Bridge Collapse in Baltimore

[lovinthehd]

I contend that bridge was an inadequate design back then. A much smaller ship than that could have brought that bridge down. You can't have vital support piers anywhere near that shipping channel. That bridge should have been a suspension bridge or better tunnel from the beginning.

The bridge was there to allow traffic the tunnels didn't allow for, tho.

 

[TLS Guy]

The bridge was there to allow traffic the tunnels didn't allow for, tho.

You can build as many tunnels as you want. The new lower Thames crossing will carry a six lane highway. A suspension bridge is another alternative. Mishaps with ships are far from uncommon. They need giving plenty of sea room to minimize the risk. So you should not put obstructions in navigable channels.

The major reason for this catastrophe was the design of the bridge.

If a huge ship loses control, it should go aground before it hits a vital structure like a road bridge.

 

[Dude#1279435]

You can build as many tunnels as you want. The new lower Thames crossing will carry a six lane highway. A suspension bridge is another alternative. Mishaps with ships are far from uncommon. They need giving plenty of sea room to minimize the risk. So you should not put obstructions in navigable channels.

The major reason for this catastrophe was the design of the bridge.

If a huge ship loses control, it should go aground before it hits a vital structure like a road bridge.

Something like this preferred?

 

[Dude#1279435]

 

[TLS Guy]

Something like this preferred?
View attachment 66768

Yes, that is a suspension bridge.

This is the QE2 Bridge that carries the south bound traffic of the M25 across the Thames. The two tunnels take the North bound traffic.

A ship would run aground before hitting the supports. You can see ships at the port of Tilbury just up river. As ships got larger the part of London had to be moved down river to accommodate these huge ships. There is another huge port down river on the Isle of Sheppey at Sheerness where the River Thames and Medway meet, and another somewhat smaller one at Gillingham. There is no bridge there but the Medway Tunnel

I grew up at Frindsbury right above that tunnel.

 

[TLS Guy]

The bridge was there to allow traffic the tunnels didn't allow for, tho.

Yes, that is an issue, as inflamables have to take another route or go through with an escort.

The problem with bridges apart from being a hazard to shipping is that they often are environmentally highly destructive. Rivers, and especially their banks contain vital marsh lands that are crucial breeding grounds vital to food supply, especially crustaceans. This is particularly true of the Thames, both the North and South banks. The south bank of the Thames in the area of the Cliffe marshes are a big case in point. Any disturbance of those marshes would be catastrophic. The area of the Dartford crossing is also very sensitive and had to be taken into account. It is right by the Darent river where it meets the Thames. The Darent River and its many tributaries contain some of the most important chalk streams in the world.

That is why when you approach the tunnel from the south you note the land is left rough and unspoiled. Disney lobbied hard to build a Disneyland in the Darent Valley. Fortunately permission was permanently denied. Eurostar has to enter and exist a tunnel a long way from the Thames for this reason. It is also tunneled over 19 miles before you get to the tunnel to avoid property. Eurostar travels through 43 miles of tunnel all together. It does not get up to 185 mph until it leaves the last tunnel in Kent, and then is speed limited under the English Channel between Folkestone and Boulogne, and then get up high speed to Paris.

Here is the long list of tunnels under the Thames.

The proposed lower Thames crossing will have 2.6 miles of tunnel and has to avoid disturbing the Cliffe marshes.

Here is an artists impression superimposed on a actual photograph, and you can see this area is of vital ecological importance on both North and South sides, and has to remain protected.

https://nationalhighways.co.uk/media/sl0l1mz5/ltc-tunnel-2020-image.jpg

The SE is densely populated, but is highly sensitive ecologically. This includes the not only the Thames, but the Medway, and Swale. So the isles of Sheppey and grain, and pretty much the whole Hoo peninsula. The pressure continues to build to develop the Hoo Peninsula, which would be a major disaster.

Tunnels tend to be far less environmentally destructive compared to bridges, and much safer in busy shipping lanes.

 

[GO-NAD!]

That's old news, but it does raise the possibility that someone did something stupid. I think the possibility of a terrorist act should not be dismissed. It seems that the main engine and two main generators and two back up generators all failed. So that raises the possibility that the fuel was tampered with.

I highly doubt that fuel tampering would cause the propulsion and all four generator diesel engines to fail simultaneously. Unless they are all fed by a single fuel pump, that is. I would doubt that though. Every comment is complete conjecture right now and I've hesitated to add my own for that very reason.

Some, or all, of Dali's generators would probably have been running while they were in port, as I doubt the ship would have been on shore power. So, a fuel problem would have revealed itself earlier. If the engines all failed simultaneously (or nearly), my first suspicion would be in the electrical distribution system. All of the engines would require electrical controls and if a major fault appeared in that system, it could possibly cause all of the engines to trip. Again, this is complete conjecture and I would suggest holding off on any further speculation.

The least likely scenario would be terrorism. Sabotaging the ship in hopes of causing her to hit the bridge would be the dumbest idea since the Saudi ass-bomber.
Abdullah al-Asiri - Wikipedia

 

[TLS Guy]

I highly doubt that fuel tampering would cause the propulsion and all four generator diesel engines to fail simultaneously. Unless they are all fed by a single fuel pump, that is. I would doubt that though. Every comment is complete conjecture right now and I've hesitated to add my own for that very reason.

Some, or all, of Dali's generators would probably have been running while they were in port, as I doubt the ship would have been on shore power. So, a fuel problem would have revealed itself earlier. If the engines all failed simultaneously (or nearly), my first suspicion would be in the electrical distribution system. All of the engines would require electrical controls and if a major fault appeared in that system, it could possibly cause all of the engines to trip. Again, this is complete conjecture and I would suggest holding off on any further speculation.

The least likely scenario would be terrorism. Sabotaging the ship in hopes of causing her to hit the bridge would be the dumbest idea since the Saudi ass-bomber.
Abdullah al-Asiri - Wikipedia

The whole thing is strange. You would think that electrical systems would be backed up to the hilt. However, it does seem more than likely that five diesel engines failed almost simultaneously. There likely is only one fuel tank and in ships they are heavily compartmentalized to stop fluid sloshing around in a rough sea.
I agree terrorism is unlikely, but it is possible someone put in the wrong fuel by mistake. I would presume the fuel lift pumps are electric, but the injector pumps would be mechanical and part of the engine timing. This whole episode is strange to say the least. However as this proves ships out of control do a lot of damage, so vital infrastructure needs to be kept out of their way. That is the point that needs to be taken on board going forward.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The whole thing is strange. You would think that electrical systems would be backed up to the hilt. However, it does seem more than likely that five diesel engines failed almost simultaneously. There likely is only one fuel tank and in ships they are heavily compartmentalized to stop fluid sloshing around in a rough sea.
I agree terrorism is unlikely, but it is possible someone put in the wrong fuel by mistake. I would presume the fuel lift pumps are electric, but the injector pumps would be mechanical and part of the engine timing. This whole episode is strange to say the least. However as this proves ships out of control do a lot of damage, so vital infrastructure needs to be kept out of their way. That is the point that needs to be taken on board going forward.

I think wrong or contaminated fuel would have revealed itself before she reached that point.

Full disclosure: I was a marine engineer in the RCN. I know how diesel engines and ships' fuel systems work. I understand that merchant vessels tend not to have the same degree of system backup/redundancy as warships, so I couldn't state with certainty, but I would think that each engine has its own fuel boost pump to draw from the fuel tanks.

Those bridge piers should have had better protection though.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think wrong or contaminated fuel would have revealed itself before she reached that point.

Full disclosure: I was a marine engineer in the RCN. I know how diesel engines and ships' fuel systems work. I understand that merchant vessels tend not to have the same degree of system backup/redundancy as warships, so I couldn't state with certainty, but I would think that each engine has its own fuel boost pump to draw from the fuel tanks.

Those bridge piers should have had better protection though.

I suspect that the lift pumps for the fuel are electric, but could be mechanical. Actually I said five engines quit, but I suspect it was actually six, as even the bow thruster would have stopped the vessel hitting the bridge I suspect. I have studied what is known about that vessel and there is a lot of information available. I can understand the main engine having a catastrophic failure, which it likely did. However how the two main generators failed and the two backup generators all failed, and I suspect the bow thruster engine, gets to the point of incredulity. So I do suspect a fuel quality problem or some fatal single point of failure that had been overlooked in the design. This is certainly a very weird chain of events, and should not have been able to happen short of a massive engine room explosion, which I doubt there was and I think that can be pretty much discounted.

