Deliverable D10 Profitabliliy of Concepts final...change of a reactive solution finding to a...

Deliverable_ Profitability_of_Concepts _D.10_v1.0

© TelliBox consortium

TelliBox is funded within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Commission

i

Intelligent MegaSwapBoxes for Advanced Intermodal Freight Transport

Deliverable no. D10

Report on Results of Profitability Calculation of Concepts

Work package no.: 4

Work package name: Evaluation Phase

Lead participant: ZLW-IMA, RWTH Aachen University

Nature of Deliverable1: R

Dissemination level2: PU

Due del. date from Annex I: 19

Actual delivery date: 24

Version: 1.0

Status: final

1 R = Report; P = Prototype; O = Other

2 PU = Public; RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium

Deliverable_ ProfitabilityOfConcepts _D.10_final



ii

Overview

Author(s): Sebastian Jursch,

Contact Person(s)

Organisation:

Address:

Email:

Tel: +

Fax: +

Sebastian Jursch

ZLW-IMA RWTH Aachen

Dennewartstr. 27, 52068 Aachen

[email protected]

+49 (0) 24180911-46

+49 (0) 24180911-22

Review

Date: Version: Reviewed by:

30.03.2010 00.01 CTL

04.2010 00.02 Wincanton




iii

1. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Methods of Profitability Analysis ....................................................................................... 2

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Return on Investment (ROI)............................................................................................. 3

2.3 Net-Present Value (NPV)................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) ................................................................................................. 6

2.5 Value oriented cost-effectiveness estimation (NOWS) .................................................... 6

3. Considered Solutions.......................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Air-Tech-Box.................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Fala-EC-Box .................................................................................................................. 11

3.4 Shoe-Box....................................................................................................................... 12

4. Procedure........................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 ROI & NPV .................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 14

4.1.2 ROI and NPV comparison calculation:.................................................................. 15

4.1.3 Fixed and variable costs ....................................................................................... 15




iv

4.1.4 Economies of Scale .............................................................................................. 16

4.1.5 Modelling the transport costs function .................................................................. 17

4.1.6 Transport costs in road traffic ............................................................................... 20

4.1.7 Transport costs in rail traffic.................................................................................. 23

4.1.8 Transportkosten in shipping traffic ........................................................................ 24

4.1.9 Costs for loading and unloading ........................................................................... 26

4.1.10 Handling costs ....................................................................................... 27

4.1.11 Transport independent costs ................................................................. 28

4.2 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) ............................................................................................... 34

4.3 Value oriented cost-effectiveness estimation (NOWS) .................................................. 35

5. Findings.............................................................................................................................. 37

5.1 Return on Investment (ROI) & Net Present Value (NPV)............................................... 37

5.2 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) ............................................................................................... 47

5.3 Value oriented cost-effectiveness estimation (NOWS) .................................................. 50

6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 57

7. Bibliography....................................................................................................................... 58

8. Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 62

8.1 Cost aspects of AirTech-Box ......................................................................................... 62




v

8.2 Benefit aspects AirTech-Box ......................................................................................... 63

8.3 Cost aspects Fala-EC-Box ............................................................................................ 64

8.4 Benefit aspects Fala-EC-Box......................................................................................... 65

8.5 Cost aspects Shoe-Box ................................................................................................. 66

8.6 Benefit aspects Shoe-Box ............................................................................................. 67

8.7 Cost Model TelliBox....................................................................................................... 68




vi

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Value oriented cost-effectiveness estimation (NOWS) ......................................8

Figure 3-1: Air-Tech-Box....................................................................................................10

Figure 3-2: Fala-EC-Box....................................................................................................11

Figure 3-3: Shoe-Box.........................................................................................................12

Figure 4-1: Function of transport costs of truck, train and ship ..........................................19

Figure 4-2: Transport Cost Function for the TelliBox test track (schematically) .................20

Figure 4-3: Market share of German and foreign trucks in Germany, 1991-2010

(Crossboarder and german traffic) (2009 D BGL)..............................................................23

Figure 4-4: Considered possibilities of intermodal transport ..............................................33

Figure 5-1: Description of the NPV calculation for the Air-Tech-Box .................................42

Figure 5-2: Description of the NPV calculation for the Fala-EC-Box..................................43

Figure 5-3: Description of the NPV calculation for the Shoe-Box.......................................44

Figure 5-4: Results of ROI .................................................................................................46

Figure 5-5: NOWS-graph of AirTech-Box..............................................................51

Figure 5-6: Air-Tech-Box results of the NOWS-Workshop.................................................52

Figure 5-7: NOWS-graph of Fala-EC-Box.............................................................53

Figure 5-8: Fala-EC-Box results of the NOWS-Workshop .................................................54

Figure 5-9: NOWS-graph of Shoe-Box..................................................................55




vii

Figure 5-10: Shoe-Box results of the NOWS-Workshop....................................................56




viii

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Dependency of the ROI of the considered period................................................4

Table 4-1: Sharing of costs of an average truck for long distances (150 km) in November

2009 (Source: BGL, Statistisches Bundesamt)..................................................................21

Table 4-2: Handling of transport x to y...............................................................................33

Table 4-3: Classification matrix for costs and benefits.......................................................35

Table 5-1: Average Transport Charges each 100 km for the TelliBox ...............................37

Table 5-2: Annual transport charges for the TelliBox.........................................................37

Table 5-3: Annual costs for transhipment for the TelliBox..................................................38

Table 5-4: Annual costs for maintenance and repair .........................................................38

Table 5-5 Overview over all annual operative costs ..........................................................39

Table 5-6 Overview of investments....................................................................................47

Table 5-7: Overview of operational costs...........................................................................48

Table 5-8: Overview of maintenance .................................................................................48

Table 5-9: Overview of costs of repair ...............................................................................49

Table 5-10: Overview of transport costs ............................................................................49

Table 5-11: Overview of other costs ..................................................................................50

Table 5-12: Acquisition costs of the TelliBox designs ........................................................52




ix

List of Formula

Formula 2-1 .........................................................................................................................3

Formula 2-2 .........................................................................................................................3

Formula 2-3 .........................................................................................................................5

Formula 2-4 .........................................................................................................................5

Formula 5-1 .......................................................................................................................40

Formula 5-2 .......................................................................................................................40

Formula 5-3 .......................................................................................................................40

Formula 5-4: Calculation formula for the AirTech-Box .......................................................41

Formula 5-5: Calculation formula for the Fala-EC-Box ......................................................42

Formula 5-6: Calculation formula for the Shoe-Box ...........................................................43

Formula 5-7 .......................................................................................................................44

Formula 5-8 .......................................................................................................................45




1

1. Summary

Within the NOWS workshop, an estimation of the value orientated cost-effectiveness was

conducted for three alternative designs of the TelliBox. Participants of the workshop were

members of the project consortia of TelliBox. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated for

each design relative to today used swap-bodies. The Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC) also

regarded the three TelliBox solutions and the LCC workshop was conducted with the three

leaders of each TelliBox concept. The Return of Investment (ROI) and Net Present Value

(NPV) were determined for each of the three TelliBox solutions. As baseline for the

calculation, due to not yet completely definable assets, a “modified Megatrailer” was used.

The comparison with swap-bodies and Megatrailer shows in addition the profitability

compared to current solutions.

Generally it could be shown that the benefits for each design strongly dominate the costs

independent of the risk attitude of the decision maker. This means that even when all costs

of any type and with any probability are aggregated and compared with only direct benefits

with a high probability, the benefits still exceed the arising costs.

After evaluating the results of the NOWS-method and the ROI & NPV, it can be stated that

an investment for any TelliBox can be recommended. However, the evaluation of the

results almost gives no preference for any design variant of the TelliBox as with NOWS for

any scenario only a tendency can be given. The tendency of NOWS is also for LCC, ROI &

NPV the same:

1. Fala-EC-Box

2. Shoe-Box

3. AirTech-Box




2

2. Methods of Profitability Analysis

2.1 Introduction

Before making an investment, one should take into consideration under inclusion of all

available information the financial consequences of a decision. The more in the long term

the results of the investment are, the more it is difficult to revise them and the costs of a

false decision are higher. The TelliBox is used operational, for the transport of a product

from A to B, and can be pulled therefore, in principle, any time out of traffic. However, with

a prospective life span of ten years it is a strategic investment, which is why an analysis

concerning its economic efficiency is of basic meaning. A distinction is drawn between

static and dynamic calculation methods. The essential difference lies in the fact that the

dynamic methods discounts future amounts and therefore are closer to reality, because

they take into consideration capital costs and the inflation. As a static method the net

present value method (NPV, Net Present Value) is suited of the Return on investment

(ROI), as a dynamic method for the following calculation. Enterprise success assumes a

logical focusing on profitability, problem solutions and customer use which indicates a

change of a reactive solution finding to a proactive generator of customised solutions. An

economic efficiency draught to these requirements is the Life-Cycle Costing (LCC). As a

dynamic method the net present value method (NPV) is likewise the static Return of

investment (ROI) suited for the calculation. To examine also non-monetary dimensions like

flexibility, costs for employee's training or loss of working hours onto the calculation, so

that one can reach high product quality, customer contentment or share of the market, it

requires to a model like the value oriented cost-effectiveness estimation (NOWS). The

results of these single calculations and methods are merged in the chapter 5 and are

brought into connection.




3

2.2 Return on Investment (ROI)

An identification number from the controlling to the profitability analysis of enterprises

which is formed from the relation by profit and the total capital (company capital and

outside capital) is original the ROI. This is equivalent to the product of sales profitability

and handling frequency of the total capital (Breuer 2000).

Thereby the ROI is the relation from profit and invested capital returns in percent:

ROI = capitalInvested

incomeinvestmentwithassociatedx %100

Formula 2-1

Because in this case only the cost side will be looked at and cost savings correspond to a

profit increase, the formula can be modified as following (Schulte 2007):

ROI = capitalInvested

investmenttroughsavingsCostx %100

Formula 2-2

If one liked to compare investment alternatives with each other, they must underlie the

same basic conditions (identical time span, consideration of the same costs, e.g.,

disposal). Besides, the achieved profit can be covered to any time interval. Mostly one

covers it to a year (success divided into periods) or to the whole life span (complete

success). If one accumulates the profits, the time to which they have reached the

investment costs shows the break even point. At that time the investment has amortised.

Hypothesis: One looks at the example row from Table 2-1. There are three possibilities to

calculate the ROI:

1. The given period is the first year. The resulting ROI is 33,3%




4

2. If the profits are the same in all periods, one can cover the net amount of a period to

the investment sum. In this example you get a ROI of 35000 / 25000 x 100% =

140%.

3. One looks at the whole life span: ROI = 200%

Table 2-1 Dependency of the ROI of the considered period

Year Value

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Cost 25.000 € 5.000 € 5.000 € 5.000 €

Gain 0 € 40.000 € 40.000 € 40.000 €

Accrued costs 25.000 € 30.000 € 35.000 € 40.000 €

Cumulative Net Amount -25.000 € 10.000 € 45.000 € 80.000 €

ROI 33,33% 128,57% 200,00%

Critically is to observe that in the ROI analysis no statement about the risk of the

investment and the amount of the profit is done (Breuer in 2006).

Comparing two investment alternatives with distinct life span, the ROI is not applicable.

Nevertheless, one can cover the net present value of the costs saved by the investment to

the investment sum. Due to the consideration of the order of the payments through

discounting it is basically getting a dynamic method. However, the identified number

corresponds still to the ROI: „ With investment of an amount, one gets back x times of this

amount as a profit “ (Breuer in 2000).

2.3 Net-Present Value (NPV)

The net present value (NPV) is a dynamic procedure to the profitability calculation.

Because the time of the payments is taken into consideration, it is more expressive than

the ROI and should be preferred to this (Breuer in 2006).




5

The discounting of all payments linked with the investment on the investment time will be

done by the discount rate i:

TT

1t

tt0 )i1(L)i1(RINPV −

=

−++++−= ∑

Formula 2-3

Respectively at constant Cash-Flow: T

T

T

t0 )i1(Li)i1(

1)i1(RINPV −

++

⋅+

−++−=

NPV Net Present Value

I Invest

Rt Cash-Flow in period t (= Invest – Proceeds)

L Liquidation proceeds

i Discount rate

T Life span of invest

Formula 2-4

If the net present value is positive, the investment is to be carried out. Is to be decided

between several alternatives, the investment with the higher capital value is to be chosen.

