design and construction of the rail system complies with all applicable SABS regulations.
2.1.4 Cars/Trains
The rail cars, as shown in Figure 3, are between 1.3 and 2.5 m long, comprised of an open trough,
chassis, drive plates, axle set complete with cast steel wheels, rubber flap, flap bracket and clevis
arrangement. The trough is made from 350 WA rolled mild steel, with a diameter of 600 mm. The
troughs are designed as bolt-on/off units for easy replacement.
The drive plates are manufactured from 350 WA mild steel, mounted on either side of the car and
roughened to increase the friction levels between the drive wheels and the train. These drive plates are
removable, bolted onto the chassis.
The axle is positioned near the back of the chassis, by means of rubber axle mounting brackets for shock
and noise absorption. The axle assembly incorporates the axle shaft, preloaded sealed cassette bearings,
and is fitted with a BS 3100 cast steel wheel set.
254
APPENDI X L
The 8 mm flap is manufactured from polyurethane and is mounted in the forward position on the car,
thus creating a continuous trough, as well as acting as a discharge chute in the tipping process.
The train, or trains, consist of any number of the aforementioned cars, joined together by means of the
clevis arrangement located at the end of each car, as indicated in Figure 4. The unique patented clevis
arrangement was designed for articulated movement and is fitted with a polyurethane bush, which
assists in controlling the flexibility of the train.
The front car is unique in its design, in that it has two axle wheel sets. The role of the front axle set is to
guide and support the front of the lead car, a function that the clevis arrangement takes over on the rest
of the train.
The urethane flaps overlapping each car, effectively join all the troughs together, creating a long
continuous trough. The drive wheels located at each drive station are pressed against the drive plates
on the cars by means of an adjustable tensioner, and the rotation of the wheels propels the train along
the track in a forward, or reverse, direction.
2.1.5 Drive Stations
The drive station, which propels the train in either the forward or reverse direction, is a site assembled
unit, on which geared motors are mounted in a certain configuration, which allows the drive wheels to
be tensioned against the drive plates in order to move the train.
On a dual track system, there are two drive motors for the loaded track and two motors for the unloaded
track per drive station, as indicated in Figure 5.
The drive wheels are foam filled in order to maintain a constant tyre pressure, increasing their mass and
adding to the flywheel effect. Tyre wear is minimal if the tension has been set correctly. Tensioners are
255
APPENDI X L
used to apply sufficient pressure, preventing slippage between the drive wheel and the surface drive
plate, ensuring optimum thrust.
The system employs inductive proximity sensors, mounted 10 m before and after each drive station.
These sensors are used to detect approaching and departing trains, which are used to start up and shut
down drive stations. This ensures that drive stations are operational only when needed, which results in
significantly decreased electricity usage.
2.1.6 System Covering
The Rail-Veyor system can be installed with a roof covering, to ensure that the transported material is
not exposed to the elements, as indicated in Figure 6.
256
APPENDI X L
2.1.7 Control Room
The control roomis the main control centre, where the operator is stationed and fromwhich the Rail-Veyor
system is managed. The master PLC, situated in the control room, will be responsible for the starting,
stopping and speed control of all the variable speed drives, which essentially ensures the movement of the
train. By analysing the data and inputs/outputs provided by the local PLCs, the Master PLC controls all the
functions of the system, including the communications and scheduling of multiple trains on the same track.
2.1.8 Safety Features
The Rail-Veyorsystemis fitted with various safety features in the event of derailments, communications
failure or a power outage. Such features include:
a) Siren and Flashing Light
The siren and flashing light is mounted on top of each Drive Station structure. When either of the
drive sets are about to start, the flashing light is activated and the siren sounds for five seconds.
The light will continue to flash until the motors have stopped.
b) Marshals Device
The Marshals Device is used as a monitoring device to detect any derailment of trains, as indicated
in Figure 7. The 3 mm steel galvanised trip wire is mounted on 50 mm bobbin insulators, at 30
degrees to each sleeper, along each side of the track. In the event of a derailment, the straining wire
will break, detecting the derailment of the train, in which case the systemis immediately shut down.
c) Pull Wire System
This safety pull switch device, as indicated in Figure 7, is located at 65 m intervals along the
length of the track and is connected to the nearest panel. Once the pull switch has been activated,
the unit indicates to the operator that a pull wire has been tripped, activating the Global MRS
automatically and immediately stopping the whole system. When the problem has been rectified
in the field and the unit reset, the master PLC can be reset to restart the system.
257
APPENDI X L
d) Emergency Stop
The emergency stop unit is mounted on the door of the control panel. The button acts in the same
way as the pull wire.
2.2 SYSTEM AUTOMATION
The Rail-Veyor is designed to function as a fully automated system, with various manual modes that
can be incorporated into the operations to allow the system to run without any human intervention.
The relevant drive stations start up and shut down as required and the train speed is controlled within
certain parameters, which controls the systems as follows:
The train enters the loading area at a set speed of approximately 2 m/s, during which time the train is
loaded automatically.
When the loading is complete, the train is then accelerated to a designated travelling speed of up to
12 m/s.
This travelling speed will be maintained until a designated drive station in close proximity to the
tipping loop detects the train, and from there the train will automatically decelerate until it reaches
the tipping speed of approximately 3.5 m/s.
Once the tipping has been completed, the system will automatically accelerate the train until it
reaches its normal travelling speed.
The train will again be decelerated automatically by a drive station in close proximity to the loading
station, until the front car has reached the apex of the loading loop, at which point it is rapidly
decelerated to approximately 2 m/s for loading.
This process is repeated in a looped function and can further incorporate multiple trains on the same
track, which will all be automatically controlled. The system has been carefully designed to leave enough
space between trains to allow for the acceleration and deceleration processes, while maximising the
overall capacity of the system.
2.3 SYSTEM ADVANTAGES
The Rail-Veyor system provides the advantages given in Table 1.
Table 1: Advantages of the Rail-Veyor System
No. Advantage Description
1 Easily Upgradeable Additional cars, or, to significantly increase capacity,
additional trains can be added at a very low cost.
2 Low Maintenance, High
Operating Factor
All components obtained off-the-shelf.
3 No Wasted Energy Drive stations shut down when train is not in contact. Sensor
starts drive upon arrival of train from previous station and
shuts down when train has passed.
258
APPENDI X L
No. Advantage Description
4 No Direct Operator Control System runs automatically. Drive stations have locking brakes
to hold trains in place in event of power failure.
5 Extremely Low Operating Cost Bulk materials can be moved at a cost as low as R0.23/t/km.
6 Allows Multiple Dump Passes Same loop can allow for multiple pick-ups and dumps. For
example, haul rock from quarry to crushing plant, move
crushed material to storage, and return waste material to
quarry.
7 Small Cross-Sectional Area Allows simple tunnelling or bridging to bypass obstacles.
8 Non-Polluting Drive System Uses electricity instead of emitting environmentally destructive
fumes.
9 No Material Spillage Urethane flaps between cars create a long, open trough. This
feature also allows continuous dumping in a vertical outside
loop with carried material projected beyond cars.
10 Multiple Use System Can carry any bulk material from sticky, wet sand to coarse,
crushed rock.
11 Affordable Very reasonable costs for purchase, operation and
maintenance.
12 Mobility Easy to move from location to location.
13 No Driver The system is operated from a control room and has no
driving unit or driver on board. This reduces operating cost,
while also improving the human safety factor.
14 Can Operate on Steep Inclines The system has been successfully tested on inclines up to 11%.
15 Can Turn Corners and Move
Around Bends
The system can bend, at high speeds, at angles of 30
degrees.
In addition, the Rail-Veyorsystemboasts the following facts, based on the current operational systems:
The system can negotiate bends of up to 30 degrees with ease at speeds of 12 m/s.
Systemflexibility: the small frontal cross-section area and narrow footprint allows for simple bridging
and tunnelling over and under roadways, rivers and other natural or man-made obstructions.
The system is capable of doing a U-turn within a 30 m radius, based on 2.5 m cars.
Quick and easy replacement of off-the-shelf components ensures that maintenance is kept simple.
Energy efficiency is at a maximum, as only the drive motors that are in contact with the train are
working and the remainder of the drive motors are stationary after the train has passed through.
2.4 SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES
The following disadvantages have been identified for the Rail-Veyor system:
The main disadvantage is that, as with conventional rail or conveyor systems, the Rail-Veyor system
requires land rights for the entire stretch of the transport route.
Electricity has to be available along the entire length of the rail line to power the drive stations.
259
APPENDI X L
2.5 OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
The optimumoperating conditions for the Rail-Veyorsystemwould be similar to that of a conventional
conveyor or rail system, with the exception that it can operate at inclines of up to 11% and it can
negotiate bends of up to 30 degrees at relatively high speeds.
The small scale and lightweight systemalso allows for relatively simple bridging and tunnelling over and
under roadways, rivers and other obstructions.
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The applicability of a given technology to a specific scenario is intrinsically linked to certain operational
parameters. The capacity and/or throughput of the system, as well as the feasible operating distance,
significantly impact the selection of a technology. The aforementioned aspects are discussed in more detail in
the following sub-paragraphs.
3.1 CAPACITY
There are no theoretical limits on the size of the Rail-veyorcars, which means that the unit train lengths
and the number of trains on the system will directly influence capacity. It should be noted however, that
the size of the car will directly influence the design of the tracks, the drive stations and the tipping loops,
which will have a direct cost implication. All these elements need to be addressed collectively to
maximise the capacity and throughput in the most cost effective manner.
Although the maximum operational speed has not been established, based on torque, gear ratios and
drive tyre diameters, speeds of up to 12 m/s (32 km/h) are realistic. This has been proved in pilot systems
using off-the-shelf equipment. To increase the system capacity without major capital expense one can:
Add additional cars to an existing train.
Add additional trains to the existing system.
Speed up the trains on the loaded or unloaded sides of the system.
During system tests in South Africa and Canada, pilot 2.4 m long cars, with a 610 mm radius and 203
mm sideboards, were fabricated for demonstration purposes. Utilising these cars in a series of trains
totalling 500 equally sized cars, the system loaded, moved and dumped nearly 11,000 t/h of material
over a 1.6 km haulage distance. This equates to a throughput potential of 76 million tonnes per annum
(MTPA), at 20 hours per day at 95% reliability.
3.2 FEASIBLE OPERATING DISTANCES
The systemhas been shown to provide an economical, practical approach to moving materials over short,
intermediate and long distances from400 mto 100 km. The maximumfeasible transport distance has not
been established, as the theoretical possibilities are unbounded, based on the following:
The system runs on a rail track, which has been proven to enable transportation across very long
distances.
260
APPENDI X L
The capital investment necessary for these lightweight rail tracks is significantly lower than that of
conventional rail lines.
On long tracks, multiple trains are operated to increase throughput.
In order to increase the transport distance, additional drive stations are added.
Using fibre-optic technology for communication purposes, the entire system can be operated from
one control room, or the system can be broken down into sub-systems that are individually
controlled.
Although the system has not been proven at excessively long distances, and has not been costed for
distances longer than 100 km, the designers are confident that it is quite feasible to run the system at
distances of up to 800 km.
4. SYSTEM COST
The system cost is based on the custom-built nature of the Rail-Veyor system, and will depend on throughput
requirements, the typography of the terrain and the transport distance.
In order to present some guideline figures, the following cost estimates are based on current installations,
historical operations and maintenance costs, for a system with the design criteria given in Table 2.
Table 2: Rail-Veyor System Design Criteria
Design Element Value Unit
Average throughput per hour 450 t/hr
Average throughput per month 292,000 t/month
Average throughput per annum 3,500,000 t/annum
Average operating days per month 30 days
Average operating hours per day 22 hours
Approximate system availability 95 %
Lead distance 5.1 km
System design life 20 years
Throughput over total life of system 70,000,000 t
Effective interest rate 10 %
4.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST
The capital investment cost indicated in Table 3 is representative of an installation completed in 2005,
as described under the previous section. The cost estimates are based on 2005 prices, escalated to
June 2009 using the appropriate CPI and PPI inflation rates.
261
APPENDI X L
Table 3: Rail-Veyor Capital Cost
Capital Cost Items Original Cost (R) Current Cost (R)
Drives/Geared Motors 5,090,460 6,782,177
Cabling and Switchgear 1,124,114 1,497,692
Automation/Instrumentation 1,560,000 2,078,436
Rails/Haulage Prep and Tips 9,835,001 13,103,475
Loops 1,485,870 1,979,670
Trains 7,316,143 9,747,523
Installation 1,704,401 2,270,826
Total Cost 28,115,989 37,459,799
The capital investment costs indicate an average cost of R7.3 million/km for this specific configuration,
including the rail line and the rolling stock, which equates to 52 c/t throughput.
4.2 SYSTEM OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operating and maintenance costs indicated in Table 4 are representative of the same installation,
described previously.
Table 4: Rail-Veyor Operating and Maintenance Costs
Operation and Maintenance Cost Original Cost (R) Current Cost (R)
Energy Cost per Month 23,100 53,900
Labour Cost per Month 174,960 234,306
Control Room Operator
60,750 81,356
Artisan Team
96,390 129,085
Assistance
17,820 23,864
Maintenance Cost per Month 84,300 112,894
Trains
22,500 30,132
Rails
28,000 37,497
Electrical
30,000 40,176
Tipping and Loading Loops 3,800 5,089
Total Cost per Month 282,360 401,100
Total Cost 67,766,400 96,263,988
The system operating and maintenance costs indicate an average cost of R1.35/t of throughput for this
specific configuration.
262
APPENDI X L
4.3 TRANSPORT UNIT COST
It was indicated in the previous paragraphs that installation cost is R7.3 million/km, while the average
operating cost is R1.35/t. The systemis further designed with a theoretical life expectancy of 20 years.
Taking all these elements into consideration, the transport unit cost of the described Rail-Veyor system
equates to R1.88/t for the described configuration, which will transport approximately 3.5 MTPA, as
indicated in Table 5.
Table 5: Rail-Veyor Transport Unit Cost
Cost Element Original Cost (R) Current Cost (R) Unit Cost (R/tonne)
Capital Cost 28,115,988.99 37,459,798.86 0.53
Operations Cost 47,534,400.00 69,169,374.87 0.97
Maintenance Cost 20,232,000.00 27,094,613.07 0.38
Total Cost 95,882,388.99 133,723,786.80 1.88
4.4 TRANSPORT UNIT COST PER KILOMETER
The transport unit cost is highly dependent on the system characteristics, as well as the transport
distance. To illustrate this dependency, the values were adjusted using current installation costs, as well
as various other designs and quotations. The values and design criteria are given in Table 6.
Table 6: Rail-Veyor System Design Criteria
Design Element Value Unit
Average throughput per hour 1,400 t/ hr
Average throughput per month 708,000 t/ month
Average throughput per annum 8,500,000 t/ annum
Average operating days per month 30 days
Average operating hours per day 22 hours
Approximate system availability 95 %
System design life 20 years
Throughput over total life of system 170,000,000 t
Effective interest rate 10 %
The distance dependency of the transport cost is illustrated in Figure 8 below. However, it should be
noted that these rates would be lower than the costs discussed so far, as they are based on a higher
annual throughput rate.
263
APPENDI X L
From the graph it is clear that the distance based transport rate of R/t/km reduces significantly as the
distance increases, but that the line stabilises at approximately 20 c/t/km after 200 km. This is based on
the system characteristics and the fact that the fixed capital infrastructure remains largely unchanged,
and each Rail-Veyor system will have only one control room, one loading loop and one tipping loop,
regardless of the lead distance, which does not influence the cost at longer distances.
Therefore, the bulk of the infrastructure remains unchanged as the distance increases. Furthermore, the unit
cost for a system can be dramatically reduced by installing additional rail cars, thus increasing throughput.
The figures in Table 7 show the transport unit cost for systems from 1 to 1,000 km. The throughput rate
remains constant at 8.5 MTPA, which means that longer lead distances will require additional rail cars.
Table 7: Rail-Veyor Unit Cost by Distance
Distance
(km)
CapEx
(R/t)
OpEx
(R/t)
Maintenance
(R/t)
Total Cost
(R/t)
Unit Cost
(R/t/km)
1 0.52 0.02 0.81 1.35 1.35
2 0.66 0.03 0.85 1.54 0.77
3 0.81 0.05 0.88 1.74 0.58
4 0.96 0.06 0.91 1.93 0.48
5 1.10 0.08 0.95 2.12 0.42
6 1.25 0.09 0.98 2.32 0.39
7 1.39 0.10 1.01 2.51 0.36
8 1.54 0.12 1.05 2.70 0.34
9 1.69 0.13 1.08 2.90 0.32
10 1.83 0.15 1.11 3.09 0.31
264
APPENDI X L
Distance
(km)
CapEx
(R/t)
OpEx
(R/t)
Maintenance
(R/t)
Total Cost
(R/t)
Unit Cost
(R/t/km)
20 3.29 0.29 1.45 5.03 0.25
30 4.75 0.43 1.78 6.96 0.23
40 6.20 0.58 2.11 8.89 0.22
50 7.66 0.72 2.45 10.83 0.22
60 9.12 0.86 2.78 12.76 0.21
70 10.58 1.01 3.12 14.70 0.21
80 12.03 1.15 3.45 16.63 0.21
90 13.49 1.29 3.78 18.57 0.21
100 14.95 1.44 4.12 20.50 0.21
200 29.52 2.87 7.46 39.85 0.20
300 44.10 4.30 10.79 59.19 0.20
400 58.67 5.73 14.13 78.54 0.20
500 73.25 7.16 17.47 97.88 0.20
600 87.82 8.60 20.81 117.23 0.20
700 102.40 10.03 24.15 136.58 0.20
800 116.97 11.46 27.49 155.92 0.19
900 131.55 12.89 30.83 175.27 0.19
1,000 146.12 14.32 34.17 194.61 0.19
However, it should be noted that the values in Table 7 are indicative only and are based on the capital,
operations and maintenance costs of much shorter systems. For any system beyond 100 km, a detailed
design and costing exercise will be required, based on the specific terrain and throughput requirements.
4.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The total transport unit cost is influenced mainly by the lead distance, but also by the annual throughput
rate. Where the throughput increases and the same physical infrastructure is capable of handling the
increased volumes, the unit cost decreases because the fixed capital cost is shared by a larger volume of
material. To illustrate this concept, three scenarios were identified to show the transport unit cost at 1, 5
and 50 MTPA, respectively.
The previous costs have all been calculated at 8.5 MTPA and have been adjusted to indicate the relative
costs per scenario. When decreasing the throughput to 1 MTPA the bulk of the capital cost for the fixed
infrastructure remains unchanged, due to the investment in the loading and off-loading stations, the
loops and the rail line. However, the variable capital portion exists, which is associated with the number
of trains and rail cars required to move the reduced amount of coal, which proportionally reduces with
the throughput. In relation, the operating expenses would also reduce proportionally due to the
decreased energy requirements, as well as reduced labour and maintenance.
When increasing the annual throughput to 50 MTPA, there is a substantial increase in costs. Firstly, the
fixed infrastructure cost increases slightly to enable the physical infrastructure to carry larger volumes of
265
APPENDI X L
coal at shorter intervals between trains. Secondly, the variable capital charges also increase dramatically,
due to the requirements of additional trains and rail cars to carry the increased volume of coal.
However, at higher throughput volumes the fixed capital cost can be spread over a higher tonnage,
which ultimately reduces the transport unit cost substantially.
Table 8 summarises the transport unit cost across distances ranging from 1 km to 1,000 km for the
three scenarios.
Table 8: Transport Unit Costs at Various Throughput Rates
Distance (km) 1 MTPA (R/t/km) 5 MTP (R/t/km) 50 MTPA (R/t/km)
1 4.06 1.50 1.47
2 2.53 0.88 0.81
3 2.02 0.67 0.59
4 1.76 0.57 0.48
5 1.61 0.51 0.41
6 1.51 0.47 0.37
7 1.44 0.44 0.33
8 1.38 0.42 0.31
9 1.34 0.40 0.29
10 1.31 0.39 0.28
20 1.15 0.32 0.21
30 1.10 0.30 0.19
40 1.08 0.29 0.18
50 1.06 0.29 0.17
60 1.05 0.28 0.17
70 1.04 0.28 0.16
80 1.04 0.28 0.16
90 1.03 0.28 0.16
100 1.03 0.28 0.16
200 1.02 0.27 0.15
300 1.01 0.27 0.15
400 1.01 0.27 0.15
500 1.01 0.27 0.15
600 1.01 0.26 0.15
700 1.00 0.26 0.15
800 1.00 0.26 0.15
900 1.00 0.26 0.15
1,000 1.00 0.26 0.15
266
APPENDI X L
The relative difference in unit costs is graphically depicted in Figure 9 below.
From these figures it is clear that Rail-Veyors become increasingly competitive as the throughput
increases, due to the apportioning of the fixed capital costs over a higher tonnage. The variable capital
cost related to the rail cars remains a constant incremental charge as the volume increases and,
therefore, does not impact on the transport unit cost.
However, the maximum achievable throughput of these systems is dependent on the lead distance, the
terrain and the number of trains that could safely be operated on the rail line. Theoretical calculations
have indicated that the maximum design capacity is in the region of 75 MTPA, but this figure needs to
be verified for specific applications.
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
The selection of any technology is subject to the evaluation of its impact from a socio-economic perspective.
