Baltimore bridge collapse

[skwdenyer]

AW111 said:

skwdenyer said:

If the ship weighed 100kT, was travelling at 9 knots, and took 5 seconds to stop during the impact, it imparted a force of around 800MN to the bridge for 5 seconds.

9 knots is around 1m/s.

It is certainly possible to create a defence against such a load. It will essentially be a concrete artificial island. It isn’t routinely done for obvious reasons. In this case it would in essence remove the channel for shipping.

The best defence is a very wide span bridge, which I suspect will be the replacement here. It may then be feasible to reinforce a couple of locations to the sides as a hedge against a second lightning strike.

9 knots is actually 4.6 m/s...

Yes if it’s. Typo on my part. I’d meant to write 5, and the energy calc is correct for that. Thanks.

[Byker28i]

two bodies recovered from a truck, they think there are other vehicles under the bridge wreckage so will salvage the bridge then send divers down again

[Digga]

Byker28i said:

two bodies recovered from a truck, they think there are other vehicles under the bridge wreckage so will salvage the bridge then send divers down again

RIP.

Hidden in the incredible macro scale disaster are real, human tragedies.

[hidetheelephants]

RustyMX5 said:

hidetheelephants said:

When the bridge was designed a big ship was 30k tonnes.

RMS Queen Elizabeth (maiden voyage 1946) - 83,000 tons
RMS Queen Mary (maiden voyage 1936) - 77,000 tons
SS United States (maiden voyage 1952) - 45,000 tons

There was lots of stuff which was over 30,000 tons. Sorry.

In 1970 big container ships and big bulk carriers were <30k, commercial RoRos didn't really exist, those that did were <20k. Most passenger liners like those three you identify were also <30k; they were exceptions, not rules. In the pre-airliner era I doubt any of the large passenger liners came to Baltimore as it's a much longer voyage from europe, the major scheduled passenger services all went to New York. The cruise industry as it is now didn't exist in the 1970s when the bridge was built and all those giant liners were mothballed as aeroplanes had stolen their lunch. What were bigger at the time were oil tankers, the largest circa 1972 was probably 150k, but Baltimore doesn't have an oil terminal.

[vaud]

Baltimore bridge collapse could lead to record insurance loss, says Lloyd’s boss

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/b...

[pingu393]

vaud said:

Baltimore bridge collapse could lead to record insurance loss, says Lloyd’s boss

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/b...

The good news for Lloyds is that it looks like it is affordable. £10.7Bn profits last year and a £2.4Bn liability.

[tight fart]

Tommy Carcetti will get this sorted in no time.

[RustyMX5]

Stick Legs said:

My first container ship was big in her day:

270m long, 2500 containers (TEU) 35000 tonnes.

Current large container ships:

400m long, 20000 containers, 150000 tonnes.

‘Liners’ are not comparable to cruise ships, their design parameters are completely different and the size of a cruise ship is misleading due to huge wasted space so everyone gets a balcony, no steerage class etc etc.
Also those liners had a power to weight ratio far in excess of a modern Container ship, multiple propellers etc etc.

Cargo vessels on the other hand have grown exponentially in weight and size.

270m - 400m is not just about a third bigger.

Look at the doubling the volume of a cube mathematical problem.

The current crop of Ultra Large Container Carriers are too big for the global infrastructure to cope with, as demonstrated by this incident & Suez.

They are operating on the limits of most ports, but while they continue to be financially and environmentally viable they will continue.

I suspect 400m / ~20k TEU is the limit. But I thought that at 360m.

Much like with Tankers in the 1970’s they will shrink back in size, prompted as ports introduce more limits to their operation such as escort towage or hard wind limits.

And you're absolutely correct and almost certainly bang on with ships ultimately reducing in size.

The point I was making which seemed to get lost was that people were implying that nothing had been built at the time that the bridge was designed that was larger than 30,000t which is patently false. Now if they'd said that the design of the bridge didn't take into account increasing ship sizes then I wouldn't have said anything whatsoever. Ho hum.

[skwdenyer]

RustyMX5 said:

Stick Legs said:

My first container ship was big in her day:

270m long, 2500 containers (TEU) 35000 tonnes.

Current large container ships:

400m long, 20000 containers, 150000 tonnes.

‘Liners’ are not comparable to cruise ships, their design parameters are completely different and the size of a cruise ship is misleading due to huge wasted space so everyone gets a balcony, no steerage class etc etc.
Also those liners had a power to weight ratio far in excess of a modern Container ship, multiple propellers etc etc.

Cargo vessels on the other hand have grown exponentially in weight and size.

270m - 400m is not just about a third bigger.

Look at the doubling the volume of a cube mathematical problem.

The current crop of Ultra Large Container Carriers are too big for the global infrastructure to cope with, as demonstrated by this incident & Suez.

They are operating on the limits of most ports, but while they continue to be financially and environmentally viable they will continue.

I suspect 400m / ~20k TEU is the limit. But I thought that at 360m.

