Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed

[CharlieO.]

OOPS: 1989

Yes, I thought changes came about due to Captain Hazelwood.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Yes, I thought changes came about due to Captain Hazelwood.

A typo. We lived in Alaska for 20 years thanks to Captain Hazelwood; I wouldn't have forgotten

 

[Circumnavigator]

Unfortunate situation. That passage is deep around the bridge and its supports. Up here in New England most ships would run aground before they would threaten the supports of the bridges.

Not a comprehensive list -- just what came quickly to mind:
Vulnerable -- deep water around one or both supports at the sides of the main channel:
Mount Hope Bridge
Claiborne Pell Newport Bridge
Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge
Tobin Bridge
Deer Isle Bridge
Piscataqua River Bridges (first two)
Sagadahoc Bridge (Kennebec River, Bath)



Base in shallow water, but close to deep water:
Bourne & Sagamore Bridges


Support bases well out of deep water
Braga Bridge, Fall River
Piscataqua River Bridge (I-95)


Jim

 

[CharlieO.]

A typo. We lived in Alaska for 20 years thanks to Captain Hazelwood; I wouldn't have forgotten

I got my first boat job due to Hazelwood, spent the entire summer in PWS straight out of high school. My goal since then has been to return with my own boat. Getting close to fulfilling that goal.

 

[AlaskaProf]

I got my first boat job due to Hazelwood, spent the entire summer in PWS straight out of high school. My goal since then has been to return with my own boat. Getting close to fulfilling that goal.

My wife was one of the two DOJ attorneys who were preparing the Federal tort claim for trial in Anchorage when Senator Stevens walked over to Main Justice and dictated the $900 million settlement. (Not to be confused with the ill-fated $5 billion civil suit).


Gina spent the rest of her career as counsel to the federal/state trustees who were tasked with spending the 900mill. Usually involved telling them, "No, that's not what it is for." ( Not her only work, as a Clean Water specialist, she worked on several other shipwrecks.)



When she retired in 2009, they were still spending it and she was still advising intermittently from Oregon until about six years ago.

 

[AlaskaProf]

My goal since then has been to return with my own boat. Getting close to fulfilling that goal.

Persevere. It'll be even better than you remember.


I finally got back to PWS on a 5-month cruise in 2018.
Here's my track to Landlocked Bay, near the infamous reef:

 

[Benthic2]

"Ship over x years old"
? For you not yet 9 years old, like Dali, In witch case you will put her ? Old ship ?

There will be a need for people who don't understand the problem to act like they are solving the problem because it is an election year.

I know the Dali wasn't old, but it is a measure that could be easily adopted that would eventually sunset as older ships are retired. It is an easy idea for simple politicians to understand and is based on the logic that older ships are more prone to maintenance problems ( whether that's true or not ), which is easy for the public to accept.

90 years after a train hit a schoolbus in a white out blizzard in Utah at a crossing without any gates, every schoolbus in the country has to stop at a railroad crossing now. I guess I am getting cynical in my old age but I expect some sort of hamhanded, ineffective solution like that to arrise from this tragedy.

 

[AlanT]

There will be a need for people who don't understand the problem to act like they are solving the problem because it is an election year.

I know the Dali wasn't old, but it is a measure that could be easily adopted that would eventually sunset as older ships are retired. It is an easy idea for simple politicians to understand and is based on the logic that older ships are more prone to maintenance problems ( whether that's true or not ), which is easy for the public to accept.

90 years after a train hit a schoolbus in a white out blizzard in Utah at a crossing without any gates, every schoolbus in the country has to stop at a railroad crossing now. I guess I am getting cynical in my old age but I expect some sort of hamhanded, ineffective solution like that to arrise from this tragedy.

Older large ships tend to get priced out of the major markets before they reach this stage of obselescence. They incur substantially increased insurance costs after 25 years of age and of course maintenance issues only get greater. Generally the smaller ones move into smaller trades (Caribbean/Inter-Island etc) and the larger ships such as this, get scrapped for the steel.)

 

[koliver]

Check this out:

Sal (the guy on this U tube) is a PhD and gives a very unbiased account.

 

[Hippocampus]

Not a comprehensive list -- just what came quickly to mind:
Vulnerable -- deep water around one or both supports at the sides of the main channel:
Mount Hope Bridge
Claiborne Pell Newport Bridge
Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge
Tobin Bridge
Deer Isle Bridge
Piscataqua River Bridges (first two)
Sagadahoc Bridge (Kennebec River, Bath)



Base in shallow water, but close to deep water:
Bourne & Sagamore Bridges


Support bases well out of deep water
Braga Bridge, Fall River
Piscataqua River Bridge (I-95)


Jim

Thank you Jim and stand corrected. Took a moment to look at the vulnerable ones. Several have no fendering of any sort. Fortunately some aren’t up/downstream of a major port. Although a fair number of ROROs use west passage. You see some ships divert to east passage once out of the docking area. Still Naragansett bay and Boston/Charlestown seem at risk.