Therefore, the various impacts on social, economic, environmental, health and safety aspects are briefly considered
in subsequent sub-paragraphs.
5.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT
The Rail-Veyor system promises the following benefits:
a) Fully Automated
Because the system is fully automated and does not require a driver, it can be operated in
environments where people could not normally work, thus eliminating all health and safety risks.
267
APPENDI X L
b) Reduced Conventional Coal Transport
The adoption of the Rail-Veyor system will lead to fewer coal trucks and fewer coal trains. This
will reduce air and noise pollution, while also reducing the negative impact of trucks on the road
transport infrastructure and public safety.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Rail-Veyor system has a very low impact on the environment, due to the following issues:
a) Transport Related Pollution
For long surface transport systems, the Rail-Veyorrail line is fitted with a roof covering, which will
reduce air and water pollution through contamination by coal dust.
b) Reduced Energy Requirements
Compared with most other coal transport systems, the Rail-Veyor system uses significantly less
energy by using electricity very efficiently.
c) Air and Water Pollution
Because the Rail-Veyor can be fully covered, this system will also mean less coal dust and
resultant pollution.
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Like most long distance transport technologies, the Rail-Veyor system will have general social
impacts. These impacts might include:
a) Land Rights
The Rail-Veyor rail line will require the acquisition of land rights for the entire distance of the rail
line.
b) Crossings
The system will need to cross some rivers, roads and railroads, which will either require tunnelling
or bridges.
While the Rail-Veyor system will not necessarily displace communities, it will be intrusive and could
potentially restrict free movement.
5.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Rail-Veyor system will not have any anticipated direct economic impact, as it is a dedicated and
closed loop system.
268
APPENDI X L
6. TRIAL SYSTEMS
The Rail-Veyor system is a fairly new technology with limited commercial applications and, therefore, the
following sections will explore both trial and commercial applications.
6.1 CURRENT SYSTEM USAGE
To show the advantages and benefits of the Rail-Veyor Transport System, a demonstration system was
built under the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. A closed loop track of 400 m (the equivalent of
200 m haul distance) was used in the operating cycle. The demo system size selected was for a series of
42 cars, each 1.2 m long with 508 mm radius semi-circular open troughs. The resultant 51 m train was
moved by locating drive stations 50 m apart, providing constant drive station contact. Drive contact
pressure on the cars was maintained by opposing screw jacks under controlled pressure, rotating the
entire drive unit and tyre against the drive plate. The operational speed was 180 m/minute. Increasing
drive tyre diameter or reducing the gear ratio of the drive could significantly increase this speed.
The demonstration train has the capacity to load, transport and dump approximately 210 t/h. The track
has eight drive stations, with each drive acting independently of the others. Sensors located at each
station turn the drives on as the train arrives and off when the train had passed. Effectively, up to six
additional 51 m trains could operate on this track at the same time, each adding an additional 210 t/h
capacity. Six trains would be able to transported 1,260 t/h.
After the successful piloting of the system, it was commercialised and the first Rail-Veyor system in the
world was installed at the Harmony Gold Phakisa Mine.
6.2 EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL SYSTEM USAGE
The Rail-Veyor system is currently in operation at the Harmony Gold Phakisa Mine. A pilot system was
installed in 2005, and was tested on the surface for six months to resolve any potential system issues,
during which time no failures were recorded.
After successfully running the surface system, the Rail-Veyor was installed underground, where it
transports ore across a lead distance of approximately 5.1 km. The system was finally commissioned in
April 2007 and it is still operating at full production capacity. The following aspects are reported:
Originally, the system was operating at R3.58/t delivered. However, since the introduction of a
second train in September 2008, operating costs have been reduced to R3.00/t delivered and the
mine management feels that, at full capacity of 3.5 MTPA, this cost could drop below R2/t.
The most severe gradient between the two operating loops is 1:200 m.
The current availability is above 94% in a 20-hour cycle.
The drive stations require minimal maintenance, despite having done approximately 50,000 km per
set of drive tyres.
Crushers, proper screening and purpose designed feeders are essential.
Minimum manpower is required to operate the Rail-Veyor system, with three operators overseeing
the operation, one for each shift.
Weekly inspections and maintenance is required to maintain the system performance.
269
APPENDI X L
7. FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
Adequate data is available on the operations and maintenance of a fully functional Rail-Veyor system and the
system has also been proven in various applications and operating conditions. However, the following aspects
require further research:
The maximum transport distance for the system is unclear, and this aspect requires further research.
Because the Rail-Veyor system does not have a driver, it may be possible to operate the system beneath
high voltage power lines, which will reduce the requirement of procuring the land rights for the entire delivery
lead distance. This aspect requires further research to determine the safety aspects and integrity of the
system.
8. INDUSTRY ROLE PLAYERS
The Rail-Veyor concept was originally created and tested by Deebar, who have contributed significantly to this
research:
DEEBAR
JOHANNESBURG (HEAD OFFICE)
Address: P.O. Box 40325, Cleveland, 2022, South Africa
Telephone: +27 11 873-4332/3/4/5, +27 11 825-5045/6, +27 11 873-4360
Facsimile: +27 11 825-6984, +27 11 873-0015
Website: http://www.deebar.co.za
Email: sales@deebar.co.za
9. REFERENCES
a) Rail-Veyor - Bulk Material Transportation System (2009). Retrieved: 20 July 2009. Available from:
http://www.railveyor.com/index2.html
b) DEEBAR Group: Rail-Veyor, An Efficient Economical and Environmentally Friendly Way to Move
Materials (2009). Retrieved: 20 July 2009. Available from: http://www.deebar.co.za/railveyor.htm
270
APPENDI X L
271
APPENDI X M
Bargi ng
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 273
2. BARGE CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................... 274
3. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS............................................................................. 277
4. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 277
5. LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................... 277
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic of a Barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Figure 2: 15-Barge Tow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Figure 3: Demo Model of a Scow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Figure 4: Dry Cargo Barge pushed by a Towboat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Figure 5: Rake (angled) Barge and Box Barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Figure 6: Load Capacity Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
272
APPENDI X M
1. INTRODUCTION
Depending on the surface on which they travel, transport modes fall into one of three basic types: land (road, rail
and pipelines), water (shipping) and air. Each mode is characterised by a set of technical, operational and
commercial characteristics.