If a negative cash flow is gained in a period, the investment should be liquidated if no more

obligations are connected with the investment or payments occur in a later period (when

achievement time and payment time break up).

The discount rate takes into consideration the capital costs which are to be set for the

investment (e.g., interest for the loan) which is raised by a risk premium. Critically is to be

marked that the calculation interest rate is subjective (which is why the acceptances in

particular above the risk premium should be called explicit) and the height must be

estimated for the payments and presume a perfect capital market on which debtor interest

and deposit rates are identical. The NPV itself tells nothing about the investment volume. If

one compares different investment alternatives, it can seem that the alternative with the




6

higher NPV is not practicable, because also the investment is higher and exceeds,

perhaps, the budget.

2.4 Life Cycle Costing (LCC)

The Life-Cycle Costing is a proactive procedure to analyse and assess the costs of capital

goods during its life cycle. The approach contains an adaptable calculation model which is

not too complicated within defined borders scalable and keeps the look for the essentials.

This method can be easily adapted to different applications. Basis for the LCC are

measurable input dimensions which split themselves in issues and income which results

during the whole life cycle. Issues that count for the TelliBox are for example the

investment, servicing and inspection, support by the manufacturer, training and use in the

company, disposal etc. In addition, other costs can be the cost for a new chassis etc. On

the income side one receives for the TelliBox comparable fixed costs like already

widespread containers as well as the liquidation at the end of the life cycle. Cost factors

can be above also identified by the analysis of all expense factors and optimisation

potentials be indicated. The total expenses reflect the reliability of the product, because

unimportant subsequent costs do not originate from failure and shutdown. With respect to

this one recognises a paradigm change in the procurement process, because with priority

not the invest cost, but the total expenses is looked and putatively uneconomical ones and

expensive capital goods regarding the total expenses can be substantially cheaper

(Schweiger 2009). This point could be important with marketing of the TelliBox, because it

is expected to be more expensive, but amortise, however, on a continuing basis and is

more economic with rising traffic amount.

2.5 Value oriented cost-effectiveness estimation (NOWS)

The NOWS method (Strina/Uribe 2004; Strina et al. 2003, Uribe et al. 2004) is a

participation-oriented, entrepreneurial cybernetic approach for the evaluation of costs and

benefits of an investment. The method enables a decision maker on investment




7

opportunities to combine the classical analysis of investment in monetary terms with

relevant non-monetary variables or the so-called soft factors in the profitability analysis.

The intersection point of the cost and benefit curve provides a profitability indicator

comparing different scenarios with each other. This approach needs to be considered in

comparison to the classical economic efficiency approaches: these conventional

approaches limit themselves basically to the quantifiable objectives in terms of monetary

data, e. g. costs and revenues (so called “harder” factors). In contrast, the NOWS

approach considers non-monetary objectives such as time, quality, flexibility, employee

perspectives or organizational environment (so called “softer” factors) to be evaluated in

terms of money.

The NOWS-method consists of seven phases which form the basis for all participation-

oriented processes as well as the learning processes (Unger 1998) of all participants and

also the organization. Figure 2-1 gives an overview on the NOWS method. In step one, a

representative, interdisciplinary team is created from executives and employees who are

affected by the measures and strategies. Within the project TelliBox the interdisciplinary

team for the NOWS-workshop was already given by the project consortia.




8

Ste

p5

5d

5c

5b

5a

Evaluation of the investment

Collection and

Classification €Evaluation and

monetization

Investment-

decision

Formation of an interdisciplinary team

Ste

p1

Pro

ble

m S

olv

ing

Pro

ce

ss

Ste

p3 Target Situation

Ste

p4

Collection of actions

Ste

p7 Reflection

Visualisation of

costs and benefits

Ste

p6

Creation and implementation of an action plan

Ste

p2

Initial Situation

Ste

p5

5d

5c

5b

5a

Evaluation of the investment

Collection and

Classification €Evaluation and

monetization

Investment-

decision

Formation of an interdisciplinary team

Ste

p1

Pro

ble

m S

olv

ing

Pro

ce

ss

Ste

p3 Target Situation

Ste

p4

Collection of actions

Ste

p7 Reflection

Visualisation of

costs and benefits

Ste

p6

Creation and implementation of an action plan

Ste

p2

Initial Situation

Figure 2-1: Value oriented cost-effectiveness estimation (NOWS)

In step two, a description of the initial situation, a definition of the target situation (step

three) and the collection of actions in step four build the basis of the research project

TelliBox.

Step five evaluates for each action the cost-effectiveness in order to realize the investment

decision in step six. Step seven builds a reflection of the decision process in form of a

second, ex-post NOWS-evaluation.




9

3. Considered Solutions

3.1 Introduction

For the evaluation phase three concepts has been examined. The concepts are the

AirTech-Box, Fala-EC-Box and the Shoe-Box/3D-Box. These three concepts will be briefly

described within this chapter.

3.2 Air-Tech-Box

Key system of the AirTech-Box is a airbag system which is able to lift the floor and hence

allows to design a fixed sidewall of 600mm height. On the fixed bottom frame part with a

height of 130mm is a liftable bottom frame placed. The liftable part is used as the loading

platform and lifted by using airbags and external energy. The Airtech system works with

folded aluminium side doors on the left and right sides, rear portal doors and steel

corrugated front wall and a liftable roof with mechanical system (Figure 3-1).




10

Figure 3-1: Air-Tech-Box

The special components of the Airtech solution essentially are:

• The airbag system that can lift the liftable floor 420mm for loading from the sides.

To load or unload from the rear there is no lifting needed.

• The liftable floor is made from 30mm aluminium and is actually the loading platform

of the box.

• The fixed sidewalls with a height of 600mm starting from the bottom. The main

function is to support the whole structure due to its stiffness.




11

3.3 Fala-EC-Box

The Fala-EC-Box is emerged from the former solutions Fala-Box and EC-Box. The main

idea is to have one fixed side wall on the right side of the 160mm bottom frame and folded

side walls on the left side (Figure 3-2). The bottom frame square elements are asymmetric

constructed. The cross members are not parallel mounted. On the left side of the bottom

frame, the height of outside frame is reduced to the middle. In case of loading, the

deflections of the outside frame are 80mm, but the design of the outside frame helps keep

the allowed maximum deflections. The roof can be lifted only between the 40 ft top corner

casting” (Deliverable D8).

Figure 3-2: Fala-EC-Box

The special components of the Fala-EC-Box essentially are:




12

• One fixed side wall

• Special designed bottom frame

• The roof can be lifted between the 40 ft position

3.4 Shoe-Box

Idea of the concept Shoe-Box is that the whole construction supports to carry weight. It

uses the open able side walls as part of the construction so that it can reduce the

deflections (Figure 3-3). The Shoe-Box has three open able sides, the rear door and each

side door. It has a relative low bottom frame and a more stable roof frame. In addition to

the other concepts the Shoe-Box concept has a middle post where two of the four door

packages (each package consists of two doors) are attached. The bottom frame shelters a

goose neck tunnel with a height of 80mm.

Figure 3-3: Shoe-Box




13

The special components of the Shoe-Box solution essentially are:

• The side walls carry weight and are the main supporting element of the whole

structure

• Gooseneck tunnel with a height of 80mm




14

4. Procedure

4.1 ROI & NPV

4.1.1 Introduction

In this chapter the single elements and assumptions of the cost model with which the ROI

as well as the NPV are calculated are explained. It concerns a "bottom up" approach. That

means that from the costs of single parameters the total expenses arise. The evaluation of

the single cost drivers affects therefore directly the final result.

In particular the haulage is subjected to strong market influence. If one takes the trips to

the seaports, one ascertains, above all, regarding container transports a big disproportion

between import and exports. Pricing of intermodal transportation from/to seaports depends

on e.g.:

- relation

- volume proportion of im-/export (efficient use of transport capacity)

- dense of services from / into hinterland regions

- competition

- energy costs.

Result: No general conclusion on transport costs can be made as they depend on the

special transport route and a.m. factors.

It is tried to fade out these outgrowths and to receive average market data in which also a

market-usual margin is included.




15

The total expenses arise from

• Transport costs in road traffic,

• Transport costs in rail traffic,

• Transport costs in ship traffic,

• Costs for loading and unloading,

• Handling costs,

• Costs independent of transport.

4.1.2 ROI and NPV comparison calculation:

Often it is not possible to get benefit values for future products. In the case of TelliBox

there are values for costs but not for incomes. The TelliBox simplifies the forwarding

process and replaces other products. In comparison of the TelliBox to the Megatrailer and

their costs it is possible to calculate the ROI and NPV of the benefits of cost saving. The

incomes assume to be equal and can be neglected. The values for ROI and NPV would

not be absolute, but relative to the Megatrailer. It is said that the Megatrailer has a ROI of

100% and a NPV of 0 € whether it is compared with the TelliBox. The value of the TelliBox

would not say if the product is profitable, but how big the difference is to the Megatrailer. A

higher value in NPV and ROI says that the TelliBox is even more profitable than the

Megatrailer.

4.1.3 Fixed and variable costs

To estimate the efficiency of a transport medium, it is important to be aware of the up

coming costs. In general one separates fixed and variable costs.

Variable costs can be, for example, variably in relation on the covered distance

(dependent on kilometre), the loading volume, the load or the time. An easy example: With

the Carsharing one pays a fixed all-inclusive price per hour and a price per kilometre, that

covers the costs for petrol, wears etc. In the reality one cannot pull the borders so clearly.




16

If a forwarder rents a trucking unit for one day, he pays under circumstances a steady

price. For him it concerns fixed costs. He will differently treat his own trucking unit in the

vehicle park: He carries out a part of the write-offs dependent on time (fixed costs for this

period), the other part dependent on kilometre. However, for the tenant the rent costs are

unambiguously fixed.

During in a partial expense calculation only direct costs are added in the calculation flow.

So, transport cost mostly base on the full costs principle. Hence all overhead costs to the

single tours must be added appropriate for causing. The overhead costs exist, e.g., of

administrative costs in the headquarters and a part of the costs independent of kilometre

which cannot be assigned directly to an order (e.g., amortization dependent on time).

4.1.4 Economies of Scale

fc are the fixed costs, vc in relation on the loading volume the variable costs (analogously

one could look at the load) and υ the number of pallets which can be accommodated in a

transport unit. The transport costs arise to:

Transport costs = υ⋅+ vf cc

Divided byυ , the transport costs result per pallet:

Transport costs per pallet = vf c

c+

ν

Hence the transport costs decrease per pallet, the greater the loading volume of the

container is, because the fixed costs on a bigger number of palettes can be put down.




17

This effect is called "Economies of Scale". It matters if loading units with different

capacities are compared to each other. Today a train may be only 750 m long in Germany.

A lengthening on 1000 or even 1500 m would lower the fixed costs of the transported unit

and would thereby have huge cost advantages. Plans are discussed nowadays

(Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie 2007).

The scale effects have a big meaning also in the intercontinental container ship industry. A

ship with a capacity of 12,000 TEU can transport a container about at half-price like one

with 1,200 TEU (Stopford 2009). In general one can also find out that on account of the

dimension effect a transport by the ship is more favourable than one by the train which is

again cheaper than road transport.

Aim of the TelliBox is it to achieve, primarily, cost advantages by the application of the

transport modes that are cheaper in comparison to truck, the train and the ship. Indeed,

there are also RoRo ships which transport complete trucks and ConRo ships which can

take up container as well as trucks, however, economic using of the transport by the ship

arises only by applying the container principle, so the optimum exploitation of the loading

area by stacking the loading units (Stopford 2009).

4.1.5 Modelling the transport costs function

The biggest interest by operating the TelliBox is transport and handling costs. Hence,

should be entered to the better understanding of the connections in the intermodal traffic at

first on carriage functions.