Again defer to the more knowledgeable.
Apparently ships this size use tugs when not in the main channel coming in or out. This ship had two while disembarking. Is it likely rules will change so tugs are required until ships are past all vulnerable bridges?
Drive through Baltimore going to or back to the boat. Although on occasion have used the Key but more commonly one of the tunnels. So think a tunnel could be used as a replacement. Given the importance of that port what is the likelihood the Key would be replaced with a tunnel? If a tunnel was to be used one would think once the main channel is cleared the port could open and remain open during the new construction. Would that be the case if a new bridge was done?
What’s the likelihood of mandating retrofitting the vulnerable bridges with some sort of fendering?
At what speed is there insufficient headway so flow over the rudder(s) is insufficient and that there’s no or limited steerage on these ships? Am I right in assuming that once propulsion was gone and the ship slowed sufficiently steerage would be limited even if rudder control was available?

 

[psneeld]

Some expert maritime guys have been saying for awhile tugs should be used at least though that bridge. So there was prior concern. But someone did the risk management and decided that wasn't necessary...bet they are sorry now.

That bridge was crucial for many as the tunnels are restricted when it comes to hazmat and one I believe due to vehicle size. Also the Key Bridge was selected over a tunnel for initial and operating costs. I doubt a tunnel will replace it. Depending on what left of the bridge is salvageable, it may be feasible to use the initial design and save a huge amount of time, especially over a tunnel.

Not sure what the answer is to steering...one video shows the vessel starting to move back to port right before impact as if thruster or some rudder became available (but still not sure the tie between main propulsion and rudder control).

My guess is there will be a pretty strong push to evaluate which bridges are vulnerable and either require slow speed/tug assist while passing under or the construction of protective measures. Collapsing a bridge is one thing as far as liability, deaths and long term economic consequences I will venture will boggle my mind.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

Lots of company assets heading to Baltimore now... My tug is the second one out of town headed to Baltimore with one of our crane barges and another deck barge in tow. Our largest crane is in tow ahead of them... The Chesapeake 1000. It will be a workhorse for this job.

 

[psneeld]

Lots of company assets heading to Baltimore now... My tug is the second one out of town headed to Baltimore with one of our crane barges and another deck barge in tow. Our largest crane is in tow ahead of them... The Chesapeake 1000. It will be a workhorse for this job.

See where 1100 Army Corps of Engineers personnel either are or might be assigned to help?

That should make an interesting chain of command....

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

See where 1100 Army Corps of Engineers personnel either are or might be assigned to help?

That should make an interesting chain of command....

yeah, should be a crazy chain of command situation...We were the prime contractors hired to clear the waterways after Karina, New Orleans. Sandy NY/Nj, Golden Ray Stranding/Brunswick, GA. and Ever Forward, Baltimore a few years ago... They give us some leeway for experience....

Navy Sup salv is the peeps in charge... Thats who we work for on this and other projects

 

[ABfish]

This incident does make me wonder if we've reached a practical limit of size for the container ships. And the DALI is not in the largest class of ships.

At some point, the reduction of marginal costs due to shipping is outweighed by the dredging and harbor rework needed to handle those vessels.

 

[sunchaser]

Assistant tugs were used to help the Dali out of its berth and into the channel. Who makes the onboard decision that the tugs are not needed to continue assisting?

4 years ago we were on the Queen Mary departing Brooklyn and passing under the Verannzo Bridge. Two tug assists were alongside for about one hour. I asked why and the answer was something like to insure we remain in the channel. Currents are at times strong in that area. Come to find out the QM was having electric drive problems, quitting at sea for about one hour 4 days later as a transformer was changed out. The tugs were insurance I would guess.

 

[johnrupp]

Lots of company assets heading to Baltimore now... My tug is the second one out of town headed to Baltimore with one of our crane barges and another deck barge in tow. Our largest crane is in tow ahead of them... The Chesapeake 1000. It will be a workhorse for this job.

Are you on the Atlantic Salvor Jack?

John

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

Are you on the Atlantic Salvor Jack?