When looking at the shipping mode, there are various types of craft that transport goods: barges, boats, ships
and sailboats. These can be distinguished by propulsion, size and cargo type. The aim of this document is to
establish whether the use of barges is a viable option as a mode of transport in the South African context.
A barge is a flat-bottomed boat (Figure 1) built mainly for river and canal transport of heavy goods. Although
some barges have engines, most are not self-propelled and need to be towed by tugboats or pushed by
towboats (Figure 2).
273
APPENDI X M
Modern barges have evolved from the scow (Figure 3), a flat bottomed, flat sided, and often flat bowed and
stern vessel characterised by a squared bilge.
From roughly the time of the War of 1812, these boxy vessels were used to serve ports, rivers, bays and piers,
and even the beaches of lakes. They were an important part of 19th Century commerce because they combined
large cargo capacity and shallow draught with relatively low costs for construction and operation. However, by
the late 19th Century the sailing scow was well on its way toward being obsolete and the scow hull form was
being used for barge design.
Today barges are used for high bulk, low value goods and materials, as the cost of haulage by barge is very low.
They are also used for heavy goods such as coal, sand, timber and iron ore. It is important to note that barges
are used mostly for inland transport as they are designed mainly for rivers. There are nevertheless some barges
that are used in coastal waters.
2. BARGE CHARACTERISTICS
There are various types of barges:
a) Liquid Tank Barges
These barges transport petrochemicals, liquid fertilisers, refined products such as diesel and pressurised
products.
b) Railroad Car Float
This an unpowered barge with rail tracks mounted on its deck. It is used to move railroad cars across
water obstacles, or to locations they could not otherwise get to. The barge is either pushed or towed to its
destination.
274
APPENDI X M
c) Hopper Barges
For the transport of bulk cargo, these can be fitted with weather-tight or water-tight hatch covers. Bottom
dump hopper barges are fitted with bottom opening doors for dumping rip-rap, dredge spoil, garbage
and the like, or for dumping coal and stone cargoes alongside piers where the loads are picked up by
shore operated grabs or conveyers. Hopper barges are designed specifically to deliver bulk material to
open-water disposal sites.
d) Dry Cargo Hopper Barges
These barges are designed to carry freight such as coal, finished steel or its ingredients, grain, sand or
gravel, and similar materials (Figure 4).
Dry cargo barges are commonly known as hoppers. These barges are made of steel and have an outer hull, an
internal void that is fitted with heavy struts and cross braces, and an internal cargo box. The outer hull of the
barge can come in one of two configurations, as shown in Figure 5.
275
APPENDI X M
Box barges are usually placed in the centre and rear of the tow and can hold more cargo than the rake barge.
Barge hulls need to be strictly maintained to minimise the accumulation of river water below deck. Large barges
may have installed cargo handling or counterweight equipment, including pumps and piping for loading and
offloading.
A rake (angled) barge has a curved bow to provide less resistance when being pushed and is usually placed at
the head of a tow. A tow is a group of barges joined together to form a barge train. Considerable attempts have
been made to standardise barge sizes on the river systems to facilitate making up tows. Barges come in different
sizes and mass capacities. A common size for a lower river barge is 59.4 m x 10.6 m x 3.7 m, carrying up to
1,500 tonnes. There are also barges that are on average over 70 m long and can carry over 3,000 tonnes.
The number of tow barges in a barge train depends entirely on the infrastructural capacity of the river where the
barge will travel. For example, a typical barge train travelling along the Mississippi River has 45 barges, whereas
on the Tennessee River the train will consists of an average of 15 barges. Figure 6 below shows a comparison of
load capacity between barges, rail trains and road trucks.
276
APPENDI X M
3. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
Barges move mainly on inland waterways. Therefore, to run barges there must be a reliable and navigable amount
of water. In places where a river is shallow, dams are normally built to make the water deeper and lock sites are
constructed. Locks are used to navigate the barges across the dams, carrying them from one river to the next. If a
barge tow is larger than a lock, the tows will need to be broken up and taken through the lock piecemeal. This
affects efficiency and makes barging even slower than usual, but most importantly it compromises the safety of the
crew on board.
A wide variety of public, semi-public and private entities are involved in the maintenance and operation of the
waterways. In principle, the value of inland waterways lies in their ability to efficiently convey large volumes of
bulk commodities over long routes. This means funding of the infrastructure projects would play a major role.
4. CONCLUSION
The barge mode of transport is mostly beneficial in locations where the inland waterways cover a large
geographic footprint. For example, in the US there is a 12,000 mile (approximately 19,300 km) inland
waterway system. Derived from a normal barge size that is 10.6 m wide, a suitable river would have a minimum
width that is greater than 10.6 m. It should be noted that this minimum width would be able to carry only a
single-row tow barge as opposed to a three-row tow barge as seen in Figure 2, resulting in a low tonnage on the
tow barge. For an average three-row 15-tow barge to be economical, the river would have to be wide enough
to accommodate the 32 m width of the complete barge train over the entire length of the journey.
