This chapter outlines the structure of specific emergency operations as well as those actions which need to be taken soon to ensure that emergency operations could be technically feasible, if necessary, within the first two years after the first indication of any emergency advent. (The reader is reminded of the recommendation regarding emergency operations earlier in this Memorandum as to whether preparations should be initiated at all or not. This chapter is based on the assumption that such preparations should be warranted.)

The proposal outline should be viewed as the first plan of what should become a rolling planning exercise with the aim of continuously updating and refining the proposals for emergency operations, by considering new information and the changing environment, e.g. the gradual opening of the routes through Angola or the development of new port facilities in Namibia. To this end, it is envisaged to establish a Contingency Planning Unit CPU within the Ministry's Department of Transport: Directorate of Maritime Affairs.

The proposed emergency operations have been designed for two scenarios. In both scenarios, Lüderitz will be the main route for imports and exports. For Scenario 1, Lüderitz will be used - more or less - exclusively, while in Scenario 2, substantial quantities of imports will have to come from SADCC-countries via Ngoma and trunk road 8 through the Caprivi. To be able to perform this role, the port of Lüderitz and its connecting rail and road links have to be rehabilitated and/or upgraded to higher standards.

However, there are other reasons for improving the port of Lüderitz, viz. that shipping is likely to become a more important mode of transport in the future and that the town of Lüderitz can be developed in an important focal point of Namibia's south. Some of the measures in respect of Lüderitz and its feeder system can therefore be justified on other grounds as well.

In this chapter all measures required for the emergency operations are identified and the details are included in the project descriptions. Those project descriptions which reflect measures that are only contingent on the emergency operations are included into a special appendix, while project descriptions for other - general - measures are included in the first appendices of this Memorandum.

This chapter has the following structure: The next two sections give an overview of the measures required for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Thereafter an overview of all those projects which need to be initiated, in one way or another, for emergency operations, including cost estimates is given. Appendix 4 contains the project description for projects required solely on account of the emergency operations. Annexure 1 at the end of this Memorandum identifies measures which should be initiated in Angola as soon as possible, to ensure that the route to Namibe is gradually improved and opened up. In this regard the reader is referred to the "Special Assistance Programme for Angola" [35] for more relevant project descriptions.


It is essential that the Study for Future Port Facilities for Namibia, detailed in Appendix 3 of this Memorandum, is commissioned as soon as possible. This will ensure that any additional works carried out for the Emergency Operations do not conflict with the long-term development plan. The study will also include site investigations which will be essential for the planning of Emergency Facilities (Project P-GM-1).


The cost estimates presented in this chapter assume that all equipment (e.g. tugs, cranes, floating pontoons etc.) will be purchased. It is, however, recommended that the possibility of leasing equipment should be considered, in particular for the equipment which will be required only on account of an emergency. Many major ports lease equipment on a permanent basis, and it may also offer additional advantages if the time for which the equipment will be required is not certain. Leasing can also reduce the mobilisation time, compared with ordering new equipment, particularly if second-hand equipment is accepted.

There are many leasing companies operating in Europe, offering all kinds of cargo handling equipment. In addition marine brokers can arrange for the hire of tugs, barges and large pontoons, and at least one company leases purpose-made ro-ro offloading facilities. Leasing companies can also arrange for the maintenance and/or operation of the equipment and this would be advantageous until local facilities can be provided.

It is recommended that this alternative has to be seriously considered and that DOT of the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication will make contact with several leasing companies.



Under Scenario 1 of the emergency operations it is assumed that the Port of Walvis Bay would not be available for the import or export of Namibian traffic but that cross-border traffic to and from South Africa would continue.


Under the Scenario 1 criteria it is estimated that there would be a requirement to handle the following cargo through Namibian ports:

Imports Liquid Fuels 500.000 t
        Containers 400.000 t
        General Cargo 200.000 t

Exports Minerals and Metals 200.000 t
        General Cargo 50.000 t

The following sections present ways in which the various types of cargo would be handled. SHIPPING

At the present time the majority of shipping traffic with Namibia is from South Africa to Walvis Bay. There is a regular service from Cape Town and Durban, and most fuel is also imported from South Africa. Intercontinental traffic is mainly by way of containers and handled by the members of the SAECS consortium.