Figure 4-1 shows schematically the function for the transport costs for the three traffic

modes in the trimodal traffic. The transport costs dependent on kilometre are the highest

with the truck, because the energy consumption and the personnel expenditure per ton

kilometre (or per pallet and kilometre) are very high. Normally it comes one driver on one

container. But also operating expenses like tyre costs or toll which are a significant lever

within the scope of an ecological policy to raise the price of the traffic belong to these costs




18

dependent on kilometre. Because a barge can take more containers aboard than one truck

or train (degression of overhead costs) and also less fuel needs per container and

kilometre, the transport cost function of the ship is the lowest. For a comparison: A truck

ordinarily transports only one container and, besides, consumes 35-40 litres of diesel on

100 kilometres, while an average barge with approx. 200 TEU needs only approx. 2,000

litres for the same distance what corresponds to 10 litres for a 20-foot container or to 20

litres for a 40-foot container (Contargo in 2009). The ordinate gives the handling costs and

fixed transport costs. The unimodal used truck itself has no handling costs in traffic. Only

multimodal transport systems have additional handling costs because the loading unit has

to be put on and off the trailer for example. The costs result essentially by waiting and

loading. The handling costs in seaports are the highest by far. Inland harbour terminals are

a little more expensive as terminals in the combined traffic road and rail. The fixed costs

likewise rise by the size of the transport medium. This is up to the immobilization or

downtime. To load a 700-metre-long train with containers, can last more than two hours, a

barge half a day and a coastal ship a whole day. To the amortisation costs high fees

additionally come for the downtime in the harbours. With a cost function, as shown in

Figure 4-1 a distance to D1 would be done on road, to D2 by the train and distances about

D2 with the barge.




19

Figure 4-1: Function of transport costs of truck, train and ship

Nevertheless, one must be aware of the fact that the traffic networks are different well

developed. In Europe the road network is linked up so well that one can apply approach-

wise an Euclidean distance measurement. The water way system is suitable for a

reasonable container transport but limited, depending on the run of the waterways and the

access of only certain regions. For many distances there are no rivers or they had to do

big detours. Even with a good ship connection, for example, from Mannheim to Rotterdam

the difference of the distances between water way and road connection amounts to 15%

(street: approx. 500 km, the Rhine: approx. 580 km). It must be taken into consideration

that the average speed with the barge is clearly slow (<10 km/h), more slowly than by train

or truck.

If the transport by train or ship is planned as the main run, a pre-carriage and onward

carriage with the truck must be ordinarily carried out.

In Figure 4-2 the cost function is confronted for the TelliBox test track regarding intermodal

usage with a truck in unimodal traffic (sketched line). The leaps in the graph result from

transport costs and fixed carriage. Are the costs after the whole transport distance of the

Distance

Costs Truck

Train

Ship

D1 D2




20

TelliBox under those for the existing way of transport it is the basic condition for the

application of this transport unit.

At last the delivery time desired by the customers is also to be taken into consideration.

Figure 4-2: Transport Cost Function for the TelliBox test track (schematically)

4.1.6 Transport costs in road traffic

The price for the forwarding of a sending results from:

• Distance,

• weight,

• volumes or loading metres and

• perhaps surcharges for express services.

Not relevant factors like danger good impacts (no danger goods will transported with the

loading unit) are neglected. The final price contains a margin, as well as costs for empty

haulage (nationwide all together: 19.7%, long-distance traffic / trips more than 150 km:

10%) which bring no proceed (BGL 2009 A). Because there is no statistical data for

Costs

Road

Rail

Inland shipping

D1 D2 D3

Short sea shipping

Road

Distance




21

average prices of road transport, an approach above the internal costs of a forwarder

agent is more helpful. These values are determined monthly by the Bundesverband

Güterkraftverkehr, Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL 2009 A) by questioning forwarders. The

results are shown in Table 4-1.

The costs are differentiated in direct costs (E) which are appropriate for adding to a

transport order directly, and overhead costs (G) which must be split – on the kilometre

achievement – to come to a kilometre rate to the full costs principle. Often the

differentiation of direct costs and overhead costs is not unequivocal, e.g., the wage can be

looked as overhead costs if the driver is salaried. The wages would also result if he gets

fewer orders in a recession. However, generally one assumes that the time involved is

calculable for a distance and the wages resulting in this period can be assigned to the

order. Therefore they will be handled as direct costs.

If one looks at November, 2009, arise with one of the BGL accepted fuel consumption of

34 litres in the national long-distance traffic with an average diesel price of 0,972 €/l

(average from price in filling stations and price of large consumer, BGL 2009 B, BGL 2009

C) cost at the rate of approx. 127.8 € 100 km. The margin of the forwarders is not

considered here.

Table 4-1: Sharing of costs of an average truck for long distances (150 km) in November 2009

(Source: BGL, Statistisches Bundesamt)

percental absolute (€)

Personnel costs driver 28.56

(E) Wage 20.14 25.7

(E) Statutory social security costs 4.91 6.3

(E) Charges 2.26 2.9

Other 1.25 1.6

Vehicle operations costs (variable cost: km-dependent) 48.15

(E) km-dependent depreciation 4.26 5.4

(E) Fuel costs 25.86 33.0




22

(G) Additional costs (equipment urea) 0.4 0.5

(G) Lubricant cost 0.91 1.2

(G) Maintenance and repair costs 6.3 8.1

(G) Vehicle cleaning (exterior) 0.66 0.8

(G) Tire cost 2.29 2.9

(E) km-targeted road pricing 6.8 8.7

Other input costs 0.67 0.9

Fixed Costs 12.72

(G) time-dependent depreciation 4.26 5.4

(G) Debt financing costs 1.43 1.8

(G) Testing charges 0.2 0.3

(G) time-based road pricing 0 0.0

(G) Motor vehicle tax 0.52 0.7

(G) Insurance 4.2 5.4

(G) Other fixed costs 2.11 2.7

Administrative costs 10.57

(G) Personnel costs 6.09 7.8

(G) Material costs 4.48 5.7

Total costs (€/100km) 127.8

Foreign forwarders can operate clearly cheaper as from the BGL in the branch costs

development to questioned inland forwarders, because for them most cost parameters in

particular the wages are lower. The pricing pressure also appears in the fact that the

interest of foreign truck has doubled in Germany since 1991 on 36% roughly (Figure 4-3).

A reason for this is the partial abolition of the cabotage prohibition, which enables foreign,

in particular East European drivers, to transport within Germany.




23

Figure 4-3: Market share of German and foreign trucks in Germany, 1991-2010 (Crossboarder and

german traffic) (2009 D BGL)

The assumed kilometre price of the cost model is about 127.8 € attached for 100 km for an

average hauling in the long-distance traffic. Of course higher transport prices count to the

short distances traffic which concerns in particular the pre- and onward carriage. After

consultation with forwarders the following values were collected:

Close-up range to about 50 km: All-inclusive price 150 €

Regional area less than 150 km: All-inclusive price 250 €

4.1.7 Transport costs in rail traffic

Goods trains may be only 750 m long nowadays in Germany. A capacity of 105 TEU

arises from it. One train exists of 35 wagons with three 20-foot containers in each case.

The “Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie” checks an expansion for 1000 m

or 1500 m length with which trains could reach the capacity from barges, but itself on

account of the length could have problems while loading and unloading

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

German Truck Foreign Truck




24

(Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie in 2007). The price of freight transport

via train depends on the following factors:

• Distance

• Length of the load unit

• Weight of the load unit

• perhaps danger good surcharge

• Whole train or single carriage traffic

According to the analysis of several market data is to be calculated for an average

distance of 100 kilometres on 88 € for 45 feet long container.

4.1.8 Transportkosten in shipping traffic

The logistics service provider for container logistics Contargo indicates that their container

barges use 150-400 litres of diesel per operating hour. The fact that no exact value can be

given, is due to the fact that the energy consumption grows with normal driving speed

about with the 5th degree to the speed (Contargo in 2009). As an example the

consumption of the container ship San Lorenzo (1500 TEU) would be given. Indeed, this

goes on sea, however, the consumption is for barges similarly depending on the speed:

approx. 20 kn / approx. 51 t of diesel sea day




The consumption is clearly higher in journey to mountain than to valley, because the

stream velocity of the river (the Rhine: approx. 7-8 km/h) must be included and downhill is

not driven with the full power.

Transit time of a container barge from Mannheim to Rotterdam (ca. 500 km) is 36 hours

and in reverse direction 50 hours (Wincanton 2009). This corresponds to a speed of 14 or




25

10 km/h. Influence on the consumption also have water level, draught and driving

channels width. A loaded ship consummates with the same current relations (sufficient

place for the keel) 15-25% more fuel than one unloaded one.

Beside the price of the diesel which is transmitted in form of a bunker surcharge to the

customers the size of the container plays a role whether it is full or empty.

The approximated price is formed from three factors (not relevant costs as for example

danger good surcharges are neglected):

• Fuel price

• Distance

• Size and weight of the container (fully blank)

Like already mentioned, the ship transport is only worthwhile at a certain distance length.

With short distances the transhipment and amortisation costs would out of proportion for

the high idle period. The operational expenditures (Opex, without fuel costs) are relatively

low, because only few staff is required. A big part of the costs are capital costs (Capital

expenditures/Capex). Of course offer and inquiry determine the price. E.g. in a bottleneck

like between Calais and Dover (40 km) 682 € plus value added tax must be paid for round

trip of a mega trailer. The journey lasts approx. 90 minutes. If one chooses the piggyback

traffic by the euro tunnel with a journey time of 35 minutes, one pays 716 €. Both carriers

of traffic do no not compete.

Most barges on the Rhine have a capacity of 208 TEU, some come on 300 TEU, the

border with ships of the Jowi class lies with 500 TEU. The carriage strongly depends on

the capacity of the ship. On rivers and canals which are able to be driven because of

bridges only double stacked they are clearly higher and even uneconomical partly.

There are no studies to the carriage in the barge and coastal ship journey traffic. On the

basis of telephone conversations with experts 72 € per 100 street kilometres are to be

considered about a loaded TelliBox in the barge traffic and 100 € in the Short Sea




26

Shipping for an average distance as realistic. The prices of the coastal ship journey vary

very strongly. On the 350-km-long distance of Rotterdam to Hull is with pure carriage of

approx. 700 € (200 € / 100 km correspond) to count, on the approx. 600 km long distance

(over the street these would be 720 km) from Travemünde to Gdynia (Poland) with 250 €

what corresponds to 42 € on 100 km.

4.1.9 Costs for loading and unloading

The use of a transport unit depends not only on the pay load and on the load capacity, but

also on the duration which is necessary for loading. This also encloses the time which is

necessary to prepare the transport unit for the loading process. The process of loading

and unloading should take so little time as possible, because high idle times are cost-

intensive: Vehicle and load carrier amortise only if they are on the move possibly a lot,

waiting periods of the driving staff are connected with costs and the capital connection

costs of the product rise by long idle times in the depot or while handling.

An analysis of a cross-docking terminal has shown a time advantage regarding the

operating costs for handling of the Fala-Ec-Box compared with the other considered

solutions. The loading and unloading process is quite similar regarding the three different

solutions. Two persons are mostly responsible for this process. A controller co-ordinates

the expiries in the stock and provides for the fact that the load carrier is supplied with the

right goods, a stacker's driver accomplishes the loading process. If the loading height of 3

metres is not required, is to be assumed from the fact that the loading is carried out often

about the rear only, because a side loading requires more space which often does not

exist. One must think that loading is mostly possible only under a roof and cannot be

carried out therefore somewhere on the area. The time of a loading and unloading process

depends rather on the degree of the organisation of the processes. Efficient terminals

need only approx. 15 minutes for a complete loading, while other for this more than 50

minutes need.




27

4.1.10 Handling costs

In general, size and weight of the load unit does not play a decisive role according

handling costs. There are three terminal types:

• Terminals for the combined traffic street / rail,

• Inland harbour terminals and

• Seaport terminals.

The terminals have different cost structures: The investment costs in infrastructure and the

costs of the process expiries rise from first-called to the last-called terminal type. The

German transhipment society Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS), a subsidiary of German

railways, orders Germany-far more than 25 terminals for loading between road and rail.

