Questionnaire PIANC WG 179

PIANC The World Association for Brussels, July 16, 2015 Waterborne Transport Infrastructure To the First Delegates of PIANC’s National Sections To the Secretaries of PIANC’s National Sections Subject: Questionnaire PIANC WG 179 Dear Madam, Dear Sir, During several meetings of the PIANC Commission InCom, in February and September 2014, the subject was discussed to re-examine the European standardisation and classification of inland waterways, as the classification defined by the CEMT (Conference of European Ministers of Transport), which dates from 1992, made no provision for larger motor vessels and coupled units. PIANC stood at the base of the current 1992 CEMT classification. PIANC Working Group 9 produced a report in 1990, titled ‘Standardisation of Inland Waterway’s Dimensions’, containing a proposal for new standardisation of inland waterways. One of the reasons to install this Working Group was that the previous CEMT classification of 1954 had no provisions for push convoys of 2, 4 and 6 barges. On October 9, 2014, the Executive Commission of PIANC (ExCom) gave its approval to the Terms of Reference (ToR, see Appendix 1) and ordered to start a new InCom Working Group, numbered 179, concerned with the issue mentioned above, under the chairmanship of Mr Ivo ten Broeke (The Netherlands), engineer at Rijkswaterstaat and Rhine-commissioner (CCR). As written in the ToR, the Working Group will make use of the findings and recommendations of the previous Working Group no. 9. Working Group 179 held a first meeting in Brussels in June 2015 and gave its proposal to send a questionnaire to the National Sections, thereby following the method of the previous Working Group 9. Working Group 179 also decided not to limit itself to the European Sections, thereby giving those on other continents the chance to contribute. Please find herewith the questionnaire (see Appendix 2); we would like to ask you to put your answers in the Excel document enclosed, which has 3 tabs for the questions dedicated. Furthermore, we ask you to provide us with a map (question 4) of your waterway network, if available. Please send your filled Excel document and other documents (like the map mentioned) to [email protected] before September 1, 2015. This e-mail address can also be used in case you have any questions. We would like to thank you in advance for your contribution to this important matter. Yours sincerely, Otto Koedijk, MSC Secretary WG 179 Saatja: "Liina Härm" <[email protected]> Saaja: "Karin Jaanhold" <[email protected]> Teema: Fwd: Questionnaire PIANC WG 179 - To all National Sections Kuupäev: 2015-08-06 12:28 Palun registreerida. Liina -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Questionnaire PIANC WG 179 - To all National Sections Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:13:29 +0000 From: Leen Weltens <[email protected]> To: Ali Reeza Kebriaee - Iran <[email protected]>, Ali Reeza Kebriaee - Iran <[email protected]>, Allahyar - Iran <[email protected]>, Ana Higa - Brazil <[email protected]>, André Van Lammeren - The Netherlands <[email protected]>, Anna Wypych-Namiotko - Poland <[email protected]>, Australische Sectie Secr. <[email protected]>, Beat Ursenbacher - Switzerland <[email protected]>, Dorian Bilse - South Africa <[email protected]>, Finse Sectie <[email protected]>, Fridtjof Wangsvik <[email protected]>, Hreinn Haraldsson - Iceland <[email protected]>, Ian White - UK <[email protected]>, Iran <[email protected]>, Jaroslav Bimka - Czech Republic <[email protected]>, Jo-Ellen Darcy - USA <[email protected]>, Jon Granstedt - Sweden <[email protected]>, José Llorca Ortega - Spain <[email protected]>, Kim Seon-nyon - Korea <[email protected]>, Kjeld Dahl Sørensen - Denmark <[email protected]>, Liina Harm - Estonia <[email protected]>, Ljubisa Mihajlovic - Serbia <[email protected]>, Manuel Marcos Rita - Portugal <[email protected]>, Massimo Sessa - Italy <[email protected]>, Michael Behrendt - Germany <[email protected]>, Mostafa Khanzadi - Iran <[email protected]>, Mr Muruganandam - India <[email protected]>, Nakao Narikuni - Japan <[email protected]>, Neil Lawson - Australia <[email protected]>, Oostenrijkse Sectie <[email protected]>, Oostenrijkse Sectie Secr. <[email protected]>, Otto Schwetz - Austria <[email protected]>, Pablo Emilio Romero <[email protected]>, Paul Scherrer - France <[email protected]>, Raúl Escalante - Argentina <[email protected]>, Reinhard Vorderwinkler - Austria <[email protected]>, Taishi Yamamoto - Japan <[email protected]>, Yamagata Norihiko - Japan <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> CC: Ana Higa - Brazil <[email protected]>, Anne Cann <[email protected]>, Argentijnse Sectie <[email protected]>, Australische Sectie <[email protected]>, Australische Sectie Secr. <[email protected]>, Belgische Sectie <[email protected]>, Belgische Sectie 2 <[email protected]>, Britse Sectie <[email protected]>, Canadese