Italian bridge collapse

[jaap]

This Baltimore bridge seems to just fold.

It looks like the bridge had three long spans to allow the boats through, which were made of steel, and many shorter concrete spans on either side.
From the footage it looks like one of the support pillars was pretty much pushed over, causing the metal sections on either side to collapse and break off, and then the third metal section collapsed under its own weight as it suddenly lost the counterweight of the missing section. A few of the shorter concrete spans seem to have collapsed too, but I can't quite see that in the videos of the accident.

[Grumble]

Longer video shows the ship losing power at least twice before hitting the bridge

[bolo]

As well as the loss of life, the cost of rebuilding the bridge, and the impact on traffic, the effect on shipping could be significant, as the collapse has blocked access to the Baltimore port facilities. Baltimore is one of the largest U.S. ports, including a lot of steel, oil, and coal and 700,000 cars per year. I haven't seen anything yet about how long it might take to open that back up again.

ETA: The port handled 52.3 million tons of international cargo last year, valued at $80.8 billion.

[dyqik]

As well as the loss of life, the cost of rebuilding the bridge, and the impact on traffic, the effect on shipping could be significant, as the collapse has blocked access to the Baltimore port facilities. Baltimore is one of the largest U.S. ports, including a lot of steel, oil, and coal and 700,000 cars per year. I haven't seen anything yet about how long it might take to open that back up again.

ETA: The port handled 52.3 million tons of international cargo last year, valued at $80.8 billion.

There's a number of bulk carriers trapped in the port as well, although apparently not any container ships.

[IvanV]

On Google Earth, it looks like there are two little artificial islands roughly positioned just outside the shipping channel, the port side of the bridge, with antennas on them. They look like part of some kind of system to make sure ships go through the channel under the high span. There were 2 harbour pilots on board the ship to guide the ship, as is common when large ships are travelling on such harbour approaches.

So it looks like they had thorough systems to ensure this accident shouldn't happen, but not quite excluding everything. Of course, you usually cannot exclude everything, only make it very unlikely. What was left in this case - short of a 9/11 type deliberate action - is the risk that just after leaving port, in the really short distance from there to the bridge, the ship loses control, and with its momentum just gained, is found pointing in an unfortunate direction towards where it would knock the bridge over. In this case, hitting the pier took out a lot of the bridge. Seems like a very small risk the ship should lose control just there, and while pointing in such an inopportune direction. But it has happened. Inevitably with this short distance, there is quite short notice to evacuate the bridge. It was closed before impact, but not enough time for all traffic and workmen to be cleared from it. It is not impossible that the disabling of the ship's systems at this very unfortunate moment was a deliberate action.

There is another bridge further down the shipping channel, crossing fairly high up Chesapeake Bay. And then a long way further at the mouth of the bay is the 17 mile long Chesapeake Bay Tunnel-Bridge, where there are 2 mile-wide gaps above the tunnels, running between artificial islands, for ships to sail over.

[Grumble]

JFC the conspiracy theorists are all over this one. Ship runs into bridge after issuing mayday is tragic but doesn’t require outlandish explanations any more than any other bridge strike.

[IvanV]

JFC the conspiracy theorists are all over this one. Ship runs into bridge after issuing mayday is tragic but doesn’t require outlandish explanations any more than any other bridge strike.

It isn't really just like any other bridge strike. Many bridges are struck and rarely fall down. Many (road and waterway) bridges are unprotected. Many others have some crash barriers around them which will fend of much of what does head towards them, and occasionally some flashing overheight warning lights. In this case, the bridge would likely fall down if struck by the traffic routinely going by, and a few fenders would have been no protection. So there were systems - pilots, telemetry - to ensure the large ships went through the channel.

I agree that accident is much more likely than conspiracy. But it should be investigated why the power failure on the ship occurred. It is worthwhile making a clear demonstration of absence of conspiracy, and it is also worthwhile finding out why in case there are lessons either for ships with those specific systems, or for shipping more generally.

In future cargo ships might be increasingly sailed by wire, and that raises greater issues of external interference.

[bob sterman]

JFC the conspiracy theorists are all over this one. Ship runs into bridge after issuing mayday is tragic but doesn’t require outlandish explanations any more than any other bridge strike.

If there didn't happen to be a video of the incident - you can bet the conspiracy theorists would be talking about detonations / missiles.

[dyqik]

JFC the conspiracy theorists are all over this one. Ship runs into bridge after issuing mayday is tragic but doesn’t require outlandish explanations any more than any other bridge strike.

It isn't really just like any other bridge strike. Many bridges are struck and rarely fall down. Many (road and waterway) bridges are unprotected. Many others have some crash barriers around them which will fend of much of what does head towards them, and occasionally some flashing overheight warning lights. In this case, the bridge would likely fall down if struck by the traffic routinely going by, and a few fenders would have been no protection. So there were systems - pilots, telemetry - to ensure the large ships went through the channel.

I agree that accident is much more likely than conspiracy. But it should be investigated why the power failure on the ship occurred. It is worthwhile making a clear demonstration of absence of conspiracy, and it is also worthwhile finding out why in case there are lessons either for ships with those specific systems, or for shipping more generally.

In future cargo ships might be increasingly sailed by wire, and that raises greater issues of external interference.

This is conspiracy theorist thinking, imo.

Bridges do get struck by boats and fall down fairly often. They aren't often in the middle of cities though. e.g. this one in 1980 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... ay-bridge/

[monkey]

JFC the conspiracy theorists are all over this one. Ship runs into bridge after issuing mayday is tragic but doesn’t require outlandish explanations any more than any other bridge strike.

If there didn't happen to be a video of the incident - you can bet the conspiracy theorists would be talking about detonations / missiles.

They did that with 9/11, and there was video there.

