Ship simulation – Port Phillip Heads To better understand the size of ship that could safely access the Heads, our navigation study included a ship simulation at the Australian Maritime College Maritime Simulation Centre in Tasmania. The ship simulation was to determine two things: What size vessel could safely transit the Heads with its current configuration? What channel upgrades would be required to allow some of the largest vessels in the world – 18,500 TEU capacity and 400 metres long – to safely transit the Heads? The ship simulator is analogous to a flight simulator. It consists of a full size mock-up of a ship’s bridge with a wrap-around video screen showing the view forward and to either side and includes all navigation instruments, steering and engine controls. Our simulations were piloted by professional Port Phillip Sea Pilots, who specialise in guiding ships in and out of Port Phillip Bay. These pilots are familiar with the conditions in the Heads and how real ships behave. They are also familiar with the Australian Maritime College simulator and its limitations, for instance the simulator’s inability to introduce random currents or sudden failures of a ship’s gear. Both of these situations have occurred during transits of the Heads. The pilots are able to consider the simulator limitations when deciding if a simulated transit was a success. We conducted a number of simulator runs to account for different ship sizes and different tidal conditions. In all, 28 transits of the Heads were simulated with three different ship sizes, including at different times in the tidal cycle: in-bound, flood tide and ebb tide. Table 3 describes the result of these navigation simulations. The 8,500 vessel could safely transit the Heads using existing channels in low current window around slack water. Slack water is the point in the tidal cycle where the level of water inside the bay and outside the bay are equal, resulting in very low tidal currents. Slack water occurs approximately every six hours. Table 3. Results of navigation simulations Vessel Length (m) Beam (m) Draught (m) TEU Result Ital Cortesia Old Post Panamax plus 334 48.2 13 8,500 Vessel could safely transit the Heads using existing channels in low current window around slack water. Current limit: 3 to 4 knots, depending on tide and direction MSC Daniela New Post Panamax 366 51.2 13.5 14,000 Vessel could safely transit the Heads using existing channels in low current window around slack
The navigation simulations show that vessels up to about 14,000 TEU can safely transit the Heads, if they time their transit for the low current period around slack water. As vessels get larger, the length of the window around slack water that the vessel can safely access the Heads becomes smaller. Figure 8 shows the vessel tracks of the 14,000 TEU ship in the simulator for multiple successful transits of the Heads. A number of simulations were carried out to test the effects of deepening or widening the Great Ship Channel. These showed that enlarging the channel did allow larger ships to transit, but they were still restricted to the low current window around slack water. Given the nature of the Heads we think that even with channel upgrades, access for large ships will always be constrained to certain tidal windows around slack water. On the basis of these simulations, a 14,000 TEU ship would be a reasonable future design vessel for Bay West, although it may be many years before these vessels come to Melbourne – see the discussion of ship size and future fleet forecast below. Although access is restricted to certain tidal conditions, this is not unusual. Many ports have similar restrictions including Fremantle and Brisbane, where deep draught ships cannot access the port at low tide. Although we have carried out ship simulations with a deepened and/or widened channel through the Heads, we are not recommending that any dredging in the Heads is required at this stage, and this dredging may never be needed. If in the future the option to expand the channel through the Heads was considered then more detailed studies would be required to assess the environmental and social impact. These issues are discussed further in the Bay West – Potential environmental and social impacts section. Figure 8. Vessel tracks for successful transits of Port Phillip Heads by 14,000 TEU MSC Daniela in ship simulator Source: AECOM, Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Navigation Study, 2017
If an accident resulted in a ship blocking the Great Ship Channel, a number of strategies could be used to minimise the impact of the restriction: Ships with smaller draught could continue to transit the Heads using one of the adjacent shallower channels. Tugs could be used to move the grounded ship or hold it in a position that allowed other ships to pass. Salvage experts could be called in to refloat and remove the grounded ship. The time taken to clear a blocked channel would depend on the nature of the incident. In an extreme case it could take weeks, but several days is considered far more likely. Navigating through the Heads is more complex than the entrance to Western Port. Safety standards are in place at each location to reduce the risk of navigation to acceptable levels. While we were often asked if there was a strong benefit for strategic redundancy of having container ports in separate bays we consider there is a low risk of an incident blocking the Heads. As a result, it was not a key driver in decision making for port location. Which technical reports should I look at for more information? GHD, Infrastructure Victoria Second Container Port Advice – Estimated Capacity of the Port of Melbourne, 2017 AECOM, Infrastructure Victoria Second Port Advice – Navigation Study, 2017
The global shipping industry is highly competitive, and the move to bigger ships is driven by shipping companies always seeking to reduce the cost per TEU of moving a container (the ‘slot cost’). Over the past decade, the global shipping market has suffered from oversupply. To try and maintain business or win new business, shipping companies have responded to this oversupply by ordering and building even bigger ships, in constant pursuit of lower costs, usually measured in cost per TEU. In open markets this is a strange industry response, with oversupply in an industry typically resulting in a rationalisation of firms. So far the shipping industry has resisted this trend, but we are starting to see more consolidation within the industry. The current oversupply has also led some shipping lines to form alliances, which lets them combine their business and send fewer, bigger ships on the same route. So far this process has been fluid, with alliances ceasing and reforming regularly. The increasing supply of large ships has resulted in some ships being scrapped after only ten years, and also in shipping companies seeking to accelerate the cascade of larger ships from to North–South routes (for more information on the lifecycle of ship and the cascade effect, see page 56). Table 4. Container ships on order, January 2017 TEU capacity TEU capacity Number of % of total vessels TEU capacity on order 0 – 3,999 239 15% 4,000 – 5,999 9 2% 6,000 – 7,999 1 <1% 8,000 – 11,999 53 18% 12,000 – 15,999 60 26% >16,000 62 38% Source: Adapted by Infrastructure Victoria from Drewry, Container Ship Fleet Forecast and Maritime Economic Assessment, 2017 Table 4 shows a breakdown of the container ships currently on order around the world. Almost all fall into two categories: small ‘feeder’ ships of less than 4,000 TEU or large ships of greater than 8,000 TEU. Feeder ships are small ships used to service small ports in regional groups for example some Tasmanian and Pacific Island trade, which is only a small percentage of Port of Melbourne’s trade.