Sectie <[email protected]>, Colombiaanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Deense Sectie <[email protected]>, Duitse Sectie <[email protected]>, Finse Sectie <[email protected]>, Finse Sectie 2 <[email protected]>, Franse Sectie 2 <[email protected]>, Indische Sectie <[email protected]>, Iraanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Iraanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Italiaanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Japanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Japanse Sectie 2 <[email protected]>, Jaroslav Bimka <[email protected]>, Koreaanse Sectie - Youngmin Oh <[email protected]>, Koreaanse Sectie ([email protected]) <[email protected]>, Liina Harm - Estonia <[email protected]>, Nederlandse Sectie <[email protected]>, Noorse Sectie - Elin Orö Nybö <[email protected]>, Olivier Piet ([email protected]) <[email protected]>, Oostenrijkse Sectie <[email protected]>, Oostenrijkse Sectie <[email protected]>, Oostenrijkse Sectie <[email protected]>, Poolse Sectie <[email protected]>, Portugese Sectie <[email protected]>, Servische Sectie <[email protected]>, Spaanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Spaanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Zuid-Afrikaanse Sectie <[email protected]>, Zweedse Sectie <[email protected]>, Zweedse Sectie 2 <[email protected]>, Zwitserse Sectie <[email protected]>, Sluijs, Anja van der (WVL) <[email protected]>, An Van Schel <[email protected]>, Sabine Vandevelde <[email protected]>, Louis Van Schel <[email protected]>, Geoffroy Caude <[email protected]> Dear all, Please find the documents attached regarding the questionnaire of PIANC WG 179 of InCom. Best regards, Leen */Ms Leen Weltens/* */PIANC Editing Officer/* */****************/* Graaf de Ferraris - 11th Floor - Box 3 Koning Albert II-laan 20 1000 Brussels BELGIUM Tel.: 32 2 553 71 57 Fax: 32 2 553 71 55 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.pianc.org Appendix 1. Terms of Reference Working Group 179 How to deal with new ships in the CEMT ’92 classification – towards a new CEMT (ITF) classification. 1 Background In 1992, the Conference of European Ministers of Transport (CEMT) authorised the current classification for inland waterways. In 2007 the CEMT evolved in the International Transport Forum (ITF). PIANC stood at the base of the 1992 CEMT classification. The PIANC Working Group no. 9 produced a report in 1990, titled ‘Standardisation of Inland Waterway’s Dimensions. One of the reasons to install this working group was that the previous CEMT classification of 1954 had no provisions for push convoys of 2, 4 and 6 barges. Since 1992 however, several developments were experienced again in the size and forms of barges, as well as their means to manoeuvre. Meant are the larger (and often wider) motor vessels, as well as the coupled units that sail the (larger) waterways nowadays. Examples of those are the Rhine max vessel (135 x 17 m.) respectively a coupled unit, which can exist of a common large Rhine vessel (110 x 11.40 m.) combined with a pushed barge upfront. This pushed barge can be a regular Europe II type or a tailor made one, both resulting in a total length of 170-190 m. A coupled unit can also be 2 peniches attached. The CEMT ’92 classification has no provisions for those larger motor vessels as well as coupled units. Misunderstandings exist among the different countries as to the classification of the vessels mentioned. In this way, history repeats itself. For Rijkswaterstaat this caused to study those developments thoroughly (see references below). Underlying reports were written by the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN). Data for these studies were obtained from registration of passing ships in the Netherlands (IVS ’90) as well as the IVR (Rheinschiffsregisterverband). The overall conclusion was that the CEMT ’92 classification is no longer properly for the current European fleet of barges. By clustering the existing fleet Rijkswaterstaat developed further its own RWS 2010 Classification, within the CEMT ’92 system. Leading for the new classification were the horizontal dimensions of the ships, primarily the beam and secondarily the length. 2 Objective Objective of the Working Group is to undertake an investigation, merely in the same way the previously mentioned PIANC Working Group no.9 has executed. An inventory will be made of existing inland waterway classifications and the divergences among them. This inventory will relate to the different continents. Making an inventory of dimensions of the inland waterway fleet and seeking out the trends in its long term evolution. The work of Working Group no. 9 was carried out by means of a questionnaire for transmission to the PIANC national sections in the countries concerned. This approach could be repeated. Relevant questions of the questionnaire (partly adapted) are: 1. What is the classification of inland waterway vessels applied in your country, specifying all the dimensions taken into account? 