You don’t always need a new building – or a new system – to meet growing demand. Often, the key to higher performance is already in place; you just need to know where to look.
Some operationally mature parcel sortation sites can be 15, 20, or even 30 years old when the need for additional parcel sortation capacity arises for the first time – typically to solve a specific operational need as a result of changing market requirements, such as the increasing demands of e-commerce.
An operationally mature Courier, Express, Parcel (CEP) operator might need extra capacity for a number of reasons:
Once the CEP has decided to look into possibilities for expanding their capacity, dialogue will circle around how much capacity is actually needed and how it is possible.
At this stage, the CEP could easily jump to the conclusion that a brand new system is needed, instead of exploring the possibility of an operational expansion.
A well-designed system will often have untapped potential for operational expansion, without being torn down and replaced.
This is where data analytics comes into play. By analysing live and historical operational data, the CEP can pinpoint underused parts of their system – often parts prone to experiencing congestion and flow imbalances that limit capacity.
Insights from a data analytics tool can inform smart adjustments, such as balancing flows, fine-tuning equipment speeds and reassigning workloads.
In many cases, data-driven tweaks can deliver a significant throughput boost before any physical changes are even considered.
And when the data shows that a physical expansion is needed, operators can target exactly where and how to make those changes for the biggest impact (as illustrated in the five real-life case studies provided with this article – see SYSTEMS 1-5).
Once the CEP has decided which kind of expansion they should go ahead with, they must identify the system’s bottlenecks and determine how best to solve them.
The biggest bottleneck might be the loop sorter itself, or it might be because the system doesn’t have enough induction lines or chutes. Alternatively, it could be that the operator is not using the system correctly to achieve the full capability.
If some parts of the system are overused and others underused, for example, this will cause problems, such as blocked induction lines and items recirculating, which eat into capacity.
Physical extensions should only be pursued once a thorough analysis has been carried out of the CEP operation’s processes – as was the case with SYSTEMS 1-5.
The scale of the work will vary depending on the needs of the CEP. Sometimes there could be a significant need for more capacity because the parcel mix has changed – for example, one CEP operator added flat mail items to their parcel mix (see SYSTEM 3) and this increased their required throughput by 30 percent – so some kind of capacity changes were needed.
Or it could include increasing the sortation system speed (like with SYSTEM 1), doubling up the induction lines and chutes, and easing congestion at all potential bottlenecks – by reassigning manpower, for example, because certain chutes weren’t being emptied quickly enough.
It could also be just a few tweaks of the system to help the CEP cope better with a few peaks of demand every week (like with SYSTEM 2) – data analytics will help inform which tweaks should be made.
In every case, the analysis should begin by identifying actual operational needs, desired capacity uplift, and the timeframe for implementation.
So what are the typical physical options available to CEPs to increase the capacity of their systems? An awful lot will depend on the layout: both of the building and of the sortation system.
Some systems are hard-tuned and already running to the limit from day one – often because there were footprint limitations that necessitated a design that utilised all available space – but that doesn’t mean that an experienced provider with a full palette of solutions won’t be able to provide options.
Adding capacity to a system with limitations might require major changes, such as:
But there are also other options – often the result of the solution provider’s ingenuity.
For example, if there is enough vertical space, a second system could be installed directly above the existing system.
It’s not unheard of for a second loop sorter or a pouch sortation system to be placed on top of a loop sorter (like with SYSTEM 4).
And if there is enough interior space within the confines of the main loop sorter, a line sorter could be added (like with SYSTEM 5). Extended from two inward chutes, this is the perfect solution should a CEP want to add a substantial number of chutes.
Another option is to link two sorters via crossover points that share capacity between systems.
SYSTEM 1: 20-year-old loop sortation system
NEEDS: Capacity to meet today’s operational needs
UPGRADE:
– Sortation system speed increased from 1.7 to 2.0 m/sec
– Retuned the induction set-up including software
– Weight-adjusted: speed of the scale belt adapted to increased speed of the sorter
CAPACITY INCREASE: 15 percent
ALTERNATIVE: New sortation system
SYSTEM 2: Small site with loop sorter
NEEDS: Capacity to meet higher number of parcels due to e-commerce
UPGRADE:
– Sortation system speed increased from 1.5 to 1.7 m/sec
– Feeding conveyor and induction belt speed increased
– Scale setting adjusted accordingly
CAPACITY INCREASE: 14 percent
ALTERNATIVE: New sortation system or building a new site
SYSTEM 3: Medium-sized site with loop sorter
NEEDS: More actual sorter capacity to deal with addition of flats to the parcel mix, which will add 20-30 percent to the throughput
UPGRADE:
– Cart pitch changed and single-belt carts replaced with double-belt carts to increase the rate of crossbelt units passing through induction
– Same system size
– Same speed
– Fewer carts
– More belts
CAPACITY INCREASE: 16 percent
ALTERNATIVE: If capacity demand increases again, which is likely, a pouch system could be added
SYSTEM 4: Large site with loop sorter and building prepared for growth
NEEDS: To be extended physically
UPGRADE:
– New loop sorter added to existing system, along with extra induction lines and chutes
– System extended from 400 to 600 carts
– Extra induction area added.
CAPACITY INCREASE: 33 percent
SYSTEM 5: Site with unused floor space and loop sorter
NEEDS: Utilisation of unused floor space to service local Last Mile sortation; integration of loop sorter with new line sortation system
UPGRADE:
– Crossover added from existing system to new line sorter to add second sorting in cages for 50 destinations
A design with more space to play with might have anticipated ways the CEP can easily scale up capacity should their demand for capacity change heading into the future.
For example, they might include three induction lines in their design, but deliberately leave space for a fourth and fifth line for future scalability.
Likewise, they may leave space available to add more chutes.
Smart sortation system designs also tend to support software scalability, allowing easier integration of new modules and data analytics tools.
Fortunately, in many cases the original design envisaged the possibility of the demand for capacity increasing and included several extension possibilities inside the original system specifications.
These smart designs allow CEPs to scale up sortation capacity when needed – whether to boost throughput, manage new parcel types, or adapt to changes in shift patterns.
In this way, the physical extensions are also lifetime extensions.
Appointing an experienced solution provider is crucial, as they will be able to provide a selection of options to increase their capacity – at varying costs.
The more solutions they provide, the more insights the CEP gains. It is all about giving the CEP the best possible support.
Establishing the likely size of investment early in talks is important. This enables the CEP to check the investment level and funding possibilities against the ROI and likely extension to the lifetime.
If the CEP learns the cost early, they are more likely to be comfortable with ‘what is coming’, and it is also worth informing them about scheduling and the likely effect on live operations.
The provider can set out a plan for how to build in a live environment, and the CEP will need to decide how much interference the operation can handle. Possibilities and recommendations will be presented, pros and cons will be evaluated, and then the
CEP must decide.
Above everything, the CEP should think very carefully before selecting a solution provider.
Not only should they be vastly experienced, with a long track record of providing a wide range of different solutions, but the palette of solutions they could potentially recommend should be wide – not just restricted to a favoured system, for example, or only modern tech, as sometimes old solutions will be the best solutions if a provider needs to improvise.
Most importantly, they should have deep operational knowledge and be able to draw from past projects across different markets and parcel profiles.
A smart design is worth investing in because it will likely result in a long lifespan, conceivably well beyond the standard 20 years for a system.
The easiest way to ensure longevity is through a partnership with a trusted, experienced system provider, who will be able to maintain, monitor, and optimise throughout the life-cycle, as well as replace spare parts – with retrofit solutions if the part is no longer in production.
A purchase without a partnership might require a lower CAPEX, but the extra OPEX costs will quickly result in the TCO of the system becoming cheaper with a partner onboard.
For example, acquiring maintenance and finding spare parts will be far more expensive without a partner onboard, and the risk of the system needing a crucial part that is no longer in production will increase, which could even restrict the lifespan to just five or ten years.
A trusted partner can provide life-cycle support such as proactive notifications about component obsolescence, updates to security protocols and budget planning for phased upgrades.
Increasing the system’s capacity doesn’t begin with choosing a new site or technology – it starts with a clear, data-informed understanding of what’s holding the current system back. Whether the challenge lies in sorter speed, induction bottlenecks or inefficient flows, a structured analysis reveals where meaningful gains can be made. As the five case studies show, even long-standing systems can be scaled up through well-considered extensions – especially when future flexibility has been built into the design.
Partnering with an experienced system provider remains important to ensure the analysis is thorough and that the right extension options are brought to the table. But it’s the CEP’s operational understanding and willingness to explore these possibilities that ultimately unlocks long-term performance and return on investment. Ultimately, the most cost-effective capacity expansions are those enabled by forward-thinking design.
