BLOODY HELL!!!

Doug99 said:
Those concrete piers designed in the 70s are no match for the BIG modern container vessels.
The poor harbour pilot on the bridge would have been aware what was about to happen but powerless to avoid it.
Maritime law however still places the ships captain as responsible for vessel safety.
Click to expand...
but given the depth in the area, a bit of banking or breakwater around the critical pillars would have caused a grounding rather than total destruction.
 
motorbiking said:
but given the depth in the area, a bit of banking or breakwater around the critical pillars would have caused a grounding rather than total destruction.
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder why the harbour authorities didn't build additional pier protections. I'm sure there would have been a couple of 'near misses' in the past 50yrs or so.
 
Doug99 said:
Makes you wonder why the harbour authorities didn't build additional pier protections. I'm sure there would have been a couple of 'near misses' in the past 50yrs or so.
Click to expand...
Probably down to money as usual. You'd have thought at some point over the past decades additional protection must surely have been discussed.

Tragic.
 
I don't have a navionics subscription to the area, so can't see the direction of tide at the time, but if it was a strong ebb or flood, its easy to see how the power failure could have caused a diversion to shallow water given the vessel's size. That bridge clearly needed some concrete banking or fenders.
 
motorbiking said:
I don't have a navionics subscription to the area, so can't see the direction of tide at the time, but if it was a strong ebb or flood, its easy to see how the power failure could have caused a diversion to shallow water given the vessel's size. That bridge clearly needed some concrete banking or fenders.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about these things. So a basic question. Would that be standard practice in other countries? Thinking particularly about the UK.
 
At a high level - yes. but it's based on risk. We don't tend to protect bridges from small craft, but where we have large cargo ships like Dali (300M 100k gross tonnes) you will see fenders or bumpers. You don't need it in shallow water because the ship will ground before it gets close.

e.g.

1920px-Sheppey_Bridges_Counterdistorted.jpg


Dolphins%20start%20the%20protective%20fender.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Would that be enough to protect from a massive ship like the Dali? Would the pointy bit at the front of the ship still hit the bridge supports?
 
There was a lot of tonnes to stop. I doubt if a complete fix would be as easy as some may think. More bridge related person pointed out that there generally would be some protection but not for a tonnage and speed like that. Probably even slower. It takes a hell of a distance to stop ships with that sort of mass. A lot of energy when speed is considered.

The design of the bridge means it will collapse as it did. The ship did have a fault occur. Lights went out briefly and investigators have now boarded.

2 water temperatures mentioned. 8 and 10C. 9hr survival time mentioned, I wondered if it could be that long.
 
JonathanM said:
Thanks. Would that be enough to protect from a massive ship like the Dali? Would the pointy bit at the front of the ship still hit the bridge supports?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. It's not about the force and moving mass needed to stop the ship, it's the force required to cause it to glance or deflect.

Most cargo vessels have protruding bulbous bows below the water to reduce drag.

Also it doesn't matter how much it weighs it wont keep going if it grounds.
 
ajohn said:
2 water temperatures mentioned. 8 and 10C. 9hr survival time mentioned, I wondered if it could be that long.
Click to expand...
No chance of lasting an hour, unless you were in a dry suit. Then if they get you out alive, you'll go in to cardiac arrest due to your blood sinking to your feet. Realistically we are talking 20 minutes for people wearing warm clothing and a life jacket. Without a life jacket they will drown very quickly as the cold will stop you from being able to swim.
 
Cars go in and out of the port and it seems plenty of LNG comes out. More solid reports will come out at some point but UK LNG got a mention. Reporters sometime look for the worst effects and that one may be significant also LNG supply to other areas. Best wait and see.

I thought survival time of mins in that sort of temperature but it looks like 9hrs was chosen as time to change the style of searching also to leave some hope.
 
According to some reports all those lost were immigrants from central america filling in potholes on the bridge...

And in typical style, this from fox news...

"Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo has been slammed after she attempted to link the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore to Joe Biden’s immigration policy.

In an early morning broadcast on the right-wing channel, Bartiromo asked US Senator Rick Scott for his take on the bridge collapse, linking it to the “wide-open border.”
 
Did you watch the video where this was claimed? It seemed more of sloppy questioning than linking. But I've no idea about who she is or if she has form.

To me the bridge collapse has to be partially blamed on the lack of impact protection. No doubt the skipper will be prosecuted as well, particularly if as is claimed he set sail with serious electrical faults known at the time.
 
Wide river and I'd suspect no channel that could be used. There often is one in rivers in the tidal sections but max bridge span betwen supports is likely to figure as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top