Their prices can count as representative to most road rail terminals (remuneration list from

the 1st April, 2009). For a handling from road on rail are 18.50 € calculated. For a handling

of rail on rails the price amounts including the craning 37 €. The prices are not depending

on the transport unit (container, semi-trailer, swap body). By carriage on the same day the

costs decrease to 15 € or 30 €. The handling begins with letting down the handling

equipment on the loading unit, often encloses a temporary transport-conditioned storage

and ends, as soon as the handling equipment are solved by the loading unit. It mostly

come other costs and remunerations for complementary services: For the check in (Take

up of the data which are important for other partners in the transport chain and exterior

inspection of the loading unit) 1.10 €, for the allocation of the loading unit fall to the wagon

1.50 €, for holding to be ready to load of road vehicle or the carriage what proper coupling

and the bandaging of the loading unit by the vehicle / carriage contain 1.50 € in. All

together the costs add up handling to about 25 € or 45 € (rail-rail).

In inland ports the costs are subtracted as Handling. A Handling insists as a rule of two

handlings (except in the Duisburger Intermodal terminal where the water-sided and the

land-sided depot surface lie apart and be bridged therefore by an additional Handling).

That is the fact that the container is interstored by the truck or train at first on a depot




28

surface, before it is loaded on the ship. With a price of 21.50 € per Handling (terminal

Neuss: 20 €, terminal Mannheim Wincanton: 23 €) a total of approx. 50 € arises including

the additional costs for a transhipment. In seaports are handling costs (THC to calculate

Totally Handling Costs) from 80-150 €. In the following a realistic average of 100 € is

accepted.

4.1.11 Transport independent costs

Investment

The initial investment of the TelliBox solutions cannot be given in this project stage yet;

however, it is estimated in the first approach by the concept developers. Besides, the

purchase price of the AirTech variation would lie with 32,200 €, with the Shoe-Box

variation with 27,600 € and with the Fala-EC-Box with 23,000 €.

Maintenance costs

To determine the maintenance costs of the loading unit is difficult, because there are few

statistics and they are raised in enterprise apparently not apart after the different transport

units. In conversations values of a swap body of 1,000 € arose in the year. Containers are

produced meanwhile to 95% in China and cost nowadays approx. 2000 $ a TEU. A 40

foot-HC container matches 1.68 cost equivalent units (CEU) and costs approx. 3400 $

(Containerportal 2009). Considering that this price largely cost of materials is and therefore

the utilization of a defective container brings along a return, becomes clear that it makes

sense to pull him from the traffic, as soon as it shows bigger damages. The TelliBox

should not be more servicing-intensive than a usual container. Due to the higher

investment amount also bigger repairs shall be worthwhile. The precise values of the

respective solution can be taken from the cost model in the appendix. For the chassis

higher costs should be calculated as with current loading units. The individual costs are

also listed in the appendix. Because the TelliBox is only a part of the annual run on the

chassis, these maintenance costs come only with a percentage into the calculation which




29

the TelliBox is on road. The calculated values with the NOWS workshop are 1040 € for the

AirTech-Box and 800 € for the Fala-EC- and Shoe-Box.

Expenses for capital commitment

The expenses for capital commitment are a size not to be neglected. They arise from

about the year seen average value of goods carried within the loading unit plus the

imputed interest rate. If the goods value amounts, for example, to 25,000 €, arise with an

interest rate of 6% of capital connection costs of 1,500 € what could corresponds to the

scale of the maintenance costs.

Liquidation proceeds

The liquidation proceed of the TelliBox depends on the current metal price. The proceed

for the AirTech-Box is approx. 280 €, for the Fala-EC-Box 480 € and for the Shoe-Box

likewise 480 €. The values in the cost model are about 200 € higher because the scrap

value of the chassis is added to the liquidation proceeds. A Chassis has a scrap value of

600 € and three boxes use one chassis. The final proceeds are approx. 480 € for the

AirTech-Box and 680 € for the Fala-EC- and Shoe-Box.

Average annual mileage

After interviews it is to be assumed that the TelliBox makes 20 round trips a year. With the

duration of 12 days per roundtrip and an average single distance of 1,300 km it comes on

yearly 52,000 kilometres.

The average annual mileage depends with the mega trailer on whether it is used

exclusively unimodal or in the combined traffic as a traffic mode for the pre carriage and

main run. Unimodal it comes with big forwarding agencies in the year on 150-250.000 km

and the biggest part might put back approx. 175,000 km. With the smaller forwarding

agencies which carry out a big interest in One Way trips it is to be calculated on a lower

annual mileage of 140-150.000 km. If it is used in the combined traffic, it puts back in the




30

year on account of the lower average speed and higher idle times only one third of this

distance. This relatively low mileage is one of the causes for the high kilometre prices of

the pre-carriage and post-carriage in combined traffic, in particular with short distances.

Allocation of the usage of traffic modes

The transport costs, which summarizes over the year, are the most important cost factors

and therefore have a big influence on profitability. Because there is to the TelliBox no

comparable intermodal loading unit and hence it cannot be fallen back consequently on

statistics, one must meet assumptions about the subdivision of the transport shares of the

different transport modes. If one assumes from the fact that a transport should run only on

road, it would not make sense to use the TelliBox, because the transport by the mega

trailer would be more favorable and it could take up, in addition, still a higher load weight.

An exception would be natural if thereby a deadhead would be avoided.

After independently conversations with several experts and literature research is not to be

assumed from the fact that the ship traffic will have a big interest as a traffic mode. For this

there are only a few suitable inland waterways. Only the Rhine as the most significant river

of Europe for inland shipping has to register active container traffic. In the Rotterdam

container terminals the inland ship put out in 2007 30%, the train 11% and the truck 59%

in the Modal-Split. Only 0.5% of the containers to be transported in the hinterland with the

inland ship were transported in 2008 by the Hamburg harbour. However, this segment has

growth rates from up to 40%, so that one can assume an interest of 5% in 2015. The

interest of road transport exists in the essentials of preliminary heat and casters. Main

traffic mode will be the train:

• Road: 30%

• Rail: 65%

• Inland Shipping: 2.5%

• Short Sea Shipping: 2.5%

Detour factors




31

The traffic networks are well developed differently. If one liked to shift unbroken truck-load

traffic to the rail, the transport distance increases. On the one hand, the terminals mostly

do not lie on the transport route, so that a detour must be accepted, on the other hand is

the road system to the railway system predominant, so that also here a longer distance

arises. The difference in inland ship traffic is even bigger. The distance from Mannheim to

Rotterdam on highway is exactly 500 km (Part of the test run in TelliBox). In spite of not

too big detours of the Rhine, the inland ship needs approx. 580 km. For the Short Sea-

Ship traffic there are no statistics to detour factors. However, one can assume from the

fact that the distance corresponds roughly to the air line, that it is ideal (above all, within

the Baltic Sea area and from the ARA harbours to the east coast of England). the

determination of metrics is a field of the Operations Research. Economists try to model

transport networks in such a way that for a distance from A to B the statistically most likely

distance can be determined by using this metrics. The metrics differs for different regions

and traffic networks. If one takes the road net as benchmark, the following circular detour

factors (ifo in 1996) arise:

• Road: 1

• Rail: 1.1

• River: 1.2

These factors help to convert the transport costs for 100 km on road, because distances

are ordinarily calculated in road kilometres. Nevertheless, the kilometre dependent costs

were calculated for the really covered distance of the transport medium.

Life-time

The life-time of the TelliBox should have a similar life span like a container. It comes into

the cost model therefore with the value of 10 years. After this term it is used either for the

scrap metal price or is resold. The compared Megatrailer has only duration of 5 years and

therefore after this duration a new has to be purchased.




32

Transhipments a trip

To be able to calculate the handling costs which result within one year with the TelliBox,

assumptions about the distances must be done. This model assumes from the fact that the

TelliBox is handled maximum three times a trip. It can be of course that more often turned

handlings are needed; however, the transport variations described in Figure 4-4 are these

ones that mostly occur. If the transport exists of two handlings, the main run takes place

only by the train, inland or short-sea ship. Often the main run is spitted into two. At first it is

driven by the train, then with inland or short-sea ship or once more by the train. An inland

ship can also go in a seaport, from where the transport about short sea journey is

continued. The variations indicated in Figure 4-4 can be driven of course also in reverse

direction. Table 4-2 shows with which traffic mode the loading unit reaches the terminal (x)

and with which it is further transported from there (y). Considering the last column, this

states that 50% of the transports that are driven by the short-sea ship came from road,

40% of the rail and 10% of the inland ship. The values performed in the table are

estimations on the basis of information from conversations with project partners and in

intermodal traffic operating actors.




33

Figure 4-4: Considered possibilities of intermodal transport

Table 4-2: Handling of transport x to y

Y X

Street Rail River Short Sea

Road 0 0.9 0.9 0.5

Rail 0 0.1 0.1 0.4

River 0 0 0 0.1

Short Sea 0 0 0 0

Factor of Equalization

This factor serves to take into consideration loading units with different pay load and

different load volume (see chapter 6).

Pre-carriage Onward carriage

Barge

Rail

Short Sea Shipping

Rail Onward

carriage

Barge

Rail

Short Sea Shipping

Pre-carriage

Short Sea Shipping Onward

carriage

Barge Pre-carriage

2 Transhipments

3 Transhipments




34


For the life cycle costing there are several indicators needed to give an overview what cost

may occur. These indicators should only describe the costs that result from operation. The

costs that are generated in production are not part of this analysis. Therefore it is partially

called customer oriented life cycle costing. To describe the life cycle costs for the customer

the following categories of costs must be identified: Investment costs, operational costs,

maintenance costs, cost of repair, costs due to transport and maybe other costs. These

cost categories were identified by literature research and expert interviews. To identify the

cost indicators within each category several interviews were performed. Because of the

current stage of the development and design of each solution it is not possible to quantify

each indicator. Hence the indicator shows the relations of costs between the solutions in

percent. Nevertheless the cost indicators that came out of the literature research and the

interviews are:

• Investment costs: Initial Invest, training, waste and disposal costs.

• Operational costs: Operating time, insurance and energy costs.

• Maintenance costs: Door, hinge, lifting mechanism, roof, floor, corrosion protection,

attaching parts and sealing.

• Cost of repair: Personal and probability of loss.

• Cost of transport: Cleaning costs, handling costs and storage costs.

• Other costs: Costs of chassis, cancellation costs and duration of tie-down.

The relation and the estimation of each indicator were done by a workshop. Participants of

the workshop were the leaders of each concept. Every indicator was explained and

discusses and afterwards evaluated within the group. The results and the allocation of the

indicators are shown in chapter 6.




35


The opening of boarders in the East of the European Union result in an increase of freight

transport volume. Nowadays, this entails in a disproportional raise of transportation of

goods by means of road traffic. The European Union’s objectives of achieving intermodal

integration and operational optimization can therefore be regarded as the definition of the

target situation (step three). Intelligent MegaSwapBoxes for Advanced Intermodal Freight

Transport can be seen as one possible action to achieve this target situation by shifting the

intermodal traffic in favor of rail and short sea traffic (step four).

The focus of the NOWS-workshop was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three different

TelliBox designs. It was agreed by the consortia that for each design, all annually costs

and benefits for a freight forwarder operating with one kind of the TelliBox design had to be

evaluated in 2015. At this time it was assumed that the ramp-up phase would have been

completed. To achieve an independency the collection of costs and benefits of each

design in step 5a are described relatively to standardized swap-bodies which are used

today. All benefits respectively costs were classified in their type of occurrence as well as

their probability of occurrence. The layout of the matrix is shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Classification matrix for costs and benefits

Probability Costs

Benefits high Medium low

direct 1 3 6

indirect 2 5 8

Ty

pe

difficult to ascertain 4 7 9

Easy to rate aspects with a direct monetary effect are defined as direct aspects. Hence,

direct benefits are defined as cutback of capital- or maintenance-costs whereas acquisition

costs and training costs are rated as direct costs. Prospective aspects such as external




36

consulting costs or productivity gain for benefits are defined as indirect as they are harder

to rate. Even so-called “difficult to ascertain“ aspects can be considered with the NOWS-

method. The positive effect of the image of a project or on a company can be regarded as

a beneficial aspect of this type. On the contrary costs that occur due to stress that

employee experience can be rated as difficult to ascertain.

The beneficial aspects then are accumulated from one to nine according to the numbers

shown in Table 4-3. In contrast, cost aspects are accumulated from nine to one (Weydant

2000). This process enables the evaluation of costs and benefits at different risk levels.