Much like with Tankers in the 1970’s they will shrink back in size, prompted as ports introduce more limits to their operation such as escort towage or hard wind limits.

And you're absolutely correct and almost certainly bang on with ships ultimately reducing in size.

The point I was making which seemed to get lost was that people were implying that nothing had been built at the time that the bridge was designed that was larger than 30,000t which is patently false. Now if they'd said that the design of the bridge didn't take into account increasing ship sizes then I wouldn't have said anything whatsoever. Ho hum.

Maybe the key question is what was the expected size of ships visiting that port at that time?

[asfault]

LimaDelta said:

BrettMRC said:

A two stroke diesel, (which I assume this is) will run on pretty much anything that it can get through the nozzle/injector - so I doubt it's a fuel quality issue...

It may burn, but if compatibility issues block up filters and prevent it from even getting to the engines, then it can conceivably cause a problem which means no matter how many generators you have, the lights are going off. We had one such issue in Venezuela many moons ago.

Not saying it was the case here, but it is a possibility. Fuel is one of the few things which is common to all the engines on the vessel.

Is it the shipping verion of the dpf filters on modern cars getting clogged up?

[Vipers]

asfault said:

LimaDelta said:

BrettMRC said:

A two stroke diesel, (which I assume this is) will run on pretty much anything that it can get through the nozzle/injector - so I doubt it's a fuel quality issue...

It may burn, but if compatibility issues block up filters and prevent it from even getting to the engines, then it can conceivably cause a problem which means no matter how many generators you have, the lights are going off. We had one such issue in Venezuela many moons ago.

Not saying it was the case here, but it is a possibility. Fuel is one of the few things which is common to all the engines on the vessel.

Is it the shipping verion of the dpf filters on modern cars getting clogged up?

This being the case, why wasn’t it identified during the port call where a spokesperson said they had been experiencing power failures alongside before they sailed?

My take is still they knew they had a problem, which wasn't diagnosed alongside, and sailed thinking it would be sorted later.

Can’t imagine the financial implications of taking up expensive dock space preventing another ship docking, and delaying their next port of call, who knows.

[808 Estate]

Seems to be talk of General Average being declared.
https://theloadstar.com/dali-cargo-owners-face-mas...

[pingu393]

808 Estate said:

Seems to be talk of General Average being declared.
https://theloadstar.com/dali-cargo-owners-face-mas...

Holy Moly

[skwdenyer]

808 Estate said:

Seems to be talk of General Average being declared.
https://theloadstar.com/dali-cargo-owners-face-mas...

I'm not entirely clear how or why General Average would apply here. I'm by no means an expert, but I thought it was now settled law that the general average cannot be declared when the ship is grounded (that was the precedent case) by its master’s own negligence. It can hardly be argued that the Master sailed into the bridge in order to protect the cargo from peril!

Clearly this is a very specialised area of law, but I'll confess I'm genuinely confused as to how General Average gets extended to this scenario, never mind to the cost of rebuilding the bridge!

[hidetheelephants]

Vipers said:

This being the case, why wasn’t it identified during the port call where a spokesperson said they had been experiencing power failures alongside before they sailed?

My take is still they knew they had a problem, which wasn't diagnosed alongside, and sailed thinking it would be sorted later.

Can’t imagine the financial implications of taking up expensive dock space preventing another ship docking, and delaying their next port of call, who knows.

The Coastguard may get somewhere when they question the crew, hopefully they will all be forthcoming although in the past whistleblowers have been rewarded when the Coastguard grip the collars of magic pipe users etc.

[nigelpugh7]

808 Estate said:

Seems to be talk of General Average being declared.
https://theloadstar.com/dali-cargo-owners-face-mas...

Thanks for that link, the loadstar is a great website, very well informed.

[croyde]

Have they published the names of the poor folk that died in this tragedy?

Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift

[Alickadoo]

croyde said:

Have they published the names of the poor folk that died in this tragedy?

Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift

Do try to get a sense of proportion about things. It may well help you as you go through life.

Six people were killed in the Baltimore bridge collapse.

On an average day day five people will be killed on Britain's roads.

Forty five people were killed in a South African coach crash.

Two thousand people die on an average day in the UK.

[Petrus1983]

croyde said:

Have they published the names of the poor folk that died in this tragedy?

Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift

One of the victims family has been on the news - obviously devastated -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/03/27/bal...

[LivLL]

Alickadoo said:

croyde said:

Have they published the names of the poor folk that died in this tragedy?

Wives, girlfriends, kids would have been expecting their loved ones home after a night shift

Do try to get a sense of proportion about things. It may well help you as you go through life.

Six people were killed in the Baltimore bridge collapse.

On an average day day five people will be killed on Britain's roads.

Forty five people were killed in a South African coach crash.

Two thousand people die on an average day in the UK.

Weird answer?

Anyway Croyde they have published the names of the road workers.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...

Such a shame as the Police were, from the audio, desperately trying to get a warning to them after stopping traffic at either end.