In South Africa the three main rivers are the Orange, the Vaal and the Limpopo. These rivers are about 2,100,
1,120 and 1,700 km in length, respectively. In addition to the water shortages that the country is faced with, a
large capital sum would have to be invested in infrastructure that would enable setting up an inland waterway
that could accommodate barging. It is important to note that South Africa has a regional climate variability that
normally results in overflows in some river systems, with relatively empty dams in other river systems. This
inconsistency can have a costly impact on barging. In conclusion, given the current river systems in South Africa,
and anticipated future water shortages, barging is not a feasible mode of transport.
5. LIST OF REFERENCES
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge, Retrieved on 24 Aug 2009
b) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/barge-hist.htm, Retrieved on 2 Sep 2009
c) http://oldriverbillzumwalt.members.ktis.net/barges.htm, Retrieved on 24 Aug 2009
d) http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/19581-history-of-transportation-importance-of-barges-video.htm,
Retrieved on 28 Aug 2009
e) http://www.iowadot.gov/compare.pdf, Retrieved on 3 Sep 2009
f) http://www.americanwaterways.com/vessels/AWO_Slideshow/, Retrieved on 31 August 2009
g) http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/geography-of-south-africa.html,
Retrieved on 2 Sep 2009
h) http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Communications/PressReleases/2006/WaterShortage7Mar06.doc,
Retrieved on 09 Sep 09
277
APPENDI X M
278
279
APPENDI X N
Deep Sea Shi ppi ng
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND........................................................................ 281
2. DRY BULK CARRIER CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................... 282
3. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS............................................................................. 284
4. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 285
5. LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................... 285
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Dry Bulk Carrier (Coal-Specific) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Figure 2: The RORO Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Figure 3: World Shipping Trade Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Figure 4: World Ship Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Top Coal Exporters (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
280
APPENDI X N
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Shipping, or carriage of goods by water, has played a significant role in the development of human society over
the centuries. It has been a crucial link through which commercial relationships have been established between
widely separated parts of the world. The focus of this document is on deep sea shipping, which refers to maritime
activity that crosses oceans. The key to deep sea shipping is that sea activity can take place from one country to
another, continent to continent, as opposed to short sea shipping where freight is moved mainly on sea while
navigating the same continent and without crossing an ocean.
Deep sea shipping is used mainly for the movement of large cargo. The vessels that are used for deep sea are
distinguished by the type of goods they carry. They include dry bulk carriers, which transport commodities such
as iron ore, coal (Figure 1) and food.
Examples of liquid bulk carriers are tankers that ship crude oil, chemicals and petrochemical products, diesel-
powered container ships, general goods ships and roll-on, roll-off (RORO) vessels (Figure 2) that transport
wheeled goods such as cars, trucks and trains.
281
APPENDI X N
Deep sea shipping services include international freight transportation and loading and offloading of goods,
known in the industry as stevedoring. Loading and offloading are specialised activities that require extensive
knowledge of the operation of loading equipment, the proper techniques for lifting and stowing cargo, and
correct handling of hazardous materials. Although stevedoring constitutes only a small part of deep sea
shipping, it is important for ports to be well equipped to handle various types of goods.
Even though dry bulk (iron ore, coal, grain and alumina) forms the smallest tonnage proportion of global
seaborne cargo, as depicted in Figure 3 below, it displays an increasing growth rate. The global shipping
market trends show that dry bulk has the highest growth rate in comparison to other types of goods that are
transported by sea. This is according to a document that was presented in 2008 at the International Union of
Marine Insurance (IUMI) conference in Canada. IUMI is a professional body that provides a forum to discuss
and exchange information on issues relating to the marine and shipping industry on an international scale.
According to the figure above, overall growth rate of global trade by volume through shipping accounts for
approximately 55%. This illustrates that ocean shipping will continue as a means of transport, especially for dry
bulk, which has the highest growth rate.
2. DRY BULK CARRIER CHARACTERISTICS
The main product groups of dry bulk include coal, alumina, grain, steel and iron ore. As mentioned under (1)
above, the type of goods that are carried on a ship to a large extent define the ship's design. For example,
overall load weight is the limiting factor in the design of an ore ship, since the ore is a high density material.
282
APPENDI X N
On the other hand, the limiting factor for coal carriers is volume, where a ship will be completely filled with coal
before reaching its maximum draft. The second factor which will govern the ship's dimensions is the size of the
ports and waterways through which it will travel.
A vessel's capacity is measured by several methods:
Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT) - the total weight of the load, supplies and crew that can be added to the
empty vessel.
Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) - measures the total internal capacity of a vessel.
Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEU) - used to measure capacity for container ships.
The average dry bulk vessel ranges between 100,000 and 150,000 DWT. Sea shipping services can be in the
form of liners, tankers or charter services. Liner services make regular, scheduled stops at ports on a fixed route.
Tanker services transport crude oil, petroleum and other liquid products. Charter services, also known as
tramping, move cargo based on load availability. Dry bulk, including coal, is transported through a charter
service. On a charter, a single type of dry bulk is transported without combining it with other products. It is
interesting to note that bulk carriers account for 16% of the world's shipping fleet (only ships that are 300 gross
tonnage and more), which is the third highest after general cargo ships and oil tankers (Figure 4). Note that
Gross Tonnage (GT) is the basis on which manning rules and safety regulations are applied and registration fees
are reckoned. Port fees are also often reckoned on the basis of GT.