Consequently, in the beginning, only secure benefits and full costs are compared. This

would resemble the behavior of a pessimistic decision maker. The accumulated costs and

benefits each form a curve. The effectiveness of an investment is determined by the

intersection of the two curves. At this point the accumulated costs and benefits are equal.

In the NOWS-workshop for the TelliBox-project each design was assessed independently

by a group of the participants of the workshop. Each group consisted of designated

experts. In order to guarantee a comparability of the results, the groups could discuss their

results within a set-up marketplace-phase with the other groups. On the basis of the three

matrices all aspects were quantified by all participants together.

:




37

5. Findings

5.1 Return on Investment (ROI) & Net Present Value (NPV)

At this point the results of the return on investment (ROI) and net present value (NPV) of

the TelliBox are shown. Some of THE transport costs are the same for each of the three

solutions. Therefore it is in this case further called just TelliBox.

At first the transport costs are calculated like in Table 5-1 shown for the TelliBox.

Table 5-1: Average Transport Charges each 100 km for the TelliBox

Transport Charges

(€/100km)

Factor of Detour

Transport Charges real

(€/100km)

TelliBox: Divison of Transport Carriers

TelliBox: Transport Charges

(€/100km)

Street 127.8 1 127.8 30% 38.38

Rail 80 1.1 88 65% 57.2

Barge 60 1.2 72 2.5% 1.8

Short Sea 100 1 100 2.5% 2.5

99.84

Now taking into account an interest in short distances and distant area (less than 150 km)

from 25% in the pre- and onward carriage, which are calculated inclusively with 200 €, the

whole carriage resulting within one year can be calculated. They arise from the sum of the

costs for the short distances and the product from annual run achievement less the short

distances which are attached with 100 km in each case, and kilometre-related transport

costs. According to Table 5-2 these amount to 55,917 €.

Table 5-2: Annual transport charges for the TelliBox

Annual Mileage (km)

Transport Charges (€/100km)

Costs for short trips (€)

Annual Transport Charges (€)

52000 99.84 4,000 55,917




38

In the calculation of the annual transhipment costs one goes out once more from 20 round

trips and the acceptance grieved on top about the subdivision of the transhipments. As in

Table 5-3 shown these add up to 2,478 €.

Table 5-3: Annual costs for transhipment for the TelliBox

Number of Transshipments/year

Costs/Transshipment (€)

No Shipping 0 0

1 Shipping: Road-Rail 33.4 50

1 Shipping: Road-Barge 1.3 100

1 Shipping: Road-Short Sea 0.7 200

2 Shippings: Road-Rail + Rail-Rail 3.7 95

2 Shippings: Road-Rail + Barge 0.1 125

2 Shippings: Road-Rail + Short Sea 0.6 225

2 Shippings: Barge + Short Sea 0.1 250

Other 0 0

Total Costs (€/a) 2,478

The annual cost of the three solutions for maintenance and repair differs according to the

values of the NOWS-Workshop (Table 5-4).

Table 5-4: Annual costs for maintenance and repair

Solution Type of Cost

AirTech-Box Fala-EC-Box Shoe-Box

Maintenance costs (€/a) 1040 800 800

Repair costs (€/a) 1220 300 760

The expenses for capital commitment arise from about the year seen on an average in the

transport bearer engaged goods value and the cost-accounting interest for the TelliBox.




39

The calculated value for a container is 25,000 €. The expenses for capital commitment

arise from the product of this value and the interest of 6% to 25,000 € x 6% = 1,500 €.

Because still no numerical values for the TelliBox exist, the cost advantages and

disadvantages towards the Megatrailer are gathered for the calculation of ROI and NPV. It

is needed to equalize general conditions for the mileage and weight. The annual total

costs are 63,661 € for the AirTech-Box, 62,473 € for the Fala-EC-Box and 62,944 € for the

Shoe-Box (Table 5-5). The annual total are 67,496 € for a modified Megatrailer (Table

5-5). The modification calculates the mileage of the Megatrailer equal to the TelliBox

solutions to make them comparable.

Table 5-5 Overview over all annual operative costs


AirTech-Box Fala-EC-Box Shoe-Box Megatrailer

modificated for 52000 km/a

Transport Charges 55,917 55,917 55,917 67,496

Transshipment Costs 2,478 2,478 2,478 -

Maintenance Costs 1040 800 800 2,000

Repair Costs 1220 300 760 -

expenses for capital commitment 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Insurance Costs - - - -

Costs trough Theft - - -

Factor of Equalization (Capacity) 1.03 1.03 1.03 -

Annual Total Costs (OPEX) 63,661 62,473 62,944 67,496

The net present value is calculated with the following formula 6-1:

∑=

−−+−++−=

T

1t

Tt )i1(*L)i1(*BINPV

I = Invest

B = Benefit

i = Interest

L = Liquidation Proceeds




40

Formula 5-1

If you put the cost for investments and liquidation by hand into a timetable and calculate

your benefits from the annual costs for the Megatrailer minus the annual costs for the

TelliBox you get the formula 6-2.

tTelliBox10t

0t

rMegatraile)i1(*)

a

]t[Costs

a

]t[Costs(NPV −

=

=

+−= ∑

Formula 5-2

The Megatrailer has a lifetime about five years and will be sold after this period. The

TelliBox is calculated to stay in traffic for ten years. Therefore it’s needed to calculate the

NPV with two fit Megatrailers with their investment and liquidation proceeds. After the

insertion of these parameters formula 6-3 arises.

10M

5M

10TB

tTelliBox10t

1t

rMegatraile5MTBM

)i1(L)i1(L)i1(L

)i1(*)a

Costs

a

Costs())i1(III(NPV

−−−

−

=

=

−

+−+−++

+−+++−−= ∑

M = Megatrailer

TB = TelliBox

Formula 5-3

The result of the net present value doesn’t show the absolute profit of the investment, but

the profit in relationship to the Megatrailer. In this calculation the NPV of the Megatrailer is

set to 0 €. The absolute net present value of the TelliBox solutions is higher, because it is

assumed that the Megatrailer is economical, too.

The following figures and formulas visualize the single steps on the calculation of the NPV.

The Formula 5-4, Formula 5-5, Formula 5-6 and it legends below are for the calculation of

the NPV. On the top of Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3, are timelines from t0 (now)

until t10 (after 10 years). Below is the benefit in the single years but t0 shows the first

investment on the product. Afterwards the values are calculated with the interest rate, later




41

invests and liquidation proceeds. On the left side are the single net present values which

are summed on the bottom to the NPV for the solution.

10M

5M

10A

t10t

1t

5MAMA )i1(L)i1(L)i1(L)i1(*B))i1(III(NPV −−−−

=

=

−

+−+−++++++−−= ∑

M = Megatrailer

A = AirTech-Box

B = Benefit

I = Investment


i = Discount Rate

Formula 5-4: Calculation formula for the AirTech-Box

t0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10

AMII −−

-29881

3618

3413

3220

3037

7828

2703

2550

2406

2270

2310

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

= 3473

2)1*(

−

+i

9)1*(−

+i

3)1*(−

+i

6)1*(−

+i

4)1*(

−

+i

8)1*(

−

+i

5)1*(

−

+i

7)1*(−

+i

1)1*(

−

+i

10)1*(−

+i

3834,56 3834,563834,563834,563834,563834,563834,563834,563834,563834,56-29881

5)1(

−

+− iLM

10)1(

−

+− iLM

10)1(

−

++ iLA

5)1(

−

++ iIM




42

Figure 5-1: Description of the NPV calculation for the Air-Tech-Box

The calculated result of the NPV for the AirTech-Box is 3,473 €.

10M

5M

10F

t10t

1t

5MFMF )i1(L)i1(L)i1(L)i1(*B))i1(III(NPV −−−−

=

=

−

+−+−++++++−−= ∑

M = Megatrailer

F = Fala-EC-Box

B = Benefit

I = Investment


i = Discount Rate

Formula 5-5: Calculation formula for the Fala-EC-Box

t0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10

FMII −−

-21581

4738

4470

4217

3978

8716

3541

3340

3151

2973

3085

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

= 20630

2)1*(

−

+i

9)1*(−

+i

3)1*(−

+i

6)1*(−

+i

4)1*(

−

+i

8)1*(

−

+i

5)1*(

−

+ i

7)1*(−

+i

1)1*(

−

+i

10)1*(−

+i

5022,68 5022,685022,685022,685022,685022,685022,685022,685022,685022,68-21581

5)1(

−

+− iLM

10)1(

−

+− iLM

10)1(

−

++ iLF

5)1(

−

++ iIM




43

Figure 5-2: Description of the NPV calculation for the Fala-EC-Box

The calculated result of the NPV for the Fala-EC-Box is 20,630 €.

10M

5M

10S

t10t

1t

5MSMS )i1(L)i1(L)i1(L)i1(*B))i1(III(NPV −−−−

=

=

−

+−+−++++++−−= ∑

M = Megatrailer

S = Shoe-Box

B = Benefit

I = Investment


i = Discount Rate

Formula 5-6: Calculation formula for the Shoe-Box




44

SMII −−

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

=

2)1*(−

+i

9)1*(−

+i

3)1*(−

+i

6)1*(−

+i

4)1*(−

+i

8)1*(−

+i

5)1*(−

+i

7)1*(−

+i

1)1*(

−

+i

10)1*(−

+i

5)1(

−

+− iLM

10)1(

−

+− iLM

10)1(

−

++ iLS

5)1(

−

++ iIM

Figure 5-3: Description of the NPV calculation for the Shoe-Box

The calculated result of the NPV for the Shoe-Box is 13,012 €.

The ROI for the TelliBox is calculated with the following formula 6-4:

%100*Invest

BenefitROI =

Formula 5-7

The calculation on the ROI is set in relationship to the Megatrailer. It turns out whether the

TelliBox is more profitable as the Megatrailer. The solution which would be as profitable as

the Megatrailer would have a ROI about 100%. If the ROI turns out above this value it

shows the volume of profit in percentage. On the given values it is useful to transform this

formula to 6-5:




45

%100*Invest

Investa10*a/BenefitROI

−=

Formula 5-8

With:

Benefit = Transport Costs Megatrailer / 175000 * 52000 – Transport Costs TelliBox *

34/33

Invest = Costs TelliBox + 0.3 * Chassis – Costs Megatrailer / 875,000 * 520,000 –

Liquidation TelliBox - Liquidation 0.3 * Chassis + Liquidation Megatrailer / 875,000 *

520,000

The calculated benefits for the different TelliBox solutions are the minor transport costs in

relation to the Megatrailer. It is the fact that the Megatrailer has a total mileage of 875,000

km in 5 years and the TelliBox is calculated to have a total mileage of 520,000 in 10 years.

Besides the TelliBox can only carry 33 instead of 34 pallets and needs 0.3 chassis for the

road transport.

The results of the ROI for the different solutions are shown in Figure 5-4:




46

67%ROI =−

=

=

+−−+=

=

−=

100%*22937.14€

22937.14€10*3834.56€

22937.14€875000km

520000km*600€480€

875000km

520000km*22950€15000€*0.332200€Invest

3834.56€33

34*44€.63661

175000km

52000km*223650€a

Benefit

-BoxAirTech

-BoxAirTech

-BoxAirTech

%248=−

=

=

+−−+=

=

−=

−−

−−

−−

%100*€71.14437

€71.1443710*€68.5022

€71.14437km875000

km520000*€600€680

km875000

km520000*€22950€18000*3.0€23000Invest

€5022.6833

34*€62473.32

km175000

km52000*€223650Benefit

BoxECFala

BoxECFala

aBoxECFala

ROI

ROI

ROI

ROI

145%=−

=

=

+−−+=

=

−=

−

−

−

%100*€71.18587

€71.1858710*€53.4551

€71.18587km875000

km520000*€600€680

km875000

km520000*€22950€16500*3.0€27600Invest

€4551.5333

34*€62944.47

km175000

km52000*€223650Benefit

BoxShoe

BoxShoe

aBoxShoe

ROI

ROI

ROI

ROI

Figure 5-4: Results of ROI

According to the values of NPV and ROI of the three solutions they turn out as a

worthwhile investment. The AirTech-Box has a ROI of 67% and a NPV of 3,473 €. The

Fala-EC-Box has a ROI of 248% and a NPV of 20,630 €. The Shoe-Box has a ROI of

145% and a NPV of 13,012 €.

