1 (17)

Kalmar Maintenance & Fuel

Comparisons to Competitors
Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

Richard Pope
Manager, Port Crane Sales NA
July 22, 2015

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

2 (17)

Table of Contents
1

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.1

Chart 1: Long-term cost savings between Kalmar and ZPMC ................................................ 4

Summary Data .............................................................................................................................. 5

Cost Summary .............................................................................................................................. 6

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 7
4.1

4.1.1

Gantry............................................................................................................................. 7

4.1.2

Hoist ............................................................................................................................... 7

4.1.3

Trolley............................................................................................................................. 7

4.1.4

Hydraulics ....................................................................................................................... 8

4.1.5

Engine ............................................................................................................................ 8

4.1.6

General........................................................................................................................... 8

4.2

Kalmar vs. Konecranes .......................................................................................................... 7

Kalmar vs. ZPMC ................................................................................................................... 8

4.2.1

Gantry............................................................................................................................. 8

4.2.2

Hoist ............................................................................................................................... 8

4.2.3

Trolley............................................................................................................................. 9

4.2.4

Hydraulics ....................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.5

Engine ............................................................................................................................ 9

4.2.6

General........................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1

Analysis Objective ............................................................................................................... 11

5.2

Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................... 12

5.3

Table 1: Component tally and fuel consumption................................................................... 13

5.4

Table 2: Maintenance Burden .............................................................................................. 15

5.5

Table 3: RTG Fuel consumption data .................................................................................. 17

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

3 (17)

1 Executive Summary
This analysis aims to highlight the cost differences in maintenance and fuel based on a comparison of
the fundamental rubber tire gantry (RTG) crane systems of Kalmar and its competitors. Rather than a
comparison of total cost of ownership (TCO), the intent here is to identify the differences between
each manufacturers major systems, e.g. gantry, hoist, spreader bars, spreader micro-movements,
etc. and how those differences translate to maintenance costs and fuel consumption.
To make the comparisons, the main components of each manufacturers RTG, e.g. motors,
gearboxes, brakes, etc., were counted. The main systems examined were hoist, gantry, trolley, antisway, and side shift/trim/skew. Included with the gearbox count are oil capacities, which are the basis
for maintenance costs, i.e. labor and the cost of oil. Likewise, hydraulic systems, if any, were included
due to their high demand on maintenance resources.
The primary difference between Kalmar and Konecranes RTGs are total quantity of motors,
gearboxes, inverters, and brakes. Konecranes higher numbers of these main components leads to at
least 11% higher cost of maintenance annually. Further, Konecranes uses predominately self-branded
motors, inverters, and other parts in the manufacturer of their RTGs. As the only source for these
proprietary parts, the owners options on parts sourcing are extremely limited. Without alternative
sources for these key parts, owners must keep an expensive inventory of vital parts on hand or
experience long out-of-service time while parts are shipped in.
When compared to Kalmar, ZPMCs extensive use of hydraulics contributes significantly to their 70%
higher fuel consumption. These hydraulic systems also add substantial cost for maintenance in terms
of labor, oil, filters, hoses, and old oil disposal. Large gearboxes with high volumes of gear oil
significantly add to maintenance labor and cost of oil, including disposal of old oil. Overall, ZPMCs
high fuel consumption and extra maintenance requirements add nearly $50,000 more cost per year
than a Kalmar RTG of equal capability. ZPMC also uses proprietary self-branded motors, brakes,
gearboxes, and other parts to build their RTGs. Again, as the only source for these proprietary parts,
the owners options are limited. Without alternative sources, owners must either keep an expensive
inventory of vital parts on hand or experience long out-of-service time while parts are shipped in from
China.
Although ZPMC is known to be the low price leader, the initially lower price loses its value in short
order. In a separate analysis, we found that lower maintenance and fuel costs can offset a $130,000
difference in purchase price in as little as 2.4 years and can lead to a savings of more than $1 million
over the long term. Please see Chart 1: Long-term cost savings between Kalmar and ZPMC that
follows this executive summary.
Through our simple, maintenance-friendly design, Kalmar offers the most cost effective RTG available,
with substantial savings in maintenance and operating costs. Our regional service center in Monroe
Township, NJ offers full parts and service support only 60 miles away. With quick turn time on parts,
typically less than 24 hours, owners inventory can be kept to a minimum, saving capital and inventory
maintenance costs. Our commercially available main component parts from ABB, Siemens, PintschBubenzer, and others ensure there are always alternative sources for parts if needed.

