Baltimore's Key Bridge struck by cargo ship, collapses • Hacker News Board

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

#961

Post by toss1 » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

shiroiushi wrote: post #929

toss1 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Because the Port of Baltimore is a very major port, and not allowing ships under it really isn't an option. It is now a very large port that is completely closed off from the sea. And two sides of the city no longer linked The damage from this accident is only beginning. Even if loss of control of a large container ship was considered in the design of the city, port, and that particular bridge, ships were not even…

>And two sides of the city no longer linked Have you looked at a map of Baltimore? They're very much linked, you just have to drive a little farther. The only issue will be that all the traffic this bridge previously carried now has to reroute to the bridge farther north, so now traffic will be much heavier.

Yes, of course; I made the comment after looking at a map.

The direct or short link is now broken. Everyone must now go around the entire harbor, on roads that will now have 40k more cars every day, instead of directly across it. I wasn't saying that some area was a disconnected island, but that many trips will become more costly or non-viable for years until the bridge is rebuilt.

Perhaps I should have said "no longer directly linked", but thanks for the picked nit.

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

#962

Post by fasa99 » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:32 PM UTC

chx wrote: post #766

xp84 wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of confused how a President can promise something like that. He doesn't have any power to appropriate money, and given his party's lack of control of Congress, I'd argue he can't promise anything. Not to mention that one can scarcely find a "bluer" area than Baltimore -- I would assume that the most proudly right-wing politicians would be more than happy to let Baltimore suffer to score points with their pol…

> It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge and I expect the Congress to support my effort This is what he said. I would expect Congress to play along too -- just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore??

"- just how unpopular would it be to abandon Baltimore?? "

I mean I'm from the Baltimore area and.. well.. I mean some of us would consider that town somewhat abandoned already, think Detroit. It has some pretty rough parts. With the main triggering event being 60s/70s loss of steel industry (Bethlehem Steel). Of all the big east coast cities (Boston, DC, NYC, Philly, Baltimore) I would say Baltimore is the most abandoned already.

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

#963

Post by KyleBerezin » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

HumblyTossed wrote: post #558

Amazing how many people are shocked that the bridge collapsed like that. That was one huge ship! Bridges are in a carefully balanced state of tension and compression, if anything as significant as a large container ship upsets that, I'd be shocked if it survived.

Yes, I saw and 'engineer' on the news who said he was supprised it collapsed after the loss of the support... I can't even fathom how you could think the bridge could levitate on one support.

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

#964

Post by KyleBerezin » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:36 PM UTC

peteradio wrote: post #427

rpeden wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything's possible, but a ship losing steering control is not that uncommon. This just happened at a particularly bad time and place.

It looks like the nominal trajectory takes it very close to the pylon. Why wouldn't nominal be towards the middle of the two pylons?

Then things like collisions and tug accidents would be more common, which are a far more realistic risk. Remember, there is 2 way traffic.

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

#965

Post by KyleBerezin » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:45 PM UTC

PeterWeitz wrote: post #235

Didn’t waterway authorities (in the U.S.) used to require tugs to navigate large ships under bridges?

No, tugs stop escorting the ship when it enters a main navigation lane. It is very dangerous to move at those higher speeds while attached to tugs. Look up 'tugboat girding' if you want to learn about it.

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

#966

Post by KyleBerezin » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:47 PM UTC

ken47 wrote: post #897

Lack of redundancy. Also a major contributing factor in the 737 MAX crashes. Redundancy is a low price to pay for peace of mind.

Very, very few bridges have redundant support structures. Also the 737 MAX is a case of how redundancy DOESN'T always solve issues

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

#967

Post by KyleBerezin » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:51 PM UTC

hnburnsy wrote: post #725

hnburnsy wrote: post #487

The Association of Maryland (boat) Pilots literally has a header image of a harbor pilot tug escorting a cargo ship to the Key Bridge... https://www.mdpilots.com/ Wonder where they were.

More details froem WaPo... >The ship was towed into the river initially, but the tugboats did not accompany the ship all the way to the bridge, said John Konrad, a retired ship captain who runs the gCaptain maritime news website and co-authored a book on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. >“The safe thing to do is keep the tugs,” Konrad said. “Moving forward, I think that’s going to happen. The Coast Guard is going to…

Keeping the tugs is not safe, and it is normal for them to leave when you enter a main navigation lane. At high speeds, tugboats can get capsized due to girding. It kills mariners, and the practice should not be introduced because of a single extraordinary accident.

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

#968

Post by KyleBerezin » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 2:53 PM UTC

tokai wrote: post #285

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

It was, each pylon had 2 dolphins. Idk why people on the news keep saying it wasn't. Its hard to imagine being invited to speak on the news and not bothering to check any of your facts.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwgOHpZlxvc You can clearly see there are channel barriers, its just the ship came in at an angle.

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

#969

Post by killjoywashere » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 3:02 PM UTC

EasyMark wrote: post #913

killjoywashere wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've driven a number of vessels, ranging from a 17' dinghy to a nuclear aircraft carrier and have a number of friends who have been involved in accidents one way or another. I have personally not had the conn during disaster, but have been an engineering officer and a legal officer responding to them, on my ship. To be honest, steering a ship under most conditions is not hard. The anxiety-provoking issues are 1) poor…

Since you have experience in boats of this magnitude, did it make sense not to have tugs minding the ship until it passes under the bridge since it's pretty obvious through common sense what the alternative is when there is a catastrophic engine failure? Would tugs even help if they'd been around during a catastrophic failure of the boat engine(s) making my question a stupid, ignorant one?

I don't know the rules for the Port of Baltimore, but tugs aren't generally required for channel transit. It's the berthing where tugs are generally used: the ship needs lateral thrust to lay alongside a pier or quay wall. Some ships have bow thrusters or APUs but a ship this size would definitely have tugs for the mooring.

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

#970

Post by jethro_tell » Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 3:25 PM UTC

gonzo wrote: post #900

jethro_tell wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually common for a 2 stroke type engine and used in things like gas golf carts and snow machines. The direction the engine is started is the direction it runs. So to accomplish this for propulsion, you'd add a reverse polarity switch for your starter and you're good to go.

You can even get a (2-stroke) Detroit Diesel to run in reverse. You don’t want to do it very long, because they don’t make oil pressure in reverse.

Yeah, in theory, there's not a lot about an engines running direction that matters, its all the stuff that's hooked up to it.

As you start getting into more complex engines, where you have fuel injection, timed spark plugs, oil pumps, transmissions it becomes untenable, but not because a v6 can't run backwards but because you'd have to rebuild and time all the support systems.