WG 179 : New Ships in the CEMT 92 Classification

Published

In 1992, the Conference of European Ministers of Transport (CEMT) authorised the current classification for inland waterways (see Appendix). In 2007 the CEMT evolved in the International Transport Forum (ITF).

Pianc stood at the base of the 1992 CEMT classification. The Pianc Working Group no. 9 produced a report in 1990, titled ‘Standardization of Inland Waterway’s Dimensions. One of the reasons to install this working group was that the previous CEMT classification of 1954 had no provisions for push convoys of 2, 4 and 6 barges.

Since 1992 however, several developments were experienced again in the size and forms of barges, as well as their means to manoeuvre. Meant are the larger (and often wider) motorvessels, as well as the coupled units that sail the (larger) waterways nowadays. Examples of those are the Rhine max vessel (135 x 17 m.) respectively a coupled unit, which can exist of a common large Rhine vessel (110 x 11.40 m.) combined with a pushed barge upfront. This pushed barge can be a regular Europe II type or a tailor made one, both resulting in a total length of 170 – 190 m. A coupled unit can also be 2 peniches attached.

The CEMT ’92 classification has no provisions for those larger motorvessels as well as coupled units. Misunderstandings exist among the different countries as to the classification of the vessels mentioned. In this way, history repeats itself.

For Rijkswaterstaat this caused to study those developments thoroughly (see references below). Underlying reports were written by the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN). Data for these studies were obtained from registration of passing ships in the Netherlands (IVS ’90) as well as the IVR (Rheinschiffsregisterverband).

The overall conclusion was that the CEMT ’92 classification is no longer properly for the current European fleet of barges.

By clustering the existing fleet Rijkswaterstaat developed further its own RWS 2010 Classification, within the CEMT ’92 system. Leading for the new classification were the horizontal dimensions of the ships, primarily the beam and secondarily the length.

Objectives

Objective of the Working Group is to undertake an investigation, merely in the same way the previously mentioned Pianc Working Group no.9 has executed. 

An inventory will be made of existing inland waterway classifications and the divergences among them. This inventory will relate to the different continents.

Making an inventory of dimensions of the inland waterway fleet and seeking out the trends in its long term evolution.

The work of Working Group no. 9 was carried out by means of a questionnaire for transmission to the Pianc national sections in the countries concerned. This approach could be repeated.

Relevant questions of the questionnaire (partly adapted) are:

1. What is the classification of inland waterway vessels applied in your country, specifying all the dimensions taken into account?

2. Does this classification still correspond to the evolution in respect to shipping, or does it need to be revised and for what reasons?

3. Is navigation by coupled units developed? Does the classification take account of it? If so, how?

4. Is navigation by motorvessels larger than 110 m developed? Does the classification take account of it? If so, how?

5. What is the outlook for development of the fleet and, in particular, towards which dimensions of vessels or coupled units are tending? Will the existing infrastructures be able to cope with these new units, possibly coming from neighbouring countries?

 

List of members

The Netherlands

Ivo ten Broeke (Chair)

Otto Koedijk

Anja van der Sluijs

Germany

Eilts Meike

Didier Bousmar

France

Kai Kempmann

Austria

Barbara Keri

 

Table of Contents

1.General Aspects

2.Programme of Work

3.Information on Inland Waterway Systems in Europe

4.Information on Inland Waterway Systems in Other Countries

5.Fleet Characteristics

6.Waterway Characteristics / Network

7.Market Analysis

8.Synthesis

9.Proposal or a Revised Classification

10.Conclusion

11.References