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

4 (17)

1.1

Chart 1: Long-term cost savings between Kalmar and ZPMC

Break-even based on ZPMC initial cost of $1,600,000 vs. Kalmar initial cost of $1,730,000

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

5 (17)

2 Summary Data
The summary tables that follow are derived from a more detailed breakdown found in the appendix.
Comparison of Design, Maintenance, and Operating Costs
Rubber Tire Gantry Crane 4,000 hours use annually
System
Total motors

Motor maintenance
inspections
Total brakes

Annual brake
inspection cost
Total inverters
Total gearboxes
Gearbox oil volume
on crane
Annual gearbox
maintenance on
crane
Total Hydraulic
systems on crane

Hydraulic oil volume

on crane
Annual hydraulic
systems
maintenance
Engine type
Fuel cost per year
Crane weight

Kalmar
15 commercially
available, i.e. ABB,
Siemens, SEW Euro
$390.00

KCI
26 Self-branded
(proprietary)

ZPMC
11 Self-branded
(proprietary)

$676.00

$286.00

15 Pintsch-Bubenzer,
SEW Euro, or other
commercially available
$1,950.00

18 Pintsch-Bubenzer,
Sibre, Self-branded

8 Self-branded
(proprietary)

$2,340.00

$1,040.00

7 ABB or Siemens

7 Fuji

15
298 liters

11 Self-branded
(proprietary)
18
500 liters

8
860 liters

Est. $7,700.80

Est. $12,718.00

Est. $21,278.00

None

None

0 liters

0 liters

2 - Wheel turn and

locks
1 - spreader
2 - List/trim/skew
460 liters

$0.00

Est. $0.00

Est. $6,000.00

Variable speed (VSG)

$39,920.00
141 mt

Variable speed (VSG)

$39,920.00
141 mt

Two speed
$68,040.00
170 mt

Items in bold are main contributors to higher maintenance and operating costs.

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

6 (17)

3 Cost Summary
Annual maintenance and fuel costs
Based on 4000 hours per year
Assumptions:
- Costs shown are for maintenance on systems where significant differences exist.
- Other systems on crane, e.g. wire ropes, sheaves, tires, engines, etc., are assumed to be similar and require
similar maintenance. Therefore, these systems were not included in the cost difference analysis.
- Labor costs were calculated at $65.00 per hour. Difference in actual labor costs will change the basic cost but
the relative difference remains the same.
Motor maintenance
Approx $390 per
Approx. $676 per year
Approx. $286 per year. Fewer
inspections
year
26 motors on board adds
motors saves approximately
approximately $286 per year
$104 per year maintenance
maintenance cost when
cost when compared to
compared to Kalmar.
Kalmar.
Annual brake inspection
Approx. $1,950
Approx. $2,340 per year
Approx. $1,040 per year.
cost
per year
18 brakes on board adds
Fewer brakes saves
approximately $390 per year
approximately $910 per year
maintenance cost when
maintenance cost when
compared to Kalmar.
compared to Kalmar.
Mechanical systems
Approx. $7,700
Approx. $12,720 per year
Approx. $21,280 per year
(gearboxes)
per year
8 gantry gearboxes, two hoist Very large gantry gearboxes,
gearboxes, & 4 trolley
4 trolley gearboxes, &
gearboxes adds
complex list/trim/skew
approximately $5,020 per
systems adds approximately
year maintenance cost when
$13,580 per year
compared to Kalmar.
maintenance cost when
compared to Kalmar.
Hydraulic systems
None
None
Hydraulics add approximately
$6,000 per year maintenance
cost
Fuel consumption
$39,920.00
Equal to Kalmar, $39,920
$68,040
High fuel consumption adds
approximately $28,120 per
year in operating cost when
compared to Kalmar.
Total cost to compare
$49,960
$55,656
$96,646
Annual operating cost
$5,700.00 (+11%)
$46,690.00 (+93%)
differences based on
added maintenance and
fuel burden

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

7 (17)

4 Findings
As this analysis intended to highlight the cost differences in maintenance and fuel consumption based
on a comparison of fundamental rubber tire gantry (RTG) crane systems between Kalmar,
Konecranes, and ZPMC, we examined the principal differences with respect to the hoist, gantry,
trolley, anti-sway, and side shift/trim/skew. A tally of each manufacturers major systems, such as
number of motors, inverters, gearboxes, brakes, and hydraulic systems and significant differences
were found, which contribute to notable cost impacts in terms of maintenance and fuel consumption.

