Why the ICS should be considered a strong alternative to loop systems in baggage handling

High-capacity airports looking to automate their baggage handling for the first time have long considered tilt-tray sorter technology as the favourite solution.

It’s for good reason: conventional tilt-tray technology offers a solid solution for most of the traditional BHS features, including high throughput sortation and high reliability. When leaving conventional conveyor technology, these loop sorters are often the natural next choice.

But in today’s high-demanding airport industry, tilt-tray sorter technology can no longer be considered the sole favourite for high-capacity, automated baggage handling solutions. The Independent Carrier System (ICS) can offer the exact same features that once made the loop sorter the industry favourite, while also adding a long list of extra benefits that solve today’s requirements for modern baggage handling.

Also, ICS technology has now found a price point that makes it accessible to most airports, including small to medium-sized operations. The initial investment (CAPEX) of a modern ICS might be higher than it is for the loop sortation technology, but the lower operational cost means it can soon prove a better deal.

As a result, it’s time to seriously consider: should ICS be the preferred choice instead of tilt-tray loop sortation technology?

Understanding the systems

Before weighing up which scenarios the cross-belt and ICS are best suited for, let’s take a quick look at the two technology platforms and their most defining characteristics.

ICS vs loop sorters in general

Loop sorters run in a completely closed and continous loop. When a bag reaches the destination point, the carrying cross-belt or tilt-tray activates to discharge the bag off for baggage make-up. The loop sorter offers a higher capacity than ICS, but is limited in the baggage handling flexibility. As it is completely locked by the loop design, the entire sorter loop has to be in operation, even for just a single bag and even during low peak periods.

ICS, by contrast, has carriers that run independently. This system provides higher individual baggage handling flexibility and load sharing because of the redundancy and different possibilities for routing.

Loop sortation system frames can be designed to incline and decline to fit building layouts as needed. Their carriers are designed for small and standard size baggage.

ICS comes with a more modular approach to design and space-efficiency. To fully take advantage of the building layout, the ICS runs in “3D”, meaning in all directions, including vertically. The ICS also has greater capacity for baggage variation, as it handles small, standard and oversize baggage on the same line.

If a loop sorter system has a malfunction, the entire loop will be affected – a single mechanical fault can bring down the entire system. Although the best loop sorter systems offer data-driven, condition-based monitoring tools that enable better maintenance schedules and streamline operational teams, loop sorter maintenance is still limited to the non-operational window at night when the system can be brought to a standstill.

With ICS, each carrier operates independently. A malfunction or fault results in immediate rerouting of the carriers so that the baggage handling operation can continue. In a tote-based ICS, where the intelligence lies within the track, the necessary part of the system can be shut off for maintenance while the rest of the system remains in operation. In a cart-based ICS, the intelligence lies in the individual cart running on a simple, low-maintenance and low-cost track network. Each cart can be controlled and serviced independently, meaning if one cart needs repair or service, it can be taken offline to the designated maintenance bay while the rest of the carts continue operating.

Both types of ICS offer significantly improved uptime and less operational disruption, especially during peak periods. ICS systems also require less maintenance in general and where it is required, it can be carried out during normal operational hours.

ICS vs cross-belt loop sorters in particular

Can cross-belt loop sorter systems provide a solution to BHS requirements? The answer is “maybe”; this type of belt system can more easily sort wrapped, high-friction bags and contains a closed deck design between the belt induction and the carts. As the cross-belt platform features a relatively flat, low-profile discharge, it may be attractive in very particular environments with strict height constraints. However, that is the extent of the benefits that the cross-belt function can add to a loop sorter system for baggage handling.

If friction and height constraints pose a significant issue for an airport, the cart-based ICS technology provides the exact same advantages with its belt-to-belt transfer, low section height and tight vertical integration.

In this case, airports should be asking themselves what they require in terms of baggage handling efficiency, because ICS features are not limited to only servicing a large airport. Smaller airports with building constraints can also implement an ICS and receive all the advantages.

In most contexts, ICS can either match or outperform the cross-belt sorter technology for baggage handling – especially when parameters such as lifecycle cost and operational flexibility are included in the business case.

The advantages of ICS for almost all airports

One of the clearest operational benefits of ICS is the uptime and flexibility of the system.  Much more operational efficiency is provided by a system that can automate the handling of large, heavy, or bulky baggage (e.g., golf bags) on the same line as normal baggage handling.

The modularity of ICS also presents major advantages, as the system can be designed and installed in phases and easily expanded as airport traffic grows. Airports upgrading from conventional conveyors or introducing automation for the first time can start with a limited ICS installation and scale it over time, which is not easily achievable with loop-based systems.

In general, ICS requires far less maintenance than conveyor and loop sorter systems. The wear and tear on an ICS is lower, which is partly due to fewer moving parts and the simplicity of the system design. The ICS carts can self-report when it’s time for service on a preventive basis, which is more time-efficient than traditional scheduled maintenance. As a result, the night-time maintenance shift which is often necessary with conveyors or loop sorters, can be downsized or even avoided altogether.

How expensive is the ICS?

Price is one of the most common hesitations airports have when first introduced to ICS. As the system looks modern, stakeholders often assume it must be significantly more expensive than a loop sorter alternative.

In practice, and over time, that assumption rarely holds. Conventional loop sorter solutions may have a lower initial capital investment (CAPEX), but the operational cost (OPEX) of ICS lands either very close or below that of a loop sorter system over time. Fewer spare parts, reduced maintenance, higher system uptime and less reliance on staff add up to lower OPEX year on year. It’s important that airports should ask for the business case and consider the timeframe and operational costs before making a final decision.

Which airports should consider the ICS?

There are many scenarios where the ICS can make the most sense, both from an operational standpoint and in terms of cost.

These scenarios also include small to medium-sized airports who, like other airports, require a BHS operation that is flexible, scalable, and cost-efficient.

It could also be relevant for airports that are planning to expand over time, because the modular ICS can grow with them. Many airports in these categories are still using manual or semi-automated baggage handling, and when they do explore automation, they’re often presented with conveyor or loop systems as the default option. They need to be aware that ICS not only meets all of their requirements, but also gives airports a cost-efficient and modern technology that can grow alongside them.

Takeaway

More and more airports are seeking systems with high uptimes, sustainable operations, and scalable infrastructure, and ICS is ready for adoption in these cases.

For most small to medium-sized airports evaluating automation or replacing outdated conveyor systems, ICS can be the stronger choice. It offers not only low maintenance and improved uptime, but also lower operating costs compared to the alternatives. For example, where the entire sorter loop has to be in operation for one single bag (during non-peak hours), the ICS only needs to operate one carrier and one motor to handle a single item.

For some airports, loop sorter systems may be the preferred choice in scenarios where a throughput of 5000 – 6000 bags/h is required, but the height restrictions of the building and complex baggage surfaces should not limit an airport to only being given the suggestion of a cross-belt based loop system. In most other scenarios, ICS often provides a better solution.