In an emergency situation it will be vital to convince commercial shipping operators to reroute to Lüderitz. Thus, it would clearly be beneficial if SAECS as well as conferences serving Western Africa could be urged to serve Lüderitz on a regular basis. The actions proposed here in respect of port improvements in Lüderitz aim at creating an environment there which will be commercially attractive to shipping lines. It will be the duty of the Central Planning Unit CPU of DOT of the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication to maintain close liaison with the concerned operators and also with the customs clearing and forwarding agents in Namibia to ensure that they are fully apprised of all conditions and developments in respect of possible emergency operations and the Port of Lüderitz. The CPU would, however, also examine the potential and need for making use of chartered vessels, to operate between, for example, Europe and Lüderitz, in case there is an apparent risk that the services of the established operators will be inadequate.

Furthermore, in view of the limited port facilities and storage areas available at Lüderitz, it is also possible that specially chartered vessels would have to operate a shuttle service between Lüderitz and the nearest transshipment port, probably Namibe or Lobito. The additional cost of transshipment may be in the region of US $ 40-50 per freight ton if 5.000 dwt vessels are used or up to estimated US $ 77 per freight ton if small coasters (1.200 dwt) are used. It is clearly desirable to expand the port facilities in Lüderitz as quickly as possible in order to avoid the cost of transshipment.

It is likely that liquid fuels would be obtained from a refinery in West Africa, such as Luanda. The cost of transporting liquids from Luanda to Swakopmund has been estimated to be US $ 5,00 per ton in a 15.000 dwt tanker but US $ 8,00 per ton in a 5.000 dwt tanker. Similar costs to Lüderitz are estimated at US $ 6,00 and US $ 10,00 respectively. It is clearly economic to provide additional facilities to handle the larger tankers, but this must be balanced against the additional capital cost. LIQUID FUEL IMPORTS

These fuel imports are largely diesel and petrol, with smaller quantities of aviation fuel, heavy fuel oil, and kerosene. These products are available from refineries in West Africa [36], and will probably be transported in small to medium sized tankers (3.000 to 15.000 dwt). In view of the strategic importance of fuel it is proposed that two additional tanker offloading points are provided, one at Lüderitz and a second one possibly north of Swakopmund [37].

A possible location for the tanker mooring at Lüderitz could be established west of Shark Island, together with two alternative locations for the tank farm. One of the possible locations for a tank farm would be in the harbour area. This would be the cheapest solution but would also increase congestion in the port. The tanker mooring would be a conventional, 4 point mooring, in water depth of about 8,5 m (dredging would not be required). The tank farm would contain tankage for 8.000 t of liquids (currently 1.500 t after expansions in the first half of 1990), split into different categories. However, if it was decided to retain the tanker mooring as a permanent facility then it would be desirable to increase this tankage capacity considerably. This project is described in Project EP-CE-1.

The eventual tanker mooring at or somewhat north of Swakopmund would be located in the open sea, about 1.100 m from shore (i.e. in 8,00 m deep water). A land pipeline would run for about 2.000 m to a tank farm near the railway sidings. The mooring may not be usable at all times due to adverse wind, fog, or wave conditions. A mooring launch and mooring party must be provided to attend to the tanker. This tanker mooring would be of the "single-point-mooring" type, which would permit tankers to offload in worse conditions than a conventional mooring. The minimum size of the tank farm to be provided for emergency use would be 8.000 t (permitting tankers up to 5.000 dwt to discharge), but it is recommended that at least 20.000 t storage is provided, so that 15.000 dwt tankers can discharge. If the tanker mooring is to be retained as a permanent installation, it is recommended that the tankage is increased considerably, to provide a strategic reserve for the whole country. The project is described in Project EP-CE-3. CONTAINER TRAFFIC

Assuming an average load of 14 t per 20 ft. container (TEU), there will be an annual import of 28.600 TEU, or 550 TEU per week. An equal number of containers will have to be exported, either empty or (preferably) loaded with export cargo.

At the present time Lüderitz has no equipment capable of handling containers, and the storage area available at the port is inadequate. Containers may arrive aboard small coasters, ro-ro vessels or larger vessels (either specialist container vessels or general cargo vessels) and be offloaded onto lighters, small coasters or ro-ro vessels. The proposed developments, outlined earlier in this Memorandum, will provide facilities to handle containers on any of these vessels (provided that the larger ships can discharge the containers onto lighters). It is envisaged that it will be possible to serve the existing SAECS ships that operate on the feeder service to Walvis Bay, but only partly loaded larger vessels of SAECS.