4.1 Kalmar vs. Konecranes

4.1.1

Gantry
Comparing Kalmar E-One2 RTGs with Konecranes, the main stand-out difference is the
significantly higher number of motors in the Konecranes gantry system. The gantry system on
Konecranes RTGs consists of eight (8) motors with integral brakes. The gantry motors serve
double duty as the wheel turn motors as well. This necessitates eight (8) additional gearmotor
systems to lock the gantry bogies in the desired position. There are eight (8) driven bogies,
where one wheel is driven and one wheel is undriven. When the bogie lock is released,
energizing the gantry motors cause the bogies to rotate about their vertical axis. After wheel
turn is completed, the bogie locks are re-engaged to prevent wheel turn when the gantry
motors are energized. Over time, wear on the bogie lock pins can contribute to tracking issues
and difficulties engaging and disengaging the lock pins. Kalmar uses two (2) gantry motors
(optionally 4 motors) and uses four separate gearmotors for wheel turn. Locking pins are
unnecessary because the integral brakes hold the gantry trucks in the desired position. The
flexibility of Kalmars 8 or 16 wheel bogies and two or four wheel drive offers customers many
options depending on their operating circumstances and weather conditions. For California
weather conditions, Kalmar recommends two gantry motors on either our 8-wheel or 16-wheel
configuration. Fewer motors and gearboxes result in higher dependability and less
maintenance cost.

4.1.2

Hoist
For load handling, Konecranes uses two complete hoist systems two hoist motors, two hoist
gearboxes and two wire rope drums. When compared to Kalmars single hoist system, this
amounts to twice the number of brakes, motors, and gearboxes demanding maintenance
attention and adding to maintenance costs.

4.1.3 Trolley
Konecranes uses four trolley motors and gearboxes, one driving each trolley wheel. Kalmar
uses one trolley motor though a unique drive system that tracks trolley position precisely and is
not susceptible to wheel slip or crabbing. When equipped with Smartrail CPI, accurate
container placement data is reported to TOS and moves are recorded automatically thus
eliminating the need for operators to input manually, saving both time and errors. Also, precise
trolley position is a prerequisite to future automation possibilities.

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

8 (17)

4.1.4 Hydraulics
Both Kalmar and Konecranes have eliminated the need for hydraulics on their cranes, resulting
in improved fuel economy and reduced maintenance burden.
4.1.5 Engine
Both Kalmar and Konecranes offer Tier 4 final engines and variable speed generators. The
variable speed generators offer excellent fuel economy. Kalmar and Konecranes achieve
similar fuel consumption at between 3.2 to 3.7 gallons per hour.
4.1.6 General
For the most part, Konecranes uses proprietary, self-branded parts on their RTGs. Motors,
inverters, and many other parts can only be obtained through Konecranes. This limits the
owners options in the event of a downed crane; especially if Konecranes happens to be out of
stock in the U.S. Kalmar uses commercially available parts for major components such as
motors, inverters, PLC, and brakes. With our stocking warehouse only 60 miles away in
Monroe Township, NJ, Kalmar can deliver most parts the same business day or within 24
hours of order. If for some reason we are out of stock, these components can be obtained
through the individual manufacturers directly or through their stocking distributors.

4.2 Kalmar vs. ZPMC

4.2.1

Gantry
Comparing Kalmar E-One2 RTGs with ZPMC, the principal difference is the significantly larger
gantry gearboxes. These gearboxes require a large amount of gear oil and double as the
wheel support, which can be problematic in case of damage or repair as supplemental support
for the crane will be required while work is done on the gearbox. In either the 8-wheel or 16wheel configuration, Kalmars gantry gearboxes are a separate part that can be removed for
repair or replacement without supplemental crane support. Further, Kalmars gearboxes only
require about 37 liters of gear oil, much less than the ZPMC gearboxes.
ZPMC uses an extensive hydraulic system of pipes, hoses, and cylinders on each sill beam for
gantry wheel turning. Integral to this system are the bogie locks needed to lock the wheels in
the desired position. This system is very maintenance intensive in terms of labor, hydraulic oil,
filters, and hoses. Aside from the usual routine maintenance, hoses will tend to fail from time to
time, leading to a considerable oil spill and a rather onerous clean-up effort according to
environmental protection regulations.