John

Thats my tug but I got off Wednesday morning for my normal 28 days off

 

[johnrupp]

Thats my tug but I got off Wednesday morning for my normal 28 days off

My home port is Baltimore Harbor. Getting ready to leave dock and go have a first hand look at the site. I imagine once they’re done with S&R and investigation they’ll have the Fort McHenry channel cleared in no time.

John

 

[twistedtree]

A few questions for anyone who knows these larger ships....

The propulsion engine and generators are completely separate on these ships. If you lose generator power, to what degree to you also lose the propulsion engine? Does it shut down? Do you lose gear and throttle control? This ship visibly lost power a couple of times, and I'm trying to understand what impact that would have on propulsion.

After power came back on the first time, there is subsequent heavy black smoke. I'm thinking that's the propulsion engine, not the generator? Does it suggest they went into reverse to try to stop? That would make sense to me, and explain the heavy black smoke, but I don't know if that's a realistic explanation. Does a ship like this have a reversing gear? Or a variable pitch prop with fixed (or narrow band) engine RPM? Specs say it's a low RPM engine (I think I recall 89 rpm). Or is this an engine that needs to be stopped and restarted in the opposite direction? If the ship was reversed it would explain the veering to stbd from prop walk, and the pilots command for port rudder to counteract.

TimB@Sea commented on the question of escort tugs, and whether they would be able to help in such a situation. He though they would be of little to no use, and I'm wondering if other tug operators agree? He said that once the vessel is moving at that speed (8kts), even a large tractor tug is going to have very little impact trying to divert the ship. He said that even when still or barely moving, it takes his 5000 hp tug a long time to impact the movement of his barge, and that the barge is a small fraction of the mass of the container ship. I think he said it's 1/20th the size, or maybe even smaller.

One thing that has been suggested is that this might have been a result of switching from low sulfur fuel to heavier marine fuel. I would have expected the EPA and IMO regs to require making such a switchover much later in a voyage, and certainly not right after leaving the dock. So I'm thinking that theory is pretty far off base. I would think and switchover has the be around the 3 mile limit, if not the international line. But maybe not? Anyone know?

 

[twistedtree]

A very quick checks shows that the switch to Low Supfur fuel has to happen in ECAs which are Emission Controlled Areas. In the US that appears to follow the EEZ which is the Exclusive Economic Zone, which is 200nm off shore. So switching between fuels would happen 200nm off shore, not shortly after leaving a dock, and while transiting a narrow waterway. Makes total sense.

 

[psneeld]

No expert on all the details..... and not sure how the vessel is rigged....

One expert suggested the thick puffs of smoke were the compressed air re-starts*of the engine.

I have never served on a Merchie, but USCG Cutters of all shapes and sizes from WWII vintage to Gas Turbines with variable pitch props never depended on power from or for the main propulsion. There was always one or more generators on the line or on hot standby, particularly when entering or exiting port. We also had guys with block and tackle in after steering to manually take over rudder control. Can't imagine that on the M/V Dali and not sure if the report of outgoing tide was true, at some point rudder alone wasn't going to be all that effective.

Also the "experts" are all over the map when it comes to tug assist. The ones I believe are the ones that say if the tugs weren't attached, the vessel going slower and the notification of exactly when and what was happening and what the pilot thought the vessel would need from the tugs...then the probability they could have averted the danger is definitely debatable. That the pilot had to determine what was going on...called for tug assist as well as notifying official to the threat of hitting the bridge and maintaining order as well as command for what he did have at hand like dropping anchor..... all that in several minutes is pretty overwhelming. Doable but would be impressive none the less.

I doubt switching fuels would be why an engine stoppage would occur unless of course operator error temporarily shut off all fuel.... I suspect the NTSB will figure out if engineroom operator error was pertinent or not.

 

[twistedtree]

No expert on all the details..... and not sure how the vessel is rigged....

One expert suggested the thick puffs of smoke were the compressed air re-starts*of the engine.

I have never served on a Merchie, but USCG Cutters of all shapes and sizes from WWII vintage to Gas Turbines with variable pitch props never depended on power from or for the main propulsion. There was always one or more generators on the line or on hot standby, particularly when entering or exiting port. We also had guys with block and tackle in after steering to manually take over rudder control. Can't imagine that on the M/V Dali and not sure if the report of outgoing tide was true, at some point rudder alone wasn't going to be all that effective.

Also the "experts" are all over the map when it comes to tug assist. The ones I believe are the ones that say if the tugs weren't attached, the vessel going slower and the notification of exactly when and what was happening and what the pilot thought the vessel would need from the tugs...then the probability they could have averted the danger is definitely debatable. That the pilot had to determine what was going on...called for tug assist as well as notifying official to the threat of hitting the bridge and maintaining order as well as command for what he did have at hand like dropping anchor..... all that in several minutes is pretty overwhelming. Doable but would be impressive none the less.

