Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

wbaltv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#331

Post by Lance_ET_Compte »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #66

Somehow I find it surprising how completely the bridge collapsed after the damage. I understand that a container ship collision is serious, but you could imagine a scenarios where the bridge slumps or buckles but doesn’t just disintegrate like that. It’s surprising that ships capable of doing this damage were probably regularly driving past it, and its safety as a thoroughfare depended entirely on those collisions no…

In 2013, a tanker ship hit the Bay Bridge (Oakland SF) but didn't do much damage. In 2007, another tanker (Cosco Busan) hit the same bridge dumping oil into the bay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upfjxfl2nRM. We have a new bridge there now because that one was also damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake.

When the Golden Gate needs replacement, the Marin NIMBY's that didn't extend BART to the north bay are going to be sad (more likely, their children will be).

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#332

Post by interloxia »

hgomersall wrote: post #268
mhb wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could the cost of this possibly be justified?

Why would it be expensive? Traffic lights and sirens are cheap. The Tasman bridge apparently stops traffic for all large ships https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge

Also had a disaster. "The Tasman Bridge gained national attention following the Tasman Bridge disaster. On 5 January 1975, the bridge was struck by the bulk ore carrier SS Lake Illawarra"

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#333

Post by jandrese »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #104
coqadoodle wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lights on the ship were going off and on, and it appeared to be smoking before hitting the bridge. Does not look like they had much control at the time.

Could it be that the power going off and on, and the smoke came from a panicky attempt to recover from a mistake and avoid hitting that bridge ?

Most likely it was engine failure which caused the steering to lose power and allowed the ship to be pushed by the current.

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#334

Post by gnatman »

Par_Avion wrote: post #80

Oh, this makes me feel bad for Baltimore. Only bad news seem to come out of this town. Its reputation -- both domestically and internationally -- is mostly informed by The Wire, Freddie Gray/BLM, a dysfunctional city government, the 2019 ransomeware attack, the spoiled batch of J&J Covid vaccine... and now this. It's a real shame. It's a good place.

We’re fine, thanks.

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#335

Post by layer8 »

armchairdweller wrote: post #133
onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most bridges nowadays (say last century) depend on a careful balance of forces that are transferred through a chain of members in tension and compression. When any piece in the chain of those forces breaks, the entire structure loses ability to transfer forces and breaks. This arrangement is what allows us to build these structures in the first place. There is careful calculations of forces and risks and allowance fo…

Thanks! So why are huge—ass container ships allowed to navigate underneath fragile public bridges with single points of failure? The not unlikely worst case is that the ship is out of control for some reason…

To be able to reach the port. You could argue that such bridges shouldn’t be built in front of ports, but the public also doesn’t like having to drive long detours, and the likelihood of an incident like this one is very low.

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#336

Post by brazzy »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #110
wannacboatmovie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the footage with the bridge being over water and the temperature in Baltimore near freezing, I would guess no they are not. The outcome of this is going to be very unpleasant.

I just watched the footage. It's pretty horrifying. The whole bridge collapsed in a few seconds. It's a pretty long drop down to the water. Anyone on that bridge ended up in the water with little/no warning. That drop alone would injure/kill many. And immediately after people would be in cold water still locked in their vehicles. The water there was deep enough to be able to deal with loaded container ships. So, tens…

> The water there was deep enough to be able to deal with loaded container ships. So, tens of meters at least.

There are only a handful of ships in the world with a draft of more than 20 meters. The ship involved in the collision has a (maximum) draft of 15 meters.

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#337

Post by zeteo »

dathinab wrote: post #202
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #66

Somehow I find it surprising how completely the bridge collapsed after the damage. I understand that a container ship collision is serious, but you could imagine a scenarios where the bridge slumps or buckles but doesn’t just disintegrate like that. It’s surprising that ships capable of doing this damage were probably regularly driving past it, and its safety as a thoroughfare depended entirely on those collisions no…

At least in the links with the video now you can see that the container ship directly hits one of the two main (and in the central area only) pillars completely collapsing it. No matter(1) the engineering there is no pretty much way to not lose the whole large middle area and left area leading to the destroyed pillar in that situation. Such a collapse crates so much force (tension vibrations etc.) so that the collaps…

You don't need to build the bridge to an absurd strength, but it may have been insufficiently marked as a navigational hazard. Something like a few well-lit pillars 500 feet upstream in the water would have given the ship plenty of warning to change course, since a vessel travelling at 5 knots takes about a minute to go 500 feet. The total bridge length is on the order of 10,000 feet, so widening the safe area around the pillars to 500 feet would not be a significant impediment to navigation.

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#338

Post by btbuildem »

tokai wrote: post #285

Insane that the pylons wasn't protected by artificial islands.

If you think about this for a minute, you'll realize that what you're asking for is pretty much impossible.

What would these artificial islands be made of? Sand, gravel, concrete rubble? This is a river, the constant current of the water erodes anything that resists it by staying in place. Piling up enough material to resist erosion and create a meaningful obstacle to 70000 tonnes in motion, that would significantly narrow and make shallow the navigable waterway. The only way to do this is to build giant underwater concrete towers -- basically the structures pylons typically rest on, the piers. Look up the process required to build these, it's quite an undertaking. They are engineered to withstand the pressure of ice floes every spring, they're not flimsy by any measure.

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#339

Post by ericyd »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #206

This port has a very large volume of car shipping. The ro-ro shipping costs are expected to go much higher as a result of this accident. If you were in the market for a car in the US east coast , act now before prices go up!

A bunch of people die and this is your response?

Re: Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses

#340

Post by astura »

millzlane wrote: post #158
jxdxbx wrote: post #136

Not that it matters to anyone else, but having driven across that bridge dozens of times with my kids, this is just shocking. It’s one of the main corridors in the area. Thank god it happened in the middle of the night, though that’ll be no consolation to the families of those who may have died.

Local to the area. This was devastating news to wake up to. I don't know what's wrong with me but seeing this and knowing there were casualties made me cry. Edit: Maybe I'm just tired and need more sleep.

>I don't know what's wrong with me

I would be much more concerned if you didn't feel devastated by this and you didn't want to cry.

What you're describing is a normal human reaction to a tragedy.

Post reply on HN