4.2.2

Hoist
Like Kalmar, ZPMCs hoist system consists of one motor, one gearbox, and one wire rope
drum. However, this is where similarities end. Anti-sway is accomplished through angular
reeving of the main hoist wire ropes. Eight large hoisting wires are connected directly to the
spreader headblock in a so called Johnny Walker or stiff reeving configuration. The
effectiveness of this system depends heavily on very accurate wire rope tensions. Obtaining

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

9 (17)
precisely equal tension on eight individual wire ropes is challenging to the maintenance
department, especially when ropes are going through their initial wear-in after replacement.
When the ropes are not precisely balanced in tension, each rope has a disproportionate share
of the load, sway dampening is marginal, and secondary sway can be introduced in the
spreader bar. Kalmars independent 4-rope anti-sway system utilizes four constant torque
gearmotor winches which automatically adjust to maintain equal tension and eliminate
spreader sway in both the trolley and gantry directions. Since Kalmars system does not share
any of the lifted load, the wire ropes are smaller than the main hoist ropes, making rope
replacement easier and less expensive.
4.2.3 Trolley
ZPMC uses four trolley motors and gearboxes, one driving each trolley wheel. As with
Konecranes, ZPMCs design includes three additional motors, brakes, and gearboxes for
added maintenance burden when compared to Kalmar.
4.2.4 Hydraulics
As mentioned above, ZPMC has a rather extensive system of hydraulics on board their RTGs.
We estimate some 460 liters of hydraulic oil on board, which contributes to a high maintenance
load in terms of labor, hydraulic oil replacement, and filters, as well as maintenance of other
components such as solenoid valves, hoses, and piping. Crane hydraulic systems are among
the most demanding in terms of maintenance.
4.2.5 Engine
ZPMC typically offers two speed diesels. This along with the extensive hydraulics on ZPMC
cranes are the chief reasons for ZPMCs 6 gallons per hour fuel consumption. Kalmars VSG
system and no on board hydraulics allows us to provide owners with 3.2 to 3.7 gallons per hour
fuel economy.
4.2.6 General
Like Konecranes, ZPMC uses proprietary, self-branded parts on their RTGs. Motors, brakes,
gearboxes, and many other parts can only be obtained through ZPMC. This limits the owners
options in the event of a downed crane; especially since most parts must be shipped from
China. As mentioned before, Kalmar uses commercially available parts. We can usually deliver
same business day or within 24 hours from our stocking warehouse in Monroe Township, NJ. If
for some reason we are out of stock, these components can be obtained through the individual
manufacturers directly or through their stocking distributors.

In summary, Kalmars design results in a simple, maintenance-friendly machine with substantial

savings in maintenance and operating costs. Although there are many similarities between Kalmar
and Konecranes, Kalmar can still offer users at least 11% savings in annual maintenance and fuel
cost through innovative design. ZPMCs added maintenance burden and fuel consumption adds at
least $46,000 to the annual maintenance and fuel costs compared to Kalmar. Analyzed separately, we
determined that lower maintenance demand and fuel savings can offset more than $130,000

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

10 (17)
difference in purchase price in as little as 2.4 years (see Chart 1, p. 4). Although ZPMC is reputed as
the low price leader, paying a little more initially for better engineering can save more than $1 million
over the long term.
As an added benefit over our competitors, Kalmars regional service center in Monroe Township, NJ,
offers full parts and service support only 60 miles away. Our service and support technicians stand
ready to deliver parts on short notice or to provide technical support when needed.

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

11 (17)

5 Appendix
5.1 Analysis Objective
This analysis aims to highlight the cost differences in maintenance and fuel based on a comparison of
fundamental rubber tire gantry (RTG) crane systems of Kalmar and its competitors. It is not the intent
of this analysis to identify the total cost of maintenance for each manufacturers crane or to compare
total cost of ownership (TCO), but rather to identify the differences between each manufacturers
major systems, e.g. gantry, hoist, spreader bars, spreader micro-movements, etc. and how those
differences translate to maintenance costs and fuel consumption.
Each manufacturers major systems are compared by such criteria as number of motors, inverters,
gearboxes, brakes, and hydraulic systems. The premise is that, when it comes to cranes, simplicity is
preferred over complexity and that more components translates directly to more maintenance cost,
lower dependability (more components = more components to fail), less availability owing to higher
out-of-service time for maintenance purposes. Mathematically, this is often expressed by the following
formula
= 1 2 3 4