Hence, if one supposes that the income depend for all TelliBox solutions only on transport

distance and not on transport time, the investment turns out as worthwhile.




47


In this chapter the results for the TelliBox solutions of the Life-Cycle costing analysis are

shown in different units of meaning. The basis e.g the best solution of the three solutions is

illustrated with 100%. The more expensive ones are for example described like 110% etc.

Investments:

The investments are divided into initial invest, training and liquidation proceeds. The initial

invest for the Shoe-Box is 20% higher than the Fala-EC-Box, because of a higher

technical complexity. The AirTech-Box consists of a complicated lifting mechanism and is

therefore about 40% more expensive than the Fala-EC-Box. The training of employees of

the Shoe-Box is 40% and the AirTech-Box 100% above the costs of the Fala-EC-Box,

because the operating time is longer and more complex. It would only be done once. The

liquidation proceeds mean only the effort of sold resources without transport costs or costs

for material separation. The proceeds for the AirTech-Box are the slightest and the Shoe-

Box as well as the Fala-EC-Box are 71% higher (Table 5-6).

Table 5-6 Overview of investments


Shoe-Box AirTech-Box Fala-EC-Box

Invest

Initial Invest 120% 140% 100%

Training 140% 200% 100%

Liquidation Proceeds -171% -100% -171%

Operational Costs

The operational costs are divided in operating time and energy costs. The operating time

is the slightest for the Fala-EC-Box and is as for the Shoe-Box as the AirTech-Box 40%




48

higher. While energy costs for the Shoe-Box and the Fala-EC-Box are negligible, they are

about 0.04€/lifting for the AirTech-Box (Table 5-7).

Table 5-7: Overview of operational costs



Operational Costs

Operating Time 140% 140% 100%

Energy Costs none about 0.04€/lifting none

Maintenance

The maintenance is divided into door, hinge, lifting, roof, floor, corrosion protection and

sealing for one year. The maintenance costs for doors are the slightest for the AirTech-

Box. The costs are 110% for the Shoe-Box and 120% for the Fala-EC-Box. The costs for

hinge are at 100% for the AirTech-Box, 120% for the Fala-EC-Box and 165% for the Shoe-

Box. The lifting of the Shoe-Box and the AirTech-Box is equal, but twice as expensive as

the Fala-EC-Box. All values for the roof are equal. The maintenance costs for the floor of

the AirTech-Box is about 250€. There are no costs for the Shoe-Box or Fala-EC-Box. And

therefore no percentage can be given. All values for the corrosion protection are equal.

The maintenance costs for sealing are the slightest for the AirTech-Box. The costs are at

110% for the Shoe-Box and 120% for the Fala-EC-Box (Table 5-8).

Table 5-8: Overview of maintenance



Maintenance

Door 110% 100% 120%

Hinge 165% 100% 120%

Lifting 200% 200% 100%

Roof 100% 100% 100%

Floor none 250 Euro none

Corrosion Protection 100% 100% 100%




49

Sealing 110% 100% 120%

Cost of Repair

The costs of repair are the costs for personal and they are as for the Shoe-Box as for the

AirTech-Box twice as expensive as for the Fala-EC-Box (Table 5-9).

Table 5-9: Overview of costs of repair



Cost of Repair

Personal 200% 200% 100%

Transport costs

The transport costs are divided in handling costs and storage costs. All values are equal

for the three solutions (Table 5-10).

Table 5-10: Overview of transport costs



Transport

Handling Costs 100% 100% 100%

Storage Costs 100% 100% 100%

Other Costs

The other costs are divided in chassis, cancellation costs and cargo securing. The costs

for the chassis are the slightest for the AirTech-Box because it just needs a simple one.

The Chassis is needs modifications for the other solutions and therefore the Shoe-Box is

about ten percent and the Fala-EC-Box about 20% more expensive. The costs for

cancellation are 20% higher for the AirTech-Box as for the Fala-EC-Box and 40% higher

for the Shoe-Box as for the Fala-EC-Box. The costs for cargo securing are the slightest for




50

the AirTech-Box because there is no need of special tools to secure the cargo. The Shoe-

Box needs twice effort to secure the loading and five times sophisticated to secure the

cargo on the Fala-EC-Box (Table 5-11).

Table 5-11: Overview of other costs



Other Costs

Chassis 110% 100% 120%

Cancellation Costs 140% 120% 100%

Cargo Securing 200% 100% 500%


Figure 5-5 - Figure 5-9 illustrate the NOWS-graph for the three designs named “AirTech-

Box”, “Fala-EC-Box” and “Shoe-Box” respectively. The derivation of several benefit and

cost aspects is shown in the following. A complete list of all identified aspects in the course

of the workshop can be found in the appendix. As a main direct benefit with high

occurrence, a reduction of transport costs was identified by the participants of the

workshop. Referring to a test track, it was agreed that an intermodal transport with the

TelliBox has an advantage, when compared with a swap-body of 0,37 €/km regardless the

design of the TelliBox. Consequently, when the test track accounts one way with 1,300 km

and 20 cycles/TelliBox and year are assumed, a benefit of 19,240 € occurs.

Another benefit which can be stated independent of the design is the volume of 100 m³ of

the TelliBox. Compared to a swap-body with a transport volume of only 80 m3 this is a gain

of 20 %. This increase in volume will result in a decrease of necessary traffic and therefore

transport costs.




51

The participants assumed a yearly mileage in kilometers of about 52,000 km for a swap-

body. The variable operating costs for the swap-body were assessed as 1.00 €/km.

Furthermore it was not regarded as realistic that the freight forwarder can keep this benefit

himself but would pass on one third to his customers. This results in an overall benefit due

to an increase in volume of 6,968 € per year for every TelliBox in use.

27,652.30 €

0,00 €

invest positive trend indifferent negative trend divest

27,652.30 €

0,00 €

invest positive trend indifferent negative trend divestinvest positive trend indifferent negative trend divest

Figure 5-5: NOWS-graph of AirTech-Box

Two further common identified advantages of the TelliBox are its stackability and the ability

for transsiberian transport. The TelliBox can be stapled fourfold in contrast to the swap-

body which is not stapable at all. Therefore four TelliBoxes can be stored on one slot

whereas every swap-body needs a separate slot. The fees for one slot account to

10 €/day, resulting in a benefit of 7.50 €/day for the TelliBox when compared to the swap-

body. It was assumed that a transport unit is stored on average 37 days per year, being

approximately 10 % per year. This leads to a benefit of 277.50 €.




52

Figure 5-6: Air-Tech-Box results of the NOWS-Workshop

The TelliBox can be transported to Asia via train with less thievery than today. This comes

along with a saving of ten days per cycle for the transport when compared to the longer

ocean route. Assuming eight cycles per year, capital costs of 80 days can be saved. Given

an interest rate of 6 %, this benefit therefore adds up to 263 € per year.

Differences in the monetization for all designs were found in the amortization period in

relation to the swap body reference model. The workshop-participants agreed that for all

three designs of the TelliBox an amortization period of ten years is realistic in contrast to

an amortization period of six years for a swap-body. For the monetization, a linear

depreciation is assumed. In order to calculate the benefit due to a longer lifetime, the

acquisition costs of the TelliBox designs are needed. The different acquisition costs were

discussed by the participants. Table 5-12 shows the result.

Table 5-12: Acquisition costs of the TelliBox designs

Swap-body Fala-Ec-Box Shoe-Box Air-Tech-Box

87% 100% 120% 140%




53

20.000 € 23.000 € 27.600 € 32.200 €

Given an interest rate of 6 % an amortization rate of 3,533 € per year can be calculated for

the swap-body over six years. In contrast the longer life time of the three TelliBox designs

lead to less annually amortization costs. This results in a monetary benefit of 1,095 € for

the Fala-EC-Box, 607.40 € for the Shoe-Box and 119.80 € for the AirTech-Box.

The identification of cost aspects showed that there are also common aspects over all

three designs. However in contrast to the common beneficial aspects most of the costs

aspects differ in the monetary value assigned to them. The reason for this is that all

designs are developed to fulfil the same defined requirements leading to the same

monetary values. However this is realized by different technical concepts leading to

different monetary values for the cost aspects.

28,647.50 €


0,00 €

28,647.50 €


28,647.50 €


0,00 €

Figure 5-7: NOWS-graph of Fala-EC-Box




54

As one main cost aspect repair costs were identified by the workshop-participants. For the

Fala-EC-Box as for the Shoe-Box the repair costs were classified as direct costs with a low

probability.

Figure 5-8: Fala-EC-Box results of the NOWS-Workshop

As the AirTech-Box possesses more technical components the probability of failure was

rated medium. For the monetization it was assumed that over the lifeduration of ten

yearsall movable parts of a TelliBox need to be renewed once. The monetary value of the

moving parts in a TelliBox-design was set to the difference in acquisition costs of each

design relative to the swap-body. Hence, the annually averaged repair costs of 1,220 €,

300 €, 760 € arise for the AirTech-Box, the Fala-EC-Box and the Shoe-Box respectively.




55

0,00 €

28,159.90 €


0,00 €

28,159.90 €

0,00 €

28,159.90 €


Figure 5-9: NOWS-graph of Shoe-Box

Next to the repair costs, general maintenance costs arise on a yearly basis. For the Fala-

EC-Box and the Shoe-Box the same efforts are required as for the swap-body. Again, due

to the greater number of technical components of the AirTech-Box, higher costs for

maintenance, namely 240 € per year, arise.




56

Figure 5-10: Shoe-Box results of the NOWS-Workshop

On the other hand the AirTech-Box faces no issues overcoming a low sill due to its lifting

device. However, the Fala-EC-Box and the Shoe-Box need specific modifications to the

chassis. These modifications were monetized in the workshop with 5,000 €. When taking a

life duration of six years and given the fact that four TelliBoxes can be handled with one

chassis, “low sill” costs of 208 € occur. The participants rated this cost aspect as difficult to

ascertain with low probability.

In the course of the workshop other benefit and cost aspects were identified and partly

monetized which were not described above as these aspects only have a marginal effect

on the general statement of the value orientated cost-effectiveness estimation.




57

6. Conclusion

Within the NOWS workshop, an estimation of the value orientated cost-effectiveness was

conducted for three alternative designs of the TelliBox. Participants of the workshop were

members of the project consortia of TelliBox. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated for

each design relative to today used swap-bodies. The Life Cycle Cost Analysis also

regarded the three TelliBox solutions and the LCC workshop was conducted with the three

leaders of each TelliBox concept. The ROI and NPV were determined for each of the three

TelliBox solutions. As baseline for the calculation, due to not yet completely definable

assets, a modified Megatrailer was used. The comparison with swap-bodies and

Megatrailer additionally shows the profitability compared to current solutions.

Generally it could be shown that the benefits for each design strongly dominate the costs

independent of the risk attitude of the decision maker. This means that even when all costs

of any type and with any probability are aggregated and compared with only direct benefits

with a high probability, the benefits still exceed the arising costs.

After evaluating the results of the NOWS-method and the ROI & NPV, it can be stated that

an investment for any TelliBox can be recommended. However, the evaluation of the

results almost gives no preference for any design variant of the TelliBox as with NOWS for

any scenario only a tendency can be given. The tendency is for NOWS, LCC and ROI &

NPV the same:

4. Fala-EC-Box

5. Shoe-Box

6. AirTech-Box

For an economic evaluation it is recommended that an ex-post NOWS-workshop and ROI

& NPV calculation is to be conducted. At this time the remaining designs should then be

finalized. On this basis an even more profound statement on the cost-effectiveness of the

TelliBox can be expected.