It'll happen here. "A ship alone can't knock over a whole bridge" type of thing.

[IvanV]

JFC the conspiracy theorists are all over this one. Ship runs into bridge after issuing mayday is tragic but doesn’t require outlandish explanations any more than any other bridge strike.

It isn't really just like any other bridge strike. Many bridges are struck and rarely fall down. Many (road and waterway) bridges are unprotected. Many others have some crash barriers around them which will fend of much of what does head towards them, and occasionally some flashing overheight warning lights. In this case, the bridge would likely fall down if struck by the traffic routinely going by, and a few fenders would have been no protection. So there were systems - pilots, telemetry - to ensure the large ships went through the channel.

I agree that accident is much more likely than conspiracy. But it should be investigated why the power failure on the ship occurred. It is worthwhile making a clear demonstration of absence of conspiracy, and it is also worthwhile finding out why in case there are lessons either for ships with those specific systems, or for shipping more generally.

In future cargo ships might be increasingly sailed by wire, and that raises greater issues of external interference.

This is conspiracy theorist thinking, imo.

Bridges do get struck by boats and fall down fairly often. They aren't often in the middle of cities though. e.g. this one in 1980 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... ay-bridge/

If evidence of external interference was found, it would be a conspiracy in the sense that 9/11 was actually a conspiracy: a conspiracy by Al-Qaeda to commit those atrocities. But not in the sense that "conspiracy theorists" fantasise.

I never said that bridges are rarely hit by boats. Rather, I said it is common to see fenders on bridges on inland waterways, so clearly they are expecting the odd bash. What I said is this was not a common bridge strike. It was an uncommon bridge strike because it was clear that such an accident could happen and would be disastrous, and so unusual lengths had been taken to avoid it happening.

The accident happened because of an unusual confluence of circumstances that subverted those extensive precautions. That is what tends to be the case in terrible accidents. Though often those terrible accidents are also compounded by multiple human errors in those unusual confluence of circumstances. We await to see if there was any of that in this case.

[Boustrophedon]

I found a report linked, that asserts that in the US there is no Federal or even state authorities with any responsibility to ensure that bridges don't get knocked down by ships. Now the report is 40 years old, but that was when I was 25, so yesterday in the grandschemeofthings. It could be that the answer is right there, It's just no ones responsibility to ensure it can't happen.


https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA135602.pdf

[dyqik]

It's the duty of the port authorities for each port, and the state governments.

Other than tugs and pilots, there's really nothing else that can be done. Structures capable of stopping a ship this size would also block the waterway entirely.

For example, in Boston the main port is in the main harbor, with no bridges to worry about. However, there's an LNG terminal and RoRo car shipping and cruise ship terminal that requires ships to travel under the main route north out of Boston, along US 1 at the Tobin Bridge.

There the state and port authority require two tugs for each vessel.

[Grumble]

It's the duty of the port authorities for each port, and the state governments.

Other than tugs and pilots, there's really nothing else that can be done. Structures capable of stopping a ship this size would also block the waterway entirely.

For example, in Boston the main port is in the main harbor, with no bridges to worry about. However, there's an LNG terminal and RoRo car shipping and cruise ship terminal that requires ships to travel under the main route north out of Boston, along US 1 at the Tobin Bridge.

There the state and port authority require two tugs for each vessel.

I did think it strange that such a big ship didn’t have tugs in port

[dyqik]

It's the duty of the port authorities for each port, and the state governments.

Other than tugs and pilots, there's really nothing else that can be done. Structures capable of stopping a ship this size would also block the waterway entirely.

For example, in Boston the main port is in the main harbor, with no bridges to worry about. However, there's an LNG terminal and RoRo car shipping and cruise ship terminal that requires ships to travel under the main route north out of Boston, along US 1 at the Tobin Bridge.

There the state and port authority require two tugs for each vessel.

I did think it strange that such a big ship didn’t have tugs in port

The channel in Baltimore is many times wider than the one in Boston (over a mile except at the bridge vs <1000ft) Tugs really aren't necessary for maneuvering a vessel there - this is a freak accident with really bad timing.

[dyqik]

Anyway, the Republican party are blaming this on illegal immigrants and DEI initiatives.

[Woodchopper]

Other than tugs and pilots, there's really nothing else that can be done. Structures capable of stopping a ship this size would also block the waterway entirely.

There seems to be some debate about that among bridge engineers and some modern bridges are designed with defences to protect them from strikes by ships, see for example here: https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/27/d ... re-bridge/

However, a container ship that size would have been inconceivable to the people who designed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore during the early 70s. It would be unreasonable to blame them for not including much more modern design features.

[Gfamily]

Sensible sounding suggestion as to a possible timeline from a former Maersk Chief Engineer
https://x.com/mercoglianos/status/17731 ... 14699?s=20

GJtmSWGXQAABo2U.jpeg (55.82 KiB) Viewed 493 times

[TimW]

How are they going to extricate the ship from the bridge? I'm assuming the bridge is too heavy to lift or float, and if you start cutting it up then huge chunks of it will lurch dangerously into motion, no?

[dyqik]

How are they going to extricate the ship from the bridge? I'm assuming the bridge is too heavy to lift or float, and if you start cutting it up then huge chunks of it will lurch dangerously into motion, no?

I wouldn't assume that it's too heavy to lift, although it may require securing to floating cranes, then cutting those chunks off.

[bolo]

Rather amazingly, partial access to the port of Baltimore is expected to be restored by the end of this month, and normal port operations should resume by the end of May.
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/ ... nd-of-may/
Rebuilding the bridge itself will take a lot longer.

[dyqik]

I just flew into Baltimore, landing from the east.

Resize_20240415_134638_8830.jpg (213.07 KiB) Viewed 164 times