Where
D = System dependability expressed as a percentage
CD = Component dependability of components in a system
Example cases

1. A system has 2 components, where each is ideally dependable (99%).

= .99 .99
= .9801
In this case, the system dependability is 98%

2. A similar system has 8 components, where each is ideally dependable (99%).

= .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99
= .9227
In this case, the system dependability is 92.3%
Arguably, the math supports the notion that more components, regardless of the dependability of each
component, contribute to reduced overall system dependability. However, what is not arguable is that
more components require more maintenance attention, which will result in higher maintenance costs
and lower availability due to the extra time spent for maintenance and repairs.

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

12 (17)

5.2 Evaluation Criteria

To make the comparisons, the main components of each manufacturers RTG, e.g. motors,
gearboxes, brakes, etc., were counted for the hoist, gantry, trolley, anti-sway, and side shift/trim/skew.
Included with the gearbox count are oil capacities, which are the basis for maintenance costs, i.e.
labor and the cost of oil.
Hydraulic systems were evaluated for quantities of oil on board and the resultant maintenance burden.
With the development of fully electric spreaders and electromechanical alternatives for gantry wheel
turn and spreader micro-movements, Kalmar and Konecranes have eliminated hydraulics on their
RTGs and, therefore, have no maintenance burden for hydraulic systems. Hydraulic systems for the
spreader, gantry wheel turn, and spreader micro-movements are still widely used on ZPMC RTGs.
Fuel economy is compared between each manufacturer. Factors contributing to fuel economy are total
crane weight, the presence or lack of hydraulic systems, and engine fuel saving features such as
visco-electric cooling fans and variable speed generators (VSG). The development of variable speed
generators have been a main contributor to improved fuel economy and do so by being load
responsive, where engine speed is directly proportional to applied load. Kalmars VSG system also
supports so called house loads, i.e. air conditioning or heat, lighting, and convenience outlets, even
at idle. This eliminates the need to have an auxiliary generator to support house loads.
In general, hydraulic systems contribute significantly to increased fuel consumption, as do two speed
diesels. Hydraulic systems need to maintain constant system pressure, which requires the pump
motor to run constantly. Even under no-load conditions, fuel is required to run the motor. Two speed
diesels run at idle under no load conditions and at approximately 1800 rpm when the crane is called
upon to do any work. Therefore, even at relatively light loads, such as moving the trolley with empty
spreader or lowering the hoist, the diesel is running at full speed. In the previously mentioned VSG
system, the engine might only be running at 1200 rpm under these light load conditions. This is why
Kalmar strongly recommends VSG diesels.

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

13 (17)
5.3

Table 1: Component tally and fuel consumption

System
Gantry
Driven wheels
Tires
Drive motors

Kalmar

KCI

ZPMC

2
8
2 ABB or Siemens

Gearboxes
Brakes
Wheel Turn

2
2
4 Electric gearmotors

8
16
8 Self-branded
(proprietary)
8
8
With gantry motors

Gearboxes
Wheel locks
Inverters

4
not required
1 + 1 shared with hoist

0
8
4 Self-branded
(proprietary)

2
8
2 Self-branded
(proprietary)
2
2
Hydraulic (two
hydraulic pumps +
motors)
0
4 Hydraulic driven pins
2 Fuji

Hoist
Motors

1 ABB or Siemens

Brakes

1 Pintsch-Bubenzer

Gearboxes
Rope Drums
Inverters

1
1
1 ABB or Siemens

2 Self-branded
(proprietary)
2 Pintsch-Bubenzer or
Sibre
2
2
2 Self-branded
(proprietary)

1 Self-branded
(proprietary)
1 Self-branded
(proprietary)
1
1
1 Fuji

4 Constant torque
winches
4
4
4 ABB or Siemens

4 Constant torque
winches
4
4
4 Self-branded
(proprietary)

8-fall stiff reeving

Brakes
Gearboxes
Inverters

1 Commercially
available, e.g. SEW
1
1
1 ABB or Siemens

4 Self-branded
(proprietary)
4
4
1 Self-branded
(proprietary)

4 Self-branded
(proprietary)
4
4
4 Fuji

Side shift/Trim/Skew
Side shift/skew

2 Electric motors

By anti-sway system

Hydraulic or screw
actuator

Anti-Sway
Type
Brakes
Gearboxes
Inverters
Trolley
Motors

0
0
None

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

14 (17)
System
Brakes
Gearboxes
Trim
Brakes
Gearboxes
Diesel
Make
Fuel consumption
(gals.)
Avg. Fuel cost per hour
($2.85/gal.)