2. Does this classification still correspond to the evolution in respect to shipping, or does it need to be revised and for what reasons? 3. Is navigation by coupled units developed? Does the classification take account of it? If so, how? 4. Is navigation by motor vessels larger than 110 m developed? Does the classification take ac-count of it? If so, how?  5. What is the outlook for development of the fleet and, in particular, towards which dimensions of vessels or coupled units are tending? Will the existing infrastructures be able to cope with these new units, possibly coming from neighbouring countries? Possible limit of the investigation The Working Group no. 9 concluded, that apart from Europe, the inland waterway systems show hardly any interconnection; consequently a standardisation did not appear to be useful. If this conclusion is judged still valid, the investigation could be limited to the European PIANC members. 3 Products The WG should analyse and report on the collected data found by the questionnaire. It should review on the classifications used, the need for revision, and the development of the new vessels mentioned. It should summarise the possible development of the fleet and give proposals for new standardisation. References 1. Rijkswaterstaat Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer: Classificatie en kenmerken van de Europese vloot en de actieve vloot in Nederland, Rotterdam 2002. (Classification and characteristics of the European fleet and the active fleet in the Netherlands) 2. Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN): Herziening inventarisatie manoeuvreermiddelen, Wageningen 2008. (Revision inventory means for manoeuvring) 3. Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN): Scheepskarakteristieken van nieuwe grote schepen, Wageningen 2010. (Characteristics of newly built large barges). Appendix 2. Questionnaire Please fill your answers in the Excel document enclosed. 1. What is the classification of inland waterway vessels applied in your country, specifying all the dimensions taken into account? 2. What is the number of commercial inland vessels in your country and how is this fleet divided over the classification applied? 3. Does this classification still correspond to the evolution in respect to shipping, or does it need to be revised and for what reasons? 4. Could you provide us with information about your inland waterway network, including locks and their dimensions? Please provide us also with a map, if available. 5. Does your country have concrete plans for upgrading your waterway network, locks included? If so, where and how? 6. Is navigation by coupled units developed? Does the classification take account of it? If so, how? 7. Is navigation by motor vessels larger than 110 m developed? Does the classification take account of it (for both length and beam)? If so, how? 8. A. What is the outlook for development of the fleet and, in particular, towards which dimensions of vessels or coupled units are tending? B. Will the existing infrastructures be able to cope with these new units, possibly coming from neighbouring countries? 9. Does your country experience the problem of too little headroom for loaded container vessels under fixed bridges over canals that meet with CEMT ’92 demands? If so, what headroom (in decimetre) would be needed? Please give the foundation of the number given. QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 motor vessels and barges pushed conveys classes of number of navigable maximum maximum vessels waterways length (m) beam (m) draught (m) tonnage length (m) beam (m) draught (m) tonnage (today) additional information QUESTION 4 dimension of lock name of waterways length (m) beam (m) draught over sill (m) additional information Question 3; Does this classification still correspond to the evolution in respect to shipping, or does it need to be revised and for what reasons? Question 5; Does your country have concrete plans for upgrading your waterway network, locks included? If so, where and how? Question 6; Is navigation by coupled units developed? Does the classification take account of it? If so, how? Question 7; Is navigation by motorvessels larger than 110 m developed? Does the classification take account of it (for both length and beam)? If so, how? Question 8 A; What is the outlook for development of the fleet and, in particular, towards which dimensions of vessels or coupled units are tending? Question 8 B; Will the existing infrastructures be able to cope with these new units, possibly coming from neighbouring countries? Question 9. Does your country experience the problem of too little headroom for loaded containervessels under fixed bridges over canals that meet with CEMT ’92 demands? If so, what headroom (in decimetre) would be needed? Please give the foundation of the number given.