Baltimore's key bridge down , hit by ship in early morning . . .

[pgandw]

So you are going to slow down the ships in and out of Baltimore to 1-2 knots until past the bridge? And only one at a time. That should reduce the usefulness of the harbor for freight handling by a large factor.

Perhaps a better solution is to locate the bridge supports to where the large ship runs aground before it can hit them. This would mean a longer center span perhaps a little more susceptible to damage from a too-tall ship, likely more costly. But I think the too-tall ship is more easily managed then slowing ships in and out of Baltimore to a crawl. Or build structures around the bridge supports that can prevent a ship taking them out.

Fred W

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Yep, everything comes with a cost. I suspect that something is going to change. I agree that protection of the support structures may be the most economical and risk-reducing.

 

[jon hansen]

pilot is in command.
ships steer by directing their thrust at any speed
all great lakes officers are pilots
this is like a single prop plane loosing it's engine

i, lost all power under the ambassador bridge down bound in the detroit river. got lucky, slammed in to a empty dock on the american side. no tugs, oops!
at the helm when we destroyed 60' off the n. swing bridge at gross ill, detroit river, down bound. moron captain! on his very first day. oh well. had 2 tugs hooked up.
both fully loaded ships

i did chuckle at many of your responses.

the captain is in charge of the entire ship, the chief enginer is in charge of the engine room.

oh, there will be finger pointing.

sad that people died, very sad

 

[smokey73]

Yep, everything comes with a cost. I suspect that something is going to change. I agree that protection of the support structures may be the most economical and risk-reducing.

This is a key point. It is hard to believe that at some point in time since this bridge was put into operation that someone didn't question the ability of the bridge supports to withstand a direct hit from a fully loaded cargo vessel of the size that frequents the harbor at Baltimore. IMHO it was not a matter of if, but more likely when, a ship would hit the support. The question is whether adequate consideration of this risk was taken and funding considered to install protection for the support structure in the way of something that would stop a ship of this size from impacting the support. I suspect there were discussion of this type and the "budget" couldn't support this if they were going to build all those "sound walls" along the highway where developers built subdivisions right by the already operating highway.

Risk is a function of both Probability the event occurs and Consequences of the event. The probability of a ship of this size losing steerage and/or propulsion and striking the support is not too far fetched. The Consequences we can already see. Pay me now or pay me later.

 

[Davidasailor26]

I feel smarter every time I watch one of Sal Mercagliano’s videos -

 

[PaulK]

Having steerage provided by tugs is a nice idea, but difficult to implement. If the containership isn't moving on its own, the tugs would have to be pulling or pushing it. Can a tug pull a 100000 ton ship effectively? Bollards on the containership would need to be re-engineered to withstand the forces involved. A tug trying to slow the Dali down by pulling with a towline off her stern would rip the fitting off the deck as it's built now., much like if a ship tried to tow your boat at its cruising speed of 18 knots, your anchor cleat would rip out. Girding, as outlined in posts #14 and #15 would be a real danger once the tugs were able to get the behemoth moving.

 

[Jim Legere]

This is a key point. It is hard to believe that at some point in time since this bridge was put into operation that someone didn't question the ability of the bridge supports to withstand a direct hit from a fully loaded cargo vessel of the size that frequents the harbor at Baltimore. IMHO it was not a matter of if, but more likely when, a ship would hit the support. The question is whether adequate consideration of this risk was taken and funding considered to install protection for the support structure in the way of something that would stop a ship of this size from impacting the support. I suspect there were discussion of this type and the "budget" couldn't support this if they were going to build all those "sound walls" along the highway where developers built subdivisions right by the already operating highway.

Risk is a function of both Probability the event occurs and Consequences of the event. The probability of a ship of this size losing steerage and/or propulsion and striking the support is not too far fetched. The Consequences we can already see. Pay me now or pay me later.

Having spent too many days of my life sitting through risk assessments and hazard & operabilility (HAZOP) studies, I can attest that you are correct. However, in the early '70s, when this bridge was being designed and built, neo-Panamax and post-Panamax vessels had not been posited; I suspect that the bridge abutments were deemed 'fit for purpose' at the time. Some time after that, they should have been upgraded to meet the risk of larger and larger ships.

 

[smokey73]

So true. As ships have gotten bigger and bigger what was a "reasonable risk" then (when this bridge was designed and built) may not be an "acceptable risk" now. That is what I mean by "at some point in time since the bridge was put into operation." Risks change over time. Once recognized an informed decision needs to be made taking into account those changes. It is almost impossible for me to comprehend that at some time someone didn't say "Hey these bigger ships could take down that bridge at the speeds they have to transit that span. We need to consider some protection for those supports." I would be willing if you dig deep enough you will find that discussion happened, and the budget wasn't allocated for that or if allocated, it was diverted for something else.

 

[jssailem]

In less than a minute one can get a glimpse into the money decisions made in Baltimore and Maryland. It is much easier to spend money on social ideas than to be concerned about infrastructure.

Just look at Camden Yards. Rebuilt in 1995. Now up for another $600million 2023 legislated funding upgrade. Rationalized with the $10 billion baseball contributed since 1995. And who wouldn’t love to talk baseball rather than bridge abutments.

 

[Jim Legere]

In my town (Halifax, Nova Scotia) we have two suspension bridges that those behemoth container ships go under on their way to the dock. The newer bridge was built in 1970 but the bridge piers have been upgraded over the years. Compare the Halifax bridge with the Francis Scott Key bridge pier that was hit. Water depth at the bridge pier in Halifax is about 50' versus about 25' in Baltimore.

 

[twodzusfittings]

One of the key defenses against ships hitting bridge abutments where not in place on this bridge. So called "Dolphins" were not in place as a first line of defense. Many bridges in the Philadelphia area have them. One of the key items pointed out just after the incident and reported by the news. Had they been in place, it may have reduced the amount of damage and lives may have not been lost. Right wrong or indifferent, just a little addition to add to the pot!