58

7. Bibliography

Breuer, W. (2000): Investition I, 1.Auflage, Gabler

Breuer, W. (2006): Vorlesungsunterlagen „Investition und Finanzierung“

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2007): Projekt GZ 1000

Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) e.V. (2009 A):

Branchenkostenentwicklung. Online Internet, URL:

http://www.bgl-ev.de/web/initiativen/kosten_kalkulator.htm&v=2 [Stand: 29.07.010]

Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) e.V. (2009 B):

Dieselpreis für Großverbraucher. Online Internet, URL: http://www.bgl-

ev.de/images/downloads/initiativen/ dieselpreisinformation.pdf?ms=845 [Stand: 29.07.010]

Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) e.V. (2009 C):

Dieselpreis an Tankstellen. Online Internet, URL: http://www.bgl-

ev.de/images/downloads/initiativen/ dieselpreisinformation_tankstelle.pdf?ms=853 [Stand:

29.07.010]

Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) e.V. (2009 D):

Marktanteile deutscher und ausländischer LKW in Deutschland. Online Internet, URL:

http://www.bgl-ev.de/web/daten/grenz_lkwind.htm [Stand: 10.08.009]

Containerportal (2009): Containertypen. Online Internet, URL:

http://www.containerportal.de/content/containertypen.htm [Stand: 10.08.009]

Contargo (2009): Bunkerzuschlag. Online im Internet, URL:

http://www.contargo.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=208

[Stand: 10.08.009]




59

Deutsche Umschlaggesellschft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH (2009 A): Entgeltliste vom

01.04.2009.

Deutsche Umschlaggesellschft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH (2009 B):

Nutzungsbedingungen für Serviceeinrichtungen

EU-Kommission (17.06.2009): Verkehrs-Herausforderungen für das nächste Jahrzehnt

Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (2008): Kampf ums Streckennetz [Artikel vom

05.10.2008]

Fraunhofer-Institut für Materialfluss und Logistik (2006): Hinterland-Terminals: Typen und

Umsetzung Online im Internet, URL:http://www.hebezeuge-foerdermittel.de/hf_magazin/

artikel/pdfs/2006/HF1106_580-583.pdf [Stand: 10.08.2009]

Ifo-Institut (1996): ifo-Studie 1996. Online im Internet, URL:

http://www.lbst.de/publications/books__d/co2/Teil1/4_2.html#punkt4_23 [Stand:

10.08.2009]

Kögel (2009): Big-maxx. Online im Internet, URL: http://www.big-maxx.com [Stand:

10.08.2009]

Niedersächsiches Ministerium für Witschaft, Arbeit und Verkehr (2007): Auswertung des

niedersächsischen Modellversuchs zum Thema „Gigaliner“, URL:

http://cdl.niedersachsen.de/blob/images/C40627922_L20.pdf

Krone (2009): EuroCombi. Online im Internet, URL:

http://www.nutzfahrzeuge.krone.de/de/index/gigaliner.html [Stand: 10.08.2009]

Pahl, G.; Beitz, W.; Feldhusen. J.; Grote, K.H. (2005): Konstruktionslehre – Grundlagen

erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung, Methoden und Anwendungen. Heidelberg.

Savelsberg, E. (2008): Innovation in European Freight Transportation – Basics,

Methodology and Case Studies fort he European Markets. Berlin, Heidelberg.




60

Schweiger, S. (2009): Lebenszykluskosten optimieren – Paradigmenwechsel für Anbieter

und Nutzer von Investitionsgütern.

Statistisches Bundesamt (2009):Dieselpreis. Online im Internet, URL:

http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1691/umfrage/preis-fuer-einen-liter-diesel-

monatsdurchschnittswerte [Stand: 10.08.2009]

Strina, Giuseppe; Uribe, Jaime: Participative pre-evaluation of the profitability of

operational investments - NOWS approach - A process and involvement oriented

evaluation method. In: Applied Participation and Empowerment at Work - Methods, Tools

and Case Studies. Hrsg. v. Johansson, C.R.; Frevel, A.; Geißler-Gruber, B.; Strina,

Giuseppe: Lund, Sweden: Studentenliteratur, 2004: 81-92.

Strina, Giuseppe; Uribe, Jaime; Henning, Klaus: NOWS Technique: Participation oriented

Evalution of further Education Strategies and Measures. In: Proceedings of E-Learn 2003.

World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher

Education, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education(AACE). Hrsg. v.

Rossett, A.: Phoenix, Arizona, USA: AACE, 2003: 331 ff.

Stumpe, F. (2003): Entwickling und Betrieb von neuen Sattelanhänger-Waggon

Kombinationen für zukunftsfähige Transportketten in Europa

Schulte, G. (2007): Investition, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag

Stopford, M. (2009): Maritime Economics, 3. Ausgabe, London

Unger, H. (1998): Organisationales Lernen durch Teams - Methode und Umsetzung eines

teambasierten Projektsmanagements. Rainer Hampp Verlag, München und Mering.

Uribe, Jaime; Henning, Klaus; Strina, Giuseppe: Measurement of Participation-oriented

Evaluation: NOWS. In: Knowledge is Orange - Industry-Focused Applications of

Knowledge Management across Germany. 2004.




61

Weydant, Dirk: Beteiligungsorientierte wirtschaftliche Bewertung von technischen

Investitionen für prozessorientierte Fertigungsinseln. Unternehmenskybernetik in der

Praxis, Band 2. Aachen: Shaker-Verlag, 2000.

Worldcargonews (2009): Rotterdam’s modal split. Online im Internet, URL:

http://www.worldcargonews.com/htm/w20080621.667714.htm [Stand: 10.08.009]




62

8. Appendix

8.1 Cost aspects of AirTech-Box

Box Cost Aspect Probability Type Quadrant Value(€) Derivation

AirTech-Box Maintenance Costs high direct 1 240,00 Swap body 800 €/a;Fala: 800 €/a;Shoe: 800 €/a

Air-Tech: 1040€/a because it has more moving parts and more complex technique (30% more)

AirTech-Box Destination Charges high indirect 2 0,00 insignificant difference to swap bodyAirTech-Box External Energy and

Air Supplyhigh indirect 2 3,84 0,04€/lift; 24circulations * charge/discahrge (2*2) =

96; 96*0,04= 3,84€AirTech-Box Marketing Costs high indirect 2 13,33 10.000€ overall marketing cotsts (approx.) ; 250

boxes; 3 years project duration: 10.000/250/3= 13,33

AirTech-Box Repair Costs medium direct 3 1.220,00 Basic Assumtion: 1x per lifeduration substitution of the movable parts. Value for the moveable parts is based on the difference of the initial value of the

box in relation to a swap body. Fala: 3000/10a =300€; Shoe: 7600/10a= 760€; Air-Tech: 12200/10a = 1220€

AirTech-Box Training Costs high difficult to ascertain

4 24,00 training materials/information on Box: 1pce./circulation a 1€; 1€ *24 circulations p.a. = 24€

AirTech-Box Cancelations Expansions

medium indirect 5 0,00 insignificant

AirTech-Box High Sill, Hight of Chassis and Cam

Distance

medium difficult to ascertain

7 0,00 lift charge

AirTech-Box Changeover Costs low difficult to

ascertain

9 0,80 external compressor= 1000€ 250 usages

40€/Usage, duration 5 years => 0.8€

AirTech-Box Empty Trips low difficult to ascertain

9 0,00 -

AirTech-Box Higher Risk of Injuries low difficult to ascertain

9 0,00 aspect was discussed but no consensus was found; it was said, that it is too early to actually define those costs




63

8.2 Benefit aspects AirTech-Box

Box Benefit Aspect Probability Type Quadrant Value(€) Derivation

AirTech-Box 100m³ Capacity and 3 Meters Loading Heigth

high direct 1 6.968,00 Tellibox: 100m³; swap body 80m³ effective = 20% more capacity = 20% less transport costs. Customer gets 1/3 of the benefit; 52.000km/a for 1€ each *0.2 = 10400 *2/3 = 6968€

AirTech-Box Amortization Period high direct 1 119,80 Swap body : 20.000€; Fala-Ec: 115% of swap body; Shoe: 120% of Fala-Ec; Air-Tech: 140% of Fala-Ec; cost value/10 years *1,06 ( 6% interest) Swap body 3533 €; Fala: 2438 € / Shoe:2925,6€/

Air-Tech: 3413,2€; Fala: 3533€-2438€ = 1095€/Shoe: 607,40€/ Air-Tech:119,8€

AirTech-Box Door Opening Conception

high direct 1 not monetized

AirTech-Box Grasp Flange high direct 1 not monetizedAirTech-Box Liqudation Proceeds high direct 1 28,00 discarded metal valued 85€/1000kg transfercosts

to junk yard = 200€; 8000 kg discarded metal from

a TelliBox= 480€/10years = 48€ -20€ disposal fee for the airbags = 28€

AirTech-Box Lower Transport Costs high direct 1 19.240,00 testrack: Tellibox has an cost advantage of 0,37€/km 20 circulations per year *2 trips

1trip=1300km 20*2*1300=19240€AirTech-Box Stackability high direct 1 277,50 recent options are not stackable, storage fee is

based on stack hight. 1st attempt: 24 days

circulation + 1day 2nd attempt: 10% (~37days)of all calendardays the container is stored. This costs approx. 10€ per day = 370€. TelliBox is four times stackable. This would be only 2,5€ for a TelliBox =>

277,5€ benefitAirTech-Box Standard Handling,

Top Crane Handlinghigh direct 1 not monetized

AirTech-Box Transsiberian Transport

high direct 1 263,00 Time savings vs. Shipping: 10 days. Average value per Container: 20.000€; interest: 6% p.a.; 8 circulations p.a 20.000*0,06/356*10 *8=

263€AirTech-Box Trimodal high direct 1 not monetizedAirTech-Box Abilitiy to use Eco-

friendly Carriershigh indirect 2 not monetized

AirTech-Box Easy Handling high indirect 2 not monetizedAirTech-Box Integrated Tie-Down high indirect 2 756,00 staff saving and material saving: Material: 12

lashing straps for 15€ ea. *20% abrasion= 36€ staff: 0.5 h work time

AirTech-Box Tailgate high indirect 2 not monetizedAirTech-Box Robust, Low

Reparation Costsmedium indirect 5 not monetized

AirTech-Box Weatherproof medium indirect 5 not monetizedAirTech-Box Marketingtool medium difficult to

ascertain7 not monetized

AirTech-Box Sustainable medium difficult to ascertain

7 not monetized

AirTech-Box Flexible on Ramps low indirect 8 not monetizedAirTech-Box High Protection

Against Theftlow difficult to


AirTech-Box Less Hazards for Staff low difficult to ascertain

9 not monetized




64

8.3 Cost aspects Fala-EC-Box


Fala-EC-Box Maintenance Costs high direct 1 0,00 Swap body 800 €/a;Fala: 800 €/a;Shoe: 800 €/a


Fala-EC-Box Destination Charges high indirect 2 0,00 insignificant difference to swap bodyFala-EC-Box Repair Costs low direct 6 300,00 Basic Assumtion: 1x per lifeduration substitution of

the movable parts. Value for the moveable parts is based on the difference of the initial value of the box in relation to a swap body. Fala: 3000/10a

=300€; Shoe: 7600/10a= 760€; Air-Tech: 12200/10a = 1220€

Fala-EC-Box Cancelations

Expansions

low indirect 8 0,00 insignificant

Fala-EC-Box Low Sill low difficult to ascertain

9 208,00 Chassis costs = 5000€; 4Boxes, deprication: 6 years; 5000€/ 4*6= 208,33€

Fala-EC-Box Marketing Costs low difficult to ascertain

9 13,33 10.000€ overall marketing cotsts (approx.) ; 250 boxes; 3 years project duration: 10.000/250/3= 13,33




65

8.4 Benefit aspects Fala-EC-Box


Fala-Ec-Box 100m³ Capacity and 3 Meters Loading Heigth


Fala-Ec-Box Amortization Period high direct 1 1.095,00 Swap body : 20.000€; Fala-Ec: 115% of swap body; Shoe: 120% of Fala-Ec; Air-Tech: 140% of Fala-Ec; cost value/10 years *1,06 ( 6% interest) Swap body 3533 €; Fala: 2438 € / Shoe:2925,6€/


Fala-Ec-Box Grasp Flange high direct 1 not monetizedFala-Ec-Box Liqudation Proceeds high direct 1 48,00 discarded metal valued 85€/1000kg transfercosts

to junk yard = 200€ 8000 kg discarded metal from a

TelliBox= 480€/10years = 48€

Fala-Ec-Box Lower Transport Costs high direct 1 19.240,00 testrack: Tellibox has an cost advantage of 0,37€/km 20 circulations per year *2 trips

1trip=1300km 20*2*1300=19240€Fala-Ec-Box One Open Side high direct 1 not monetizedFala-Ec-Box Stackability high direct 1 277,50 recent options are not stackable, storage fee is

based on stack hight. 1st attempt: 24 days

circulation + 1day 2nd attempt: 10% of all calendardays the container is stored. This costs approx. 10€ per day = 370€. TelliBox is four times stackable. This would be only 2,5€ for a TelliBox =>

277,5€ benefitFala-Ec-Box Standard Handling,

Top Crane Handlinghigh direct 1 not monetized

Fala-Ec-Box Transsiberian Transport

high direct 1 263,00 Time savings vs. Shipping: 10 days. Average value per Container: 20.000€; interest: 6% p.a.; 8 circulations p.a 20.000*0,06/356*10 *8=

263€Fala-Ec-Box Trimodal high direct 1 not monetizedFala-Ec-Box Abilitiy to use Eco-

friendly Carriershigh indirect 2 not monetized

Fala-Ec-Box Easy Handling high indirect 2 not monetizedFala-Ec-Box Mechanic Lifting

Devicehigh indirect 2 not monetized

Fala-Ec-Box Robust, Low Reparation Costs

high indirect 2 not monetized

Fala-Ec-Box Weatherproof medium indirect 5 not monetizedFala-Ec-Box Marketingtool medium difficult to


Fala-Ec-Box Sustainable medium difficult to ascertain

7 not monetized

Fala-Ec-Box Flexible on Ramps low indirect 8 not monetizedFala-Ec-Box Integrated Tie-Down low indirect 8 756,00 staff saving and material saving: Material: 12


Fala-Ec-Box High Protection Against Theft

low difficult to ascertain

9 not monetized




66

8.5 Cost aspects Shoe-Box


Shoe-Box Maintenance Costs high direct 1 0,00 Swap body 800 €/a;Fala: 800 €/a;Shoe: 800 €/a


Shoe-Box Destination Charges high indirect 2 0,00 insignificant difference to swap bodyShoe-Box Repair Costs low direct 6 760,00 Basic Assumtion: 1x per lifeduration substitution of

the movable parts. Value for the moveable parts is based on the difference of the initial value of the box in relation to a swap body. Fala: 3000/10a

=300€; Shoe: 7600/10a= 760€; Air-Tech: 12200/10a = 1220€

Shoe-Box Cancelations

Expansions

low indirect 8 0,00 insignificant

Shoe-Box Higher Risk of Injuries low difficult to

ascertain

9 0,00 aspect was discussed but no consensus was

found; it was said, that it is too early to actually define those costs

Shoe-Box Low Sill low difficult to ascertain

9 208,00 Chassis costs = 5000€; 4Boxes, deprication: 6 years; 5000€/ 4*6= 208,33€

Shoe-Box Marketing Costs low difficult to ascertain

9 13,33 10.000€ overall marketing cotsts (approx.) ; 250 boxes; 3 years project duration: 10.000/250/3= 13,33

Shoe-Box Training Costs low difficult to ascertain

9 24,00 training materials/information on Box: 1pce./circulation a 1€; 1€ *24 circulations p.a. = 24€




67

8.6 Benefit aspects Shoe-Box


Shoe-Box 100m³ Capacity and 3 Meters Loading Heigth


Shoe-Box Amortzation Period high direct 1 607,40 Swap body : 20.000€; Fala-Ec: 115% of swap body; Shoe: 120% of Fala-Ec; Air-Tech: 140% of Fala-Ec; cost value/10 years *1,06 ( 6% interest) Swap body 3533 €; Fala: 2438 € / Shoe:2925,6€/


Shoe-Box Grasp Flange high direct 1 not monetizedShoe-Box Liqudation Proceeds high direct 1 48,00 discarded metal valued 85€/1000kg transfercosts

to junk yard = 200€ 8000 kg discarded metal from a TelliBox= 480€/10years = 48€

Shoe-Box Lower Transport Costs high direct 1 19.240,00 testrack: Tellibox has an cost advantage of

0,37€/km 20 circulations per year *2 trips 1trip=1300km 20*2*1300=19240€

Shoe-Box Stackability high direct 1 277,50 recent options are not stackable, storage fee is based on stack hight. 1st attempt: 24 days circulation + 1day 2nd attempt: 10% of all calendardays the container is stored. This costs

approx. 10€ per day = 370€. TelliBox is four times stackable. This would be only 2,5€ for a TelliBox => 277,5€ benefit

Shoe-Box Standard Handling,

Top Crane Handling

high direct 1 not monetized

Shoe-Box Transsiberian

Transport

high direct 1 263,00 Time savings vs. Shipping: 10 days. Average value

per Container: 20.000€; interest: 6% p.a.; 8 circulations p.a 20.000*0,06/356*10 *8= 263€

Shoe-Box Trimodal high direct 1 not monetizedShoe-Box Abilitiy to use Eco-

friendly Carriers


Shoe-Box Easy Handling high indirect 2 not monetizedShoe-Box Robust, Low

Reparation Costs


Shoe-Box higher Artic Truck Height through Gooseneck

high difficult to ascertain

4 not monetized

Shoe-Box Only One Basic Material

medium indirect 5

Shoe-Box Weatherproof medium indirect 5 not monetizedShoe-Box Marketingtool medium difficult to


Shoe-Box Sustainable medium difficult to ascertain

7 not monetized

Shoe-Box Flexible on Ramps low indirect 8 not monetizedShoe-Box Integrated Tie-Down low indirect 8 756,00 staff saving and material saving: Material: 12


Shoe-Box High Protection Against Theft

low difficult to ascertain

9 not monetized

Shoe-Box Less Hazards for Staff low difficult to ascertain

9 not monetized




68

8.7 Cost Model TelliBox

Cost Model TelliBox

General Key Figures

Gross Vehicle Weight Truck (t) 40

Gross Vehicle Weight (Combined Traffic, t) 44

Gross Vehicle Weight (Container, t) 30,48

Weight Truck (t) 7,48

Interest Rate 6%

Megatrailer (unimodal) AirTech-Box Fala-EC-Box Shoe-Box

Invest (€) 22950 32200 23000 27600

Invest Chassis (€) 0 15000 18000 16500

Weight (t) 6,9 10,5 9 8

Weight Chassis (t) 0

Permitted Vehicle Load Capacity (t) 25,62 20 21,5 23

Number of Pallet Places 34 33 33 33

Lifespan (Years) 5 10 10 10

Lifespan Chassis (Years) 0 10 10 10

Liquidation Proceeds (€) 600 480 680 680

Maintenance. (€/a) 2000 1040 800 800

Repair Costs (€/a) 0 1220 300 760

Insurance (€/a) 0 0 0 0

Average Worth of Loading 25000 25000 25000 25000

Expenses for capital commitment 1500 1500 1500 1500

Travel Costs

Average Transport Lengh (km) 1000 1300 1300 1300

Round Trips per year 88 20 20 20

Annual Mileage (km/a) 175000 52000 52000 52000

Transport Costs Road (€/100km) 127,8 127,8 127,8 127,8

Transport Costs Rail (€/100km) 80 80 80

Transport Costs Barge (€/100km) 60 60 60

Transport Costs Short Sea (€/100km) 100 100 100

Factor of Detour Road 1 1 1 1

Factor of Detour Rail 1,1 1,1 1,1

Factor of Detour Barge 1,2 1,2 1,2

Factor of Detour Short Sea 1 1 1

Transport Costs (Average Truck, BGL) (€/100km)

127,8 127,8 127,8 127,8




69

Additional Charge

Transport Costs for Specific Transport Carrier (€/100km) 127,8 127,8 127,8 127,8

Transport Costs Rail effective (€/100km) 0 88 88 88

Transport Costs Barge effektive (€/100km) 0 72 72 72

Transport Costs Short Sea effektive (€/100km) 0 100 100 100

Share of Pre- and Onward Carriage in Short Traffic 0 0,5 0,5 0,5

Average Lengh in Short Traffic (km) 0 100 100 100

Pre- and Onward Carriage in Short Traffic Close Region til 50 km (€)

0 150 150 150

Pre- and Onward Carriage in Short Traffic Local Region till 150 km (€)

0 250 250 250

Average Pre- and Onward Carriage in Short Traffic (€) 0 200 200 200

Costs for Pre- and Onward Carriage in Short Traffic (€) 0 8000 8000 8000

Division of Transport Carriers

Road 1 0,3 0,3 0,3

Rail 0 0,65 0,65 0,65

Barge 0 0,025 0,025 0,025

Short Sea 0 0,025 0,025 0,025

Average Travel Costs (€/100km) 127,8 99,84 99,84 99,84

Annual Transport Costs (€) 223650 55916,8 55916,8 55916,8

Annual Transport Costs (€) mod! 66456

Costs for Transhipment

Road-Rail (€ each Transhipment) 25 25 25

Rail-Rail (€ each Transhipment) 45 45 45

Inland Harbor (€ each Handling) 50 50 50

Seaport (€ each Transhipment)) 100 100 100

Number of Transhipments for one Year (exemplary)

No Transhipment 0 0 0 0

1 Transhipment: Road-Rail 0 33,429 33,429 33,429

1 Transhipment: Road-Barge 0 1,286 1,286 1,286

1 Transhipment: Road-Short Sea 0 0,714 0,714 0,714

2 Transhipments: Road - Rail + Rail - Rail 0 3,714 3,714 3,714

2 Transhipments: Road - Rail + Barge 0 0,143 0,143 0,143

2 Transhipments: Road - Rail + Short Sea 0 0,571 0,571 0,571

2 Transhipments: Barge + Short Sea 0 0,143 0,143 0,143

Other 0 0 0 0

Total (equal to 2 x Round Trips/a) 40 40 40

Loading Charges each One-Way Route

No Transhipment 0 0 0

1 Transhipment: Road-Rail

50 50 50




70

1 Transhipment: Road -Barge 100 100 100

1 Transhipment: Road -Short Sea 200 200 200

2 Transhipments: Road - Rail + Rail - Rail 95 95 95

2 Transhipments: Road - Rail + Barge 125 125 125

2 Transhipments: Road - Rail + Short Sea 225 225 225

2 Transhipments: Barge + Short Sea 250 250 250

Other 0 0 0

Annual Transhipment Costs (€/a) 0 2477,857143 2477,857143 2477,857143

Limitation of Loading

None 20% 20% 20%

Capacity 80% 80% 80%

Weight 0% 0% 0%

Factor Disadvantage of Capacity 1,03 1,03 1,03

Factor Disadvantage of Weight 0,000 0,000 0,000

Total Factor of Limitation of Loading 1,0242 1,0242 1,0242

Annual Total Costs (€/a) 227150 63661,43671 62473,3155 62944,46701

Annual Total Costs (€/a) mod! 67496

NPV (€) 22950 3.473,27 € 20.629,63 € 13.011,91 €

ROI (%) 0 67% 248% 145%

TelliBox: x is precursor of y

x y Road Barge Short Sea

Road 0 0,9 0,5

Rail 0 0,1 0,4

Barge 0 0 0,1

Short Sea 0 0 0

1+Interest 1,060

Megatrailer Megatrailer_mod(new) AirTech-Box

Fala-EC-Box

Shoe-Box

Annual Mileage (km/a) 175000 52000 52000,00 52000,00 52000,00

Invest (€) 22950 6819,428571 36700,00 28400,00 32550,00

Annual Total Costs (€/a) 227150 67496 63661,44 62473,32 62944,47

Liquidation Proceeds (€) 600 178 480,00 680,00 680,00

NPV Calculation:




71

Year AirTech-

Box Fala-EC-Box Shoe-Box

0 -29881 -21581 -25731

1 3618 4738 4294

2 3413 4470 4051

3 3220 4217 3822

4 3037 3978 3605

5 7828 8716 8364

6 2703 3541 3209

7 2550 3340 3027

8 2406 3151 2856

9 2270 2973 2694

10 2310 3085 2822

NPV: 3473 20630 13012

ROI: 67% 248% 145%

Date post:	06-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Deliverable D10 Profitabliliy of Concepts final...change of a reactive solution finding to a...

Documents