Baltimore bridge collapse
Discussion
540TORQUES said:
pingu393 said:
Ultimately, aren't A to H all insured with Lloyd's as the insurer of last resort?
Lloyds isn't a single entity, it's a trading platform which acts as a market place where insurers accept risk and pool resources. A Lloyds based underwriter can go bankrupt, that doesn't make Lloyds bankrupt as they are just the facilitator of the market place.https://www.lloyds.com/about-lloyds/our-market
It's a similar system to the stock market, where the London Stock Exchange are the trading floor, but the traders work for themselves paying a fee to the LSE for the facilities.
hidetheelephants said:
FourWheelDrift said:
They could of course have just dropped automatically due to an electrical fault or in the darkness able seaman Dougal pressed the wrong button.
Not possible to drop automatically, all the machinery is manual; the falling debris could have released it through damaging the windlass or the guillotine.
hidetheelephants said:
Obvs, it was crashed into the bridge by VP Kamala Harris, because reasons/the jewish space laser misfired and dazzled her/everything bad is always because of diversity hiring.
No.Obviously the crew were all illegal immigrants, would never have happened had they been true god fearing white Americans
skwdenyer said:
What I'm confused by is the tracking from VesselFinder. Comparing it to the voice recorder data, it looks like the ship turned towards the bridge pier at the time that the port anchor was dropped.
Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
Sticky Legs mentioned previously that chucking it in reverse can have the effect of swinging the bow in one direction or another. There would be an implied caveat about whether it's a single screw or not and the rotational direction of said screw.Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
On another note, dropping the starboard anchor will have the affect of causing drag on the starboard side which would turn the bow towards starboard (right) and more towards the pier it did hit.
RustyMX5 said:
skwdenyer said:
What I'm confused by is the tracking from VesselFinder. Comparing it to the voice recorder data, it looks like the ship turned towards the bridge pier at the time that the port anchor was dropped.
Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
Sticky Legs mentioned previously that chucking it in reverse can have the effect of swinging the bow in one direction or another. There would be an implied caveat about whether it's a single screw or not and the rotational direction of said screw.Assuming the anchors are at the bow, presumably this is expected behaviour in the absence of steering and/or power?
Does this suggest that, in fact, had the starboard anchor been dropped (or even no anchor dropped) that the Dali could have made it under the bridge? Certainly the front view video seems to suggest that, just maybe, all the efforts to avoid collision actually caused it!
That said, on its original course, it looks like it might have then gone on to hit Fort Carroll...
On another note, dropping the starboard anchor will have the affect of causing drag on the starboard side which would turn the bow towards starboard (right) and more towards the pier it did hit.
What dropping the anchor does guarantee is that the pivot point, about which the vessel will rotate, moves to the bow.
When travelling ahead ships will pivot around a point 1/3 of the way from the bow.
When travelling astern ships will pivot around a point 1/3 of the way from the stern.
When stopped in the water (not over the ground which is where tides and currents become important for ship handling) ships pivot in the middle.
This pivot point is 'soft' so the faster you go the more forward it moves. So 0.5kts ahead will not result in the pivot 'jumping' but it's position is proportional to speed.
if there was a wind on the stbd side then the port anchor could have resulted in the pivot moving further forward and therefore the 'lever' created by the wind would become 1/3 bigger once the anchor hit the bottom.
Windage:
For reference a 'big' harbour tug will exert around 80 Tonnes bollard pull. Bollard pull is the actual weight it puts on the line, with no dynamic forces acting.
Imagine a wire capable of lifting 79 tonnes, this tug will snap it by pulling on it will no snatch loading. That's a lot more power than 80 tonnes makes it sound.
Windage for ships is calculated as: Wind speed in kts x (48.5kg/m2 x windage area m2) / 1000
(try it with a 1m2 sheet of ply on a windy day, a 20kt wind will make it easily feel like 1kg weight acting on it.)
So you see how the area of the container ship, even a wind speed of 9kts right on the beam can cause issues if you lose propulsion or control.
808 Estate said:
With the advantage of a s
t ton of hindsight and looking at the original vessel track. Would the vessel have likely missed the pier if it wasnt put into reverse and the anchor dropped?
I wondered similarly. It was a fairly short time between the first power failure and the eventual crash. Unfortunately not a lot of time to get things done. Was it theoretically save able at that point?t ton of hindsight and looking at the original vessel track. Would the vessel have likely missed the pier if it wasnt put into reverse and the anchor dropped?The crux though, for me, is to know the cause and source of the power failures.
RustyMX5 said:
Sticky Legs mentioned previously that chucking it in reverse can have the effect of swinging the bow in one direction or another. There would be an implied caveat about whether it's a single screw or not and the rotational direction of said screw.
On another note, dropping the starboard anchor will have the affect of causing drag on the starboard side which would turn the bow towards starboard (right) and more towards the pier it did hit.
Trivia, that's the paddlewheel effect. Carry on.On another note, dropping the starboard anchor will have the affect of causing drag on the starboard side which would turn the bow towards starboard (right) and more towards the pier it did hit.
Electro1980 said:
MartG said:
I’m impressed by how many microbiologists are also civil engineers and experienced ship pilots. It’s a wonder they have any time left to share all of their experience online.
Dumb question.. I presume they lost rudder authority as well..
if they had been able to just restore rudder control and focus on steering through the bridge without main power- could this have stood a chance?
Or would you need the main engines to generate the power for the (presumably hydraulic? ) rudder controls?
Hence getting engines restarted was needed as a precursor to regaining directional control
if they had been able to just restore rudder control and focus on steering through the bridge without main power- could this have stood a chance?
Or would you need the main engines to generate the power for the (presumably hydraulic? ) rudder controls?
Hence getting engines restarted was needed as a precursor to regaining directional control
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff