To explain this shift, it is essential to understand the key differences between conventional raw baggage conveyors and ICS. While conventional systems remain the most logical choice for some airports, the current trend can be better understood by looking at factors such as capacity, reliability, cost and – most importantly – space requirements.
Conventional baggage belt conveyors handle between 1,800 and 3,600 bags per hour per line, depending on their configuration. In comparison, ICS systems generally achieve higher speeds, handling 2,700 to 4,000 bags per hour per line. This increased capacity makes ICS particularly attractive for airports experiencing higher passenger volumes.
A significant advantage of ICS is the use of tubs for transporting baggage, which allows for full traceability throughout the bag’s journey. With the ability to perform in-tub screening, bags can be placed in tubs earlier, optimising the end-to-end process and reducing the risk of lost or misplaced items.
ICS systems may require a higher initial investment, but the total cost of ownership is lower over time. By reducing manual tasks, such as manual coding and exception handling, they offer greater reliability and reduced costs related to missed bags. In addition, ICS conveyors are more standardised, which means they require fewer spare parts, cost less to produce and need less maintenance.
Space considerations are crucial in BHS design. Conventional systems typically need a single conveyor line from check-in to the make-up area. On the other hand, ICS requires an additional line to return empty tubs, potentially increasing the footprint. However, their higher capacity per line means fewer lines are needed overall, which can make them more space efficient in high-capacity scenarios.
When opting for an ICS solution, the overall system layout significantly impacts both the footprint and capacity. Systems such as Vanderlande’s TUBTRAX can be designed in a line or loop configuration, and the choice should be based on the airport’s specific priorities.
A line configuration is a straightforward, linear set-up, through which baggage moves in a single line. This typically requires less space than a loop configuration, making it suitable for airports with limited room. However, line configurations are characterised by periodic stops when bags need to be merged, which can result in lower throughput.
By contrast, an ICS system configured in a loop forms a continuous circuit, through which baggage circulates until it reaches its destination. This type of configuration uses more space than a line sorter, but offers a significant advantage in terms of capacity. In a loop system, all typical baggage processing steps – such as loading, screening, coding and sorting – are executed in independent (local) areas. This prevents such tasks from influencing the bag flow on the loop itself. Instead of stopping to let merging bags in, loop systems also merge bags into available gaps within the continuous flow.
The optimised process results in up to 45% more capacity compared to line systems. Therefore, the increased capacity and efficiency of loop configurations make them ideal for airports with higher baggage handling demands.
ICS systems such as TUBTRAX are reliable, efficient and scalable, which makes them perfectly suitable options for airports of all sizes. Selecting the right configuration – be it line or loop – will provide the necessary balance between footprint and capacity requirements at facilities where space is limited.
By carefully considering all these factors, I firmly believe smaller airports can use ICS systems to optimise their baggage handling operations. This will make it easier to meet modern demands placed on them by airlines and passengers alike.
Every airport is different. This is reflected in your layout – and the advice offered by our experts.