Design vessels For the Bay West concept we have considered two design vessels. The first is a 14,000 TEU vessel, the largest vessel that can transit the existing channels through Port Phillip Heads, as established by navigation simulations carried out at the Australian Maritime College. The second scenario is a larger 18,500 TEU vessel, included for direct comparison with Hastings. Navigation simulations indicated that for vessels of this size to safely transit the heads it would be necessary to widen the Great Ship Channel. This option is included for comparison purposes, at this stage we are not proposing any further dredging of the Great Ship Channel at the Port Phillip Bay Heads. Table 16 shows the vessel characteristics for the two scenarios we modelled. Bay West concept design Terminal location In the selected Werribee River concept the container quay and terminal are located on a reclaimed island in Port Phillip Bay, south of the Werribee River mouth and about 1.5 kilometres offshore of the Western Treatment Plant. There is a 4.1 kilometre strait quay line backed by a 600 metre deep terminal area, providing about 250 hectares of land and a capacity of 9 million TEU per year. The terminal area includes ship to shore cranes, a container stacking area and road and rail loading and unloading. The island also accommodates some port services and maintenance functions. Figure 37 shows the terminal location. Table 16. Design vessel characteristics for Bay West and Hastings SCENARIO 1: 14,000 TEU – Constrained by existing Port Phillip Heads SCENARIO 2: 18,500 TEU – Port Phillip Heads widened, not deepened 14,000 TEU New Post Panamax Based on MCS Daniela 366 metre LOA 51.2 metre beam 13.5 metre sailing draught 18,500 TEU Ultra Large Container Ship Based on Maersk, ‘triple E’ vessel. 400 metre LOA 59 metre beam 14.0 metre sailing draught Source: Infrastructure Victoria 2017
Economic evaluation scenarios: Bay West – design for 14,000 TEU ships. No upgrade of channel through the Heads. Required upgrades to the existing rail network completed in stage one. Hastings – design for 14,000 TEU ships, including rail connections and with Regional Rail East constructed in stage one. Hastings minimum rail – design for 14,000 TEU ships. The port uses the existing rail connection via the Stony Point and Frankston line. The new line from Hastings to Lyndhurst and Regional Rail East are not constructed. As a result, rail capacity is severely limited by the constraints of the existing network. Figure 39. Capital cost to expand capacity at Bay West Source: Deloitte for Infrastructure Victoria Figure 39 and 40 show the tranches of capacity expansion and capital cost profile for the economic evaluation scenarios at Bay West and Hastings. Figure 40. Capital cost to expand capacity at Hastings Source: Deloitte for Infrastructure Victoria
invest? Assessed at 3 million, 6 million and 9 million TEU per year capacity. Consider the ability to bring forward or defer stages to mirror demand. Is each capacity tranche ‘stand alone’, both efficient and able to be operated if no further stages were delivered? defer tranches of capacity. Hasting scored lower because each stage requires additional dredging and significant environmental approvals. Also the create of Regional Rail East to provide freight rail access to Hastings is a very large investment that cannot be staged. Long-term flexibility Whether the second port has the ability to become the State’s primary port in the future and whether each option has the capacity to expand to meet demand and accommodate alternative trades. We considered whether there was flexibility to: Expand capacity beyond 9 million TEU (to 12 or 15 million TEU) Allow changes to the port location and layout in design development phase (to mitigate impacts) Adapt to unforeseen change/new technology Readily accommodate a world class intermodal (rail) facility Bay West preferred Bay West scored higher because there is more room to expand port footprint and good transport connections which allow a much larger ultimate container capacity as well as room for other trades if required. Hastings does have more land available close to the port for logistics use, but it would be difficult to expand the terminal beyond 9 million TEU. term
to the port. There would need to be a very detailed assessment if the channel through the heads was widened as part of the bay West project to ensure impacts to beaches close to the heads are managed. There would be small changes in water levels within the bay. Social Land use impacts and impacts on private property These are the impacts of land acquisition, changes in land zoning and planning controls. This may also include other industry consequences. Bay West preferred Bay West scored higher because it does not require any acquisition of residences. It would have some impact on the Western treatment Plant including temporary occupation of land during construction. The hasting transport corridors require significant private land acquisition including residences and businesses. Amenity (lifestyle impacts) Proximity to the port option locations, and post triggered infrastructure and its impact on amenity and lifestyle of the area. Neutral Bay West scored higher, although the scores are close. Both port options would reduce the waterway area available for recreational fishing, but the area lost at Hastings is though to be more valuable. The Hastings port and transport corridors are closer to residential