It is essential that imports and exports are containerised wherever possible, because the throughput can be more than doubled in comparison with handling break-bulk cargo. GENERAL CARGO

The general cargo will be shipped aboard different sizes of vessels, but it is expected that a large portion will be by small coasters, which could be offloaded at the jetty using the existing cranage, supplemented by small mobile cranes. Other general cargo, on larger vessels, will be offloaded using the existing lighters.

The proposed reclamation (see below) will provide adequate storage space, provided that cargo can be moved out of the port within a reasonable time (approximately one week). In an emergency situation it is possible to store all the general cargo in the open (and accept some damage), but it is desirable to store at least half of the general cargo in covered storage. The existing goods shed is inadequate for any sizeable throughput and it is desirable that a new shed is constructed (Project EP-CE-2).

In the short term it may be possible to store general cargo in other locations at Lüderitz, for instance, in the old power station. This type of storage would be particularly suitable for goods which would be transported by road. EXPORT OF MINERALS AND METALS

There will be no bulk handling facilities at Lüderitz, and methods of packaging mineral and metal exports should be adapted accordingly. In view of the large number of containers which would otherwise be returned empty, it is recommended that mineral and metal exports should be containerised wherever possible. Zinc concentrate is a fine powder, and it will have to be bagged before loading into standard containers. As an alternative to containerisation, it would be possible to export zinc concentrate in Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (Big Bags). In either case it is essential that the packing is made before the minerals and metals reach Lüderitz (either at the mine or at the point where they are loaded onto trains), in order to reduce handling within the port. The required equipment is included in Project ER-ME-2. PORT IMPROVEMENTS

The proposed improvements to handle both container and general cargo traffic are listed below:

- Site Investigations - Hydrographic surveys and boreholes in order to permit design of the other projects (Project P-GM-1);

- Redredge Harbour Area - To remove siltation, and restore previous dredged depth. If possible some areas could be deepened to -7,00 m or -7,50 m where rock levels permit. In addition, a pocket should be dredged at the envisaged location of the floating pontoon, proposed to be installed under Scenario 2;

- Expand Storage Area - The material to be dredged from the harbour can be used to extend the storage area available at the port, which is at present inadequate (Project P-CE-2);

- Formation of Container Stacking Area - At the present time most of the storage area is covered by railway sidings. These could be rationalised and the rail line onto the jetty would be removed. A container stacking area of approx. 10.300 m2 would be created, providing a storage for 1.600 TEU (3 high), or 2.200 TEU (4 high) (Projects P-CE-2 and EP-CE-2);

- Provision for Lighters - Whilst lighters can be offloaded at the jetty, it is recommended that a separate lighterage wharf should be constructed in conjunction with the new storage area, in order to reduce congestion on the jetty (Project P-CE-2);

- Provision for Ro-Ro Vessels - It is recommended that a sheet piled ramp is constructed on one side of the jetty to permit ro-ro vessels to be discharged (these vessels often carry containers on deck, which could be offloaded by crane at the same time). Ro-ro vessels could also discharge at the end of the jetty if minor modifications were made to the jetty deck. This berth would not be as good as the alongside berth (which also permits offloading by crane), but it does permit larger ro-ro vessels to discharge, and also give two ramp heights so that most ro-ro vessels should be able to use the port. It is likely that the jetty can take the additional loading, but a structural survey and design check are required to confirm this (P-CE-2);

- Marine Craft - The number of lighters and tugs should be increased as quickly as possible. The final complement (Projects P-ME-1 and EP-ME-1) consists of 2 large tugs, 4 light tugs, 10 flat-top lighters and 15 conventional lighters;

- Cargo Handling Equipment - A large quantity of cargo handling equipment would be required to handle both containers and general cargo. This equipment includes mobile cranes, fork lift trucks and tractors (Projects P-ME-2 and EP-ME-1);

- Ancillary Items - Lighting must be provided to permit 24 hours working. Additional offices and workshops must be provided either inside the port or nearby (Project EP-CE-2);

- Cargo Shed - The existing shed would be relocated, and converted to workshops/offices. A new cargo shed, approx. 5.000 m2, would be constructed (Project EP-CE-2).