Did you ever encounter these long stroke direct drive reversible two stroke marine diesel engines? I ask because they all start from compressed air as far as I know. However I doubt the generator and bow thruster engines start from compressed air, but I suppose that is possible. Quite a few diggers started that way years ago, Ruston Bucyrus especially. They have one of those at Rolag. So the small engine starts and pumps up the air tank, and then the air is let into the cylinders to spin the engine over. That was an alternative to the pony engines that used to engage with the flywheel. Caterpillar used twin cylinder horizontally opposed engines. John Deere had a small V4 engine, that was really temperamental. That was to start the old two cylinder diesel tractors. So the pony engine had twice the number of cylinders than the main engine.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I suspect that the lift pumps for the fuel are electric, but could be mechanical. Actually I said five engines quit, but I suspect it was actually six, as even the bow thruster would have stopped the vessel hitting the bridge I suspect. I have studied what is known about that vessel and there is a lot of information available. I can understand the main engine having a catastrophic failure, which it likely did. However how the two main generators failed and the two backup generators all failed, and I suspect the bow thruster engine, gets to the point of incredulity. So I do suspect a fuel quality problem or some fatal single point of failure that had been overlooked in the design. This is certainly a very weird chain of events, and should not have been able to happen short of a massive engine room explosion, which I doubt there was and I think that can be pretty much discounted.

Did you ever encounter these long stroke direct drive reversible two stroke marine diesel engines? I ask because they all start from compressed air as far as I know. However I doubt the generator and bow thruster engines start from compressed air, but I suppose that is possible. Quite a few diggers started that way years ago, Ruston Bucyrus especially. They have one of those at Rolag. So the small engine starts and pumps up the air tank, and then the air is let into the cylinders to spin the engine over. That was an alternative to the pony engines that used to engage with the flywheel. Caterpillar used twin cylinder horizontally opposed engines. John Deere had a small V4 engine, that was really temperamental. That was to start the old two cylinder diesel tractors. So the pony engine had twice the number of cylinders than the main engine.

I had forgotten about the bow thruster, so yes, six engines. The first ship I served in after joining the Navy, an AOR (RFA in RN parlance), had one. They are primarily used for maneuvering into and away from jetties. That said, it was SOP for it to be running and available when entering and leaving harbour. In this instance, I don't know if it would have helped Dali avoid the bridge. It might halve swung the bow away, but she would probably have struck the bridge broadside instead.

While I have no experience with engines like the one in Dali, practically all of the diesels I had experience with were air-started. The Volvo diesels in our RHIBs had electrical starters, but that's the only example I can think of.

If there was a problem with the fuel itself, then sure, it could cause all of the engines to fail. However, I have difficulty believing that it would cause them all to shut down almost simultaneously. Unless, as you suggest, there was a single point of failure, like a single fuel pump supplying all of the engines. You may be correct about fuel, but I'm still leaning towards some sort of major electrical failure. Or, there could be a confluence of events leading to all of the engines failing. Regardless, it's all conjecture right now.

 

[highfigh]

I contend that bridge was an inadequate design back then. A much smaller ship than that could have brought that bridge down. You can't have vital support piers anywhere near that shipping channel. That bridge should have been a suspension bridge or better tunnel from the beginning.

I was adequate for the traffic it was handling but bridges aren't designed to handle side loads other than wind and water, but the latter would only be at the bottom- it was never designed to handle a vessel impacting it. The design was inadequate WRT protection, though- there was none. Apparently, nobody asked "What if...?".

 

[j_garcia]

Cargo ship's owner and manager seek to limit legal liability for deadly bridge disaster in Baltimore

The owner and manager of a cargo ship that rammed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge before it collapsed are seeking to limit their legal liability for the deadly disaster

abcnews.go.com

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... Apparently, nobody asked "What if...?".

a poorly designed monster cargo ship in the future loses total power and control runs into the bridge ...

Space alien attack?

 

[lovinthehd]

Interesting views underwater

 

[highfigh]

a poorly designed monster cargo ship in the future loses total power and control runs into the bridge ...

Space alien attack?

Well, it had been serviced and this still happened- I wouldn't want to be in charge of that work.

 

[lovinthehd]

Some info here I hadn't seen

 

[Eppie]

What's Going on With Shipping? April 4, 2024
In this episode, Sal Mercogliano - a maritime historian at Campbell University (@campbelledu) and former merchant mariner - provides an update on MV Dali, Baltimore, and Key Bridge salvage as of Apr 4, 2024.

 

[lovinthehd]

Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse – Black Swan Event | Armstrong Economics

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed on March 26, 2024, at 01:28 EDT after being struck by a cargo ship owned by Brawner Builders Inc. The ship

www.armstrongeconomics.com

The ship was under power at the time. No tugs, no other escort.

Well, it was on and off power a few times after the tugs left....

 

[cpp]

Well, it was on and off power a few times after the tugs left....

Yep and without propulsion or tugboats, a ship this size is nearly impossible to stop.