Kalmar
2
2
Optional, 1 Electric
motor
1
1

KCI
0
0
By hoist motor

Cummins QSX15 Tier

4F
3.2 - 3.7 per hour

Cummins QSX15 Tier

4F
3.2 - 3.7 per hour

Caterpillar

9.98

9.98

17.01

0
0

ZPMC
0
2
Hydraulic or screw
actuator
0
2

5.5 - 6.5 per hour

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

15 (17)
5.4

Table 2: Maintenance Burden

System

Kalmar

KCI

ZPMC

Total motors

15 - 1.5 m-hours every

1000 hours
$390.00

26 - 2.6 m-hours every

1000 hours
$676.00

11 - 1.1 m-hours every

1000 hours
$286.00

18 - 1.8 m-hours every

1000 hours

8 - 0.8 m-hours every

1000 hours

30
0
100
5
10
0
0

200
0
200
0
30
35
35

240
0
200
20
40
0
0
500

400
0
200
0
120
70
70
860

$5,750.00

$9,890.00

50

86

50

86

$6,500.00
$12,250

$11,180.00
$21,070.00

$468.00

$208.00

Cost of Motor
maintenance
inspections/4,000
hours.
Total gearboxes
15 - 1.5 m-hours every
Routine inspection
1000 hours
Gearbox oil volume each (liters)
Gantry
37
Wheel turn
11.5
Hoist
125
Anti-sway
5
Trolley
10
Side shift/skew
2.2
Trim
19
Gearbox oil volume total per crane (liters)
Gantry
74
Wheel turn
46
Hoist
125
Anti-sway
20
Trolley
10
Side shift/skew
4.4
Trim
19
Total gearbox oil on
298.4
board
Gearbox maintenance cost
Oil cost @
$3,431.60
11.50/liter
Drain labor @ 0.1
29.84
m-hrs./liter
Refill labor @ 0.1
29.84
m-hrs./liter
Total labor cost
$3,879.20
Total gearbox oil
$7,310.00
maint,/annual
Gearbox
$390.00
maintenance
inspections/ annual

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

16 (17)
System

Kalmar

KCI

ZPMC

Total brakes
Brake
inspections/1000
hours@ 0.5 mhours each
Annual brake
inspection
cost@4000 hours
per year
Hydraulic systems

15
7.5 manhours

18
9.0 manhours

8
4.0 manhours

$1,950.00

$2,340.00

$1,040.00

None

None

$0.00

$0.00

Wheel turn and locks,

spreader, List/trim/skew Est. 460 liters oil + filters.
Est. 92 m-hours labor +
$4800 for oil + $260 for
filters, every two years $12,000
$6,000.00

Total hydraulic oil

maintenance/
annual

Kalmar E-One2 vs. Konecranes and ZPMC RTGs

17 (17)
5.5

Table 3: RTG Fuel consumption data

Rubber Tired Gantry Crane Load Factor Study

SPBP Tenant Data

Engine
Make
Cummins
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Cummins
Cummins
Cummins
Cummins
CUMMINS
CUMMINS
Total
Source: Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, 2009
ID
9020
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076

Equip
Make
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC
ZPMC

Model
RTG
RTG
RTG
RTG
RTG
Transtainer
Transtainer
RTG
RTG
RTG
RTG
RTG
RTG
Transtainer
Transtainer

Engine
Model
KTA-19-63
3456
3456
3456
3456
3456
3456
3456
3456
QSX15-G7
QSX15-G7
QSX15-G7
QSX15-G7
QSX15-G7
QSX15-G7

Year
1999
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005

HP
685
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
612
685
685
685
685
685
685
646

Engine
Hours
1,559
3,279
2,341
3,294
2,516
2,726
1,574
2,866
2,783
1,901
2,621
2,157
2,288
2,197
1,758
35,860

Fuel
Gallons
8,575
18,036
12,877
18,119
13,839
14,994
8,658
15,764
15,308
10,456
14,417
11,865
12,585
12,085
9,670
197,248