I doubt switching fuels would be why an engine stoppage would occur unless of course operator error temporarily shut off all fuel.... I suspect the NTSB will figure out if engineroom operator error was pertinent or not.

I agree that ship's power doesn't depend on propulsion engine. But what about the reverse? Will the propulsion engine keep running if ship's power is lost? I'm guessing not, since there are controls, pumps, sensors, etc that would be needed to keep the propulsion engine running. Anyone know on a ship like this?

And wouldn't it be ironic if the ship was put into reverse in an attempt to stop, yet that same action is what generated enough prop walk to veer the ship into the pier where it otherwise would have glided along in a straight line right under the bridge. Trying to stop would seem like the right call, so I can't see how anyone would fault the operators, yet in this case it may turn out to have been exactly the wrong thing to do.

 

[sunchaser]

Maritime, insurance, federal, state, county and port law are in play; deepening the mystery and complicating getting the facts out. A question circulating involves - was the vessel "seaworthy'' and fit for departure?

 

[dannc]

...

And wouldn't it be ironic if the ship was put into reverse in an attempt to stop, yet that same action is what generated enough prop walk to veer the ship into the pier where it otherwise would have glided along in a straight line right under the bridge. Trying to stop would seem like the right call, so I can't see how anyone would fault the operators, yet in this case it may turn out to have been exactly the wrong thing to do.

A year or so ago, I saw a video from a ship's engineer that talked about the ships engine. Starting was done from compressed air. There is no transmission and to go from forward to reverse, the engine, and thus prop shaft and prop, had to be stopped. Then the engine was started in reverse. It was non trivial to do this and it takes time.

I assume the Dali's engine was the same.

I saw the video of the accident first thing in the morning and had no idea what had happened overnight. The video just popped up on Youtube.

My first thoughts watching the video of the ship hitting the bridge were:

1. Is this real?
2. Did this just happen?
3. There is traffic on the bridge.
4. There are construction workers on the bridge.
5. Wow. I can see the ship pretty clearly.
6. Ship lights show up pretty well even with the city lights
7. Oh s...t! The ship lost power.
8. Whew. Power is back.
9. Oh s..t! Power is off.
10. Somewhere between 7 and 8 I noticed the black smoke from the stack. I even rewound the video to see if I had missed the smoke before power was lost. Nope. No smoke earlier in the video.
11. Figured the black smoke was from putting the engine in reverse, and as they used to say, pouring on the coal.
12. The ship is noticeably turning to starboard and heading to the starboard bridge pier.
13. Is the turn from prop walk from going into reverse?
14. No traffic on bridge anymore but why are the construction vehicles sitting there? RUN!
15. D...n, that ship is going to hit the bridge....
16. The construction vehicles are not moving! Is the ship sounding?
17. Then the collision...
18. If there were workers in or near the trucks....
19. REALLY surprised how much of the bridge fell. When I saw wider angle views of the bridge it made sense why so much fell.

There surely was not a lot of time to do much. Surprised the ship's crew was able to do what they were able to do with the time they had. Even if prop walk caused the turn, I think training and instinct would be to try to stop the ship. Having the thought, AND the courage, to let the ship power under the bridge, without steerage, is really Inconceivable.

 

[High Wire]

Experts have said that the engine must be stopped and then started in reverse rotation. No transmission or variable pitch prop. We’re going to have to wait for the report for what happened in the ER.

 

[JDCAVE]

There’s a decent article in today’s NYT. “Baltimore Investigation Turns to Ship’s Deadly Mechanical Failure“

Not sure if this link will work:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/30/...referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&sgrp=c-cb

 

[Nick F]

There’s a decent article in today’s NYT. “Baltimore Investigation Turns to Ship’s Deadly Mechanical Failure“

Not sure if this link will work:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/30/...referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&sgrp=c-cb

Still just conjecture . . .

 

[Mambo42]

It is nice to sit behind the computer and guess what has happened. But in my years as a pilot and having seen quite a few mishap investigations I know it is best to simply wait and let the investigators do their job. They will figure it out and in the end we will see the report.
I have seen already a lot of speculation, including conspiracy theories, and although I have lots of questions and would like to have them answered.......... I will just wait and let the NTSB do its job. I know from experience these guys are dedicated to their job.

But I have to admit, it is nice to have a discussion about it, as long as we remember we will have to wait for the NTSB to share their thoughts.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

true!... In the mean time... it needs to be cleaned up and channel opened for commerce to resume..