Estimates for rail traffic flows have been made, based on origin and destination of cargoes, and suitability for rail transport. The maximum tonnage on the Seeheim-Lüderitz and Swakopmund-Windhoek lines in Scenario 1 has been estimated at:

Seeheim - Lüderitz

Imports          Tonnes/Year

Fuels              240.000
Containers        360.000
General Cargo     150.000

Exports          Tonnes/Year

Minerals and Metals
(Containerised)   200.000
General Exports
(Containerised)    20.000
General Cargo      15.000
Empty Containers   15.000


Fuels 160.000

In addition to the cargo which will be imported through Lüderitz, approx. 600.000 t of lime, cement, cereals, coal and other commodities will be imported through Nakop. It is not anticipated that there will be any capacity problems on the main lines or that the termini in Windhoek and Tsumeb as most of the above traffic already travels by rail.

The two areas where upgrading works will be required are at Swakopmund and on the Seeheim-Lüderitz line. SWAKOPMUND

A maximum of three sidings, complete with loading facilities, should be constructed adjacent to the proposed tank farm at Swakopmund. There is plenty and available state land and the main railway line from Windhoek to Walvis Bay passes through the area. This work is included in Project EP-CE-3. SEEHEIM-LÜDERITZ LINE

By "developing world" standards the 179 km long section of this railway branch line from Seeheim, the junction with the main line which runs from Keetmanshoop to Nakop at the Namibia/South African border, to Aus is in a fair to good condition, is not too constrained by gradient curvature or climatic factors and was upgraded during 1989/90 to carry a high proportion of the emergency traffic.

The 140 km section from Aus to Lüderitz passes through more difficult terrain, is subject to moving sand dune conditions in the coastal region and as the track bed follows a dry river course for parts of the route, the formation is subject to washaways in the rainy season.

The existing line criteria are in the following table:


                            Seeheim-Aus                  Aus-Lüderitz
Length (km)                      179                          140
Maximum Axle Loads t             15,0                         11,5
Locomotive Class            U 18 C and U 20 C            U 18 C only
Line Speeds                    60 km/h                  30/40/60 km/h
Ruling Gradient                1 in 40                     1 in 40
Freight Train Journey Time  6 h - 10 min.               4 h - 55 min.
Mixed Train Journey Time    5 h - 50 min.               4 h - 25 min.
Max. Train Loads
1 Locomotive                    545 t                       455 t
2 Locomotives                   910 t                       725 t

Upgrading works on the Seeheim-Aus section were completed during 1990 with rehabilitated 30 kg/m rails (36 m lengths) on steel sleepers and ballasted. This section was thus brought up to a good branch line standard, i.e. capable of carrying 15 t axle load wagons at speeds of up to 60 km/h.

Quite a lot of replacement track materials are laid out alongside the line on the Aus-Lüderitz section (all steel sleepers and parts of the 30 kg/m rails were offloaded during July 1990), but as the majority of this section must be re-laid, a concerted effort will be required to provide additional materials, including ballast from a proposed new quarry in the area of Aus (Project R-CE-2). 5 km were completed on different sections earlier and the upgrading process is in progress on the last 20 km east of Lüderitz (8-9 km were completed during July 1990). The standard are 30 kg/m rails on steel sleepers on a grit base. The remaining sections give reason to serious concern and should be upgraded urgently.

The Scenario 1 target for 1990/91 should be to replace all of the lightweight rails (nearly 100 years old Krupp rails: 18-22 kg/m) and old (Cape Government Rails CGR: 20-30 kg/m) rails by 36 m lengths of 30 kg/m rails (approx. 85 km) and crippled sleepers, improve the formation on the section from the station "Oil Sites" to "Kolmanskop" and continue the policy of welding up short rails. These works are contained in Projects R-CE-1 and R-CE-2. In addition, the bridge survey proposed in Project R-CE-4 needs to be executed to identify further possible measures. These would be executed as part of Project R-CE-1.

The above sections would permit an increase in the line speed, at least on critical sections, such that a maximum section time would be 50-55 minutes. This would increase the line capacity to 7 or 8 trains a day in each direction which would be sufficient to carry the emergency traffic.

As discussed earlier the railway track layout in the port area of Lüderitz is to be rationalised to facilitate more efficient cargo handling. There will be a need for a reception/dispatch yard of 5 to 6 tracks somewhere in the Lüderitz area, probably on the south-eastern edge of the town (Project R-CE-1: first phase). A shunting locomotive should be permanently based at Lüderitz and additional equipment transferred to the locomotive shed to facilitate running maintenance.