APPENDI X N
283
There are highly complex information systems that ships depend on to maintain schedules and efficiently manage
operations at the terminals. Deep sea shippers manage ship routes through real-time, web-based tracking
systems. There are other route optimisation factors that are assessed through the use of relevant technology,
including weather assessments prior to leaving port and expected wind patterns along the route.
3. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
The USA is the world's largest importer and exporter, shipping 1.2 billion tonnes of goods per annum. This
movement is administered through more than 185 ports, which are located along the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf and
Great Lakes coasts, as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. According to the
US Census Bureau, deep-draft ports, which accommodate ocean going vessels, move 99.4% of US overseas
trade by volume and 64.1% by value.
Southern Africa, by comparison, has only 16 noteworthy ports, seven of which are in South Africa: Richards Bay,
Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay, Cape Town and Saldanha. These are controlled by Transnet
National Ports Authority. A new port under Transnet control is Ngqura, which is 20 kmeast of Port Elizabeth. This
port is still under construction and is expected to be operational in the last quarter of 2009. Nqgura will be the
third deep water port in South Africa, after Saldanha and Richards Bay.
The nature of service and type of cargo shipped through each port is driven by the ports infrastructure. As a
result thereof, each port operates and develops its own specialised service, which in turn supports a defined
customer base. Richards Bay for instance, has a specialised terminal for dry bulk, and a multi-purpose terminal
which specialises in raw and semi-processed materials, such as steel, ferro alloys and forest products. Richards
Bay is by far South Africa's premier bulk port that has a privately operated Coal Terminal. During its 2008/09
financial year the Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) handled 61.79 million tonnes (MT) of export coalj.
According to the World Coal Institute, this tonnage placed South Africa in sixth place on the global list of top
coal exporters in 2008 (Table 1).
Table 1: Top Coal Exporters (2008)
Country Total (MT) Steam (MT) Coking (MT)
Australia 252 115 137
Indonesia 203 173 30
Russia 101 86 15
Colombia 74 74 -
USA 74 35 39
South Africa 62 61 1
PR China 47 43 4
In size, Richards Bay has a total land surface of 2,174 hectares and a water surface of 1,443 hectares. It has
been reported that the RBCT is one of the largest coal export facilities in the world, with a potential throughput of
91 million tonnes annually. As an emphasis to RBCTs considerable size, there are 80 km of rail track within the
RBCT complex. Linking of Richards Bay by inland transportation is through a dedicated railway line that
284
APPENDI X N
connects the port with the Mpumalanga province, where most coal comes from, and Gauteng. This rail link was
designed specifically to handle the majority of South Africas coal exports. Other rail links connect Richards Bay
with Durban in the south and Swaziland and Mpumalanga to the north. There is an adequate road system from
Richards Bay to Gauteng, Swaziland, Mozambique, Mpumalanga and Durban.
South Africa does not have any recognised inland waterways that are suitable for freight transportation, which is
often a requirement to enable short sea shipping. South Africa's water transport infrastructure is, therefore, set
up to accommodate imports and exports only on an international trade basis.
4. CONCLUSION
Deep sea shipping is a highly competitive industry with limited competition from other modes of transport. As
described earlier, there is a fair amount of deep sea shipping activity taking place on the coast of South Africa,
particularly coal shipping. The right infrastructure exists and further expansions are taking place, with examples
being the new Nqgura port, and further development of Richards Bay - which at present receives the bulk of
South Africa's export coal.
However, deep sea shipping is not an option for transporting coal destined for power stations within South
Africa, nor is short sea shipping. The main coal mining region is currently situated in the Mpumalanga province,
and indications are that the emerging coal field will be even further inland in the Waterberg area of Limpopo
province. It would not be economically viable to construct navigable waterways between Richards Bay, the
Waterberg and Mpumalanga.
5. LIST OF REFERENCES
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sea_shipping, Retrieved on 27 Aug 2009
b) http://www.hoovers.com/deep-sea-shipping-/--ID__342--/free-ind-fr-profile-basic.xhtml, Retrieved on
1 Sep 2009
c) http://www.iumi2008.com/?pageID=About_IUMI, Retrieved on 10 Sep 2009
d) http://www.answers.com/topic/bulk-carrier#cite_note-SNAME-2, Retrieved on 9 Sep 2009
e) http://ports.co.za/maritime-terms.php#G, Retrieved on 9 Sep 2009
f) http://www.ingenierosnavales.com/uploaded/FactsandFiguresCedricCharpentierGlobalShipping
MarketTrends.pdf, Retrieved on 10 Sep 2009
g) http://www.mindbranch.com/Deep-Sea-Shipping-R3470-2882/, Retrieved on 8 Sep 2009
h) http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/facts.pdf, Retrieved on 10 Sep 2009
i) http://www.transnetnationalportsauthority.net/, Retrieved on 11 Sep 2009
j) http://ports.co.za/richards-bay.php, Retrieved on 9 Sep 2009
k) http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/, Retrieved on 12 Sep 2009
l) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richards_Bay_Coal_Terminal, Retrieved on 15 Sep 2009
m) The impact of water scarcity on economic development initiatives, Authors: J Blignaut and Jan van
Heerden, Department of Economics, Pretoria University, July 2009
(http://www.wrc.org.za/publications_watersa_35_4_July_2009.htm)
285
APPENDI X N
286