The TNL train control radio network would have to be extended down the line from Seeheim to Lüderitz. This work is included in Project R-ST-1. ROLLING STOCK

Based upon a 330 day operational year and wagon turn-round time of 5 days, the fleet of rolling stock required will be as follows:


            Annual      Daily     Average    Daily      Fleet
Traffic    Tonnage    Tonnage    Payload     Wagons  Required  Notes
Diesel     125.000      606         30          21        105     (a)
                 }                                      +80
Gasoline    75.000                                     = 185
Av. Fuel    10.000       30         30           1         5
HFO         10.000        30        30           1         5
Containers 360.000      1.910     2x14         39         195    (b)
General    150.000
Kerosene    20.000      515         20          26         129
NOTA: (a) includes 80 tankers operating to/from Swakopmund
      (b) assumes 2 containers per flat wagon

The total fleet available at present is just large enough to transport all of the emergency traffic, but there is no contingency, and the fleet must be well maintained. It will also be necessary to convert 70 general goods wagons to container flats. This work is included in Project ER-ME-1.

To ensure that railway accidents do not disrupt traffic for more than the minimum time required, a new breakdown crane should be acquired, to be stationed at Aus on the Seeheim to Lüderitz branch line in an emergency situation (Project ER-ME-3).

5.2.4 ROADS

In Scenario 1, there will be a substantial increase in traffic on trunk road 4 from Lüderitz to Keetmanshoop. Part of this road, between Aus and Goageb (99 km) is still gravel, but in a fair to good condition as far as the road surface is concerned but with some alignment deficiencies. Provided the current maintenance level can be upheld, the gravel section will be able to carry the increased traffic load. This section of trunk road 4 has been identified as priority 1 for surfacing it (see previous sections of this Memorandum and Appendix 1) and should be completed within 2 to 3 years (Project D-CE-3).

Trunk road 8 from Rundu to the east through the Okavango and Caprivi regions to and from Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana will also see some increase of traffic under Scenario 1. It will be imperative to maintain at least the present level of road maintenance in order to ensure that this road does not deteriorate. The unsurfaced sections of trunk road 8 between Takwasa and Ngoma have been identified as priority 1 for surfacing (see previous sections of this Memorandum and Appendix 1) and should be completed within 5 to 6 years (Project D-GM-2: Road Feasibility Study).


At the present time Namibia has almost no manpower for the operation of a large port. The personnel at Lüderitz operate the port efficiently but they have no experience in the operation of a larger port to full capacity although it can be expected that TransNamib Limited TNL could be in state to operate a larger port like Walvis Bay (when it is returned to Namibia from South Africa) after a transitional period.

Alternatively it would also be possible to contract out the management of the Port of Lüderitz and the tanker facility at Swakopmund to a specialist firm. Many new ports are managed in this way, usually by companies which are offshoots of large established ports. Initially some of the plant operators will have to be recruited from foreign countries, but priority should be given to train local plant operators.

The maintenance of cargo handling and marine equipment is essential for the efficient operation of the ports. It is recommended that the management contractor is also responsible for maintenance of all the equipment, if this alternative will be chosen and not TransNamib Limited. In this case the contractor would bring in all the necessary equipment and personnel. If the cargo handling equipment is leased then it is recommended that the leasing company is also responsible for the maintenance of the equipment. The management contract is included in Project EP-GM-1.


The total cargo to be handled during the Emergency Operations is not greater than the cargo handled at present (although the traffic on the Seeheim-Lüderitz line will be increased considerably).

It is considered that the existing management of the railways is adequate to cater for the Emergency Situation, although the staff shortages at engineering, technician and mechanic levels must be addressed, and additional staff be recruited from abroad, if required.

Maintenance of the railway system is at present good, but the need for outside assistance could be considered in order to ensure that maintenance and operating standards are maintained and the availability of motive power and rolling stock is as high as possible.


In order that the emergency situation is handled successfully, it is essential that an Operation Plan is established before the emergency occurs. The formation of this plan, and revisions of this plan taking into account future developments as they occur, is one of the responsibilities of the Contingency Planning Unit within the Department of Transport of the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication (Project ER-GM-1).



Under Scenario 2 it is assumed that the port of Walvis Bay will not be available and in addition that there will be no cross-border traffic to and from South Africa. Initially it will be necessary to rely on overland movements from adjacent SADCC countries but the port and rail infrastructure could be quickly developed in order to handle additional quantities through Lüderitz and Namibe over and above those envisaged for Scenario 1.


The additional import cargo to be handled through emergency operations in Scenario 2 would be of all types, but the major increase in traffic would be in bulk cargoes. The following quantities of goods, assumed to be imported by rail from South Africa in Scenario 1 would have to be handled in Scenario 2:


Import Goods from South Africa by Rail           Tonnes
Coal and Coke                                   160.000
Cement                                          200.000
Agricultural Products
(Principally: Sugar, Maize, Wheat)              155.000
Lime                                             15.000
Manganese Ore                                    20.000
Construction Materials                          100.000
TOTAL:                                          650.000

Most of these items could be imported from neighbouring SADCC countries by road, but the most economical form of transport of most bulk materials would be by ship and rail. However, the proposed Scenario 1 upgrading of Lüderitz Port and the railway line would not be sufficient to handle this additional traffic. The strategy should therefore be to upgrade Lüderitz further, i.e. starting at a time when an emergency is likely to materialise and to assume that the remaining additional imports could be transported overland.

Furthermore, assuming the oil terminal is operational at Swakopmund, it would be desirable to offload as much as fuel as possible at Swakopmund in order to reduce congestion at Lüderitz. In the following analysis it is assumed that an additional 100.000 t of diesel/ gasoline will go through Swakopmund.

The increase in export quantities to be handled by the emergency operations in Scenario 2 are assumed to be small and would not affect the dimensioning of any facilities.


The upgraded port of Lüderitz, as proposed under Scenario 1, could handle a proportion of the additional traffic (e.g. by the introduction of 24 hour working periods), but it could not handle all the additional traffic and it could not handle bulk cargoes.

In view of the short term nature of the requirement for additional port capacity it is proposed that additional facilities should be based on the use of large floating pontoons, connected to the shore by a rockfill causeway and access bridge (Project EP-CE-4). Used pontoons of this type are available for purchase (or possible charter) and could be resold at the end of the emergency period. A possible location for a floating jetty could be north of Lüderitz, opposite the southern top of Penguin Island but there are alternative locations available in the Lüderitz harbour area. The floating jetty could be used for the offloading of small vessels, with draft up to 6 m, and for offloading lighters. The jetty could also be used for mooring a floating cement terminal, and possibly a floating coal terminal.

If floating terminals are to be efficiently used, it would be desirable to dredge the area around the pontoon to permit vessels up to 7,5 m draft to moor at the pontoon. This dredging is included in Project P-CE-1 because of the high cost and time required for mobilisation of a dredger for a separate operation.

A standard size barge used in the oil industry is 30 m x 27 m, and this would be suitable for use at Lüderitz. The barge would be secured to piles driven into the sea bed (chain and anchor could possibly be used, but this is not as suitable). The barge would be connected to the shore by a Bailey type bridge and rock causeway. A temporary storage area would be constructed at the head of the causeway, and an access road to the existing road from Lüderitz would also be required.

Goods offloaded at this facility would either be transported by road, or be transferred to new rail loading sidings to be constructed just inland of Lüderitz town.

The capacity of the floating terminal will depend on the type of cargo unloaded (e.g. general cargo, containers, ro-ro etc.), but could be in excess of 500.000 t per year.

Assuming that a used barge is available (which is likely) then the floating facility could be operational within three to six months (Projects EP-CE-4 and EP-ME-1). OTHER ACTIONS

No other actions are foreseen to be required in addition to the provisions under Scenario 1.


Total traffic on the system will not increase from Scenario 1, but traffic that was travelling along the main line from South Africa via Nakop to Windhoek will now pass through Lüderitz over the Lüderitz-Seeheim branch line.

It is estimated that the maximum tonnage of import traffic to be transported over the Lüderitz-Seeheim line under the Scenario 2 situation will be just over 1 million t per year. This represents six or seven trains per operating day in each direction. There will be sufficient capacity on the line for this volume of traffic after the initial upgrading works are completed, but additional strengthening works will be required in order to ensure that the line will not be subject to disruption through washaways or failure of the track. In this context the most susceptible section of the route is the first 30 km out of Lüderitz, and complete realignment of some sections should be investigated.

At Lüderitz additional sidings and loading facilities will be required (Projects R-CE-1, EP-CE-4 and EP-ME-1).

Other works under Scenario 2 should be to complete the replacement of all weak sleepers and light weight rails and expedite the line ballasting and rail welding exercises. These activities are included in the second phase of Project R-CE-1.

Following the bridge strength survey (Project R-CE-4), a repair, strengthening or replacement project for the railway bridges on the line should be implemented in order that 16,5 t axle loads may be permitted after the track has been upgraded (included in the second phase of Project P-CE-1).

5.3.5 ROADS

In Scenario 2, the traffic on both the Seeheim to Lüderitz road and the road through the Caprivi Strip will increase considerably. However, the surfacing of the unpaved sections of both roads should only tackled at medium term as funds will become available. Both roads received in any case a high priority for surfacing the remaining unpaved sections. In the case of an emergency situation according to Scenario 2 it will, however, be necessary to reallocate the maintenance resources at the DOT's disposal to intensify maintenance and allow for more frequent blading and re-gravelling sequences than is currently the case.


The comments made in above sections for Scenario 1 will also be valid for Scenario 2, but the level of manpower will increase.


The Operations Plan to be prepared by the CPU of the Department of Transport of the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication should consider Scenario 2 as well as Scenario 1. The CPU should investigate the availability of floating port facilities, as well as other types of "fast track" building methods.


The Port of Namibe is nearer to the populated northern region of Namibia than Walvis Bay and much nearer than Lüderitz. In an emergency situation it would be beneficial to import substantial quantities of cargo through this port. A new deep water port was constructed in 1968 at Sacomar (10 km north of Namibe) to export ores and this port is now under-utilised, as is the railway line connecting the port to the mine at Cassinga via Lubango as well as the trunk road connecting Lubango with the Angola/Namibian border at St. Clara/Oshikango, the latter in the need to be rehabilitated due to neglected maintenance and war damage.

The study "Special Assistance Programme for Angola" prepared in 1988 by the Southern Africa Transport and Communications Commission SATCC, has identified the projects that are immediately required in order to rehabilitate the port and railway infrastructure, but at present the recommendations could possibly only partly be implemented due to the security situation in Southern Angola.

The ports of Namibe/Sacomar would provide an ideal base for unloading and stacking of large quantities of all types of cargo, in particular coal and cement but also fuel products (from the refinery in Luanda), and the railway could efficiently transport the cargoes to Lubango. The problem with developing this route is the poor state of the 424 km long Lubango to St. Clara/Oshikango road.

An alternative route would be by rail to Tchamutete, near the Cassinga Mine, and then by road over the 280 km route to St. Clara/Oshikango at the Angola/Namibian border. This would require some minor repairs to bridges, track and communications on the railway line east of Matala, but total reconstruction of the 240 km long road between Tchamutete and Ondjiva would be necessary as this road has fallen into complete disrepair. This route can presently not be regarded a realistic alternative to the Lubango-St. Clara/Oshikango road.

As the Republic of Namibia has no control over projects in Angola, it has been concluded in this Memorandum that importation through the Namibe Corridor cannot be considered in the short-term, although the Namibe Corridor was included officially into the list of transit corridors by SATCC. Annexure 1 at the end of this Memorandum discusses the various actions that must be taken as soon as the security situation permits in order to eventually provide an alternative route for import and export to and from Namibia through Southern Angola, with special emphasis on the port, railway and road segments of the "Namibe Port Transport System".

See also a "Protocol" between the Ministries of Transport and Communications of the Peoples Republic of Angola and Works, Transport and Communication of the Republic of Namibia in Annexure 2 of this Memorandum.


[35] Government of the People's Republic of Angola and SATCC (1988): Special Assistance Programme for Angola, December 1988

[36] During July 1990 it was, however, established that the refinery at Luanda cannot supply Namibia's requirements for all brands of fuel, especially diesel and jet fuel. Only bunker fuel for ships seems to be available in sufficient quantities.

[37] During July 1990 it was, however, established that the refinery at Luanda cannot supply Namibia's requirements for all brands of fuel, especially diesel and jet fuel. Only bunker fuel for ships seems to be available in sufficient quantities.

WB00823_.GIF (134 bytes)

[Table of Content]

forward.GIF (132 bytes)