Container Ship strikes and collapses Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge

[west point]

Whatever type bridge is built, it is most likely that the support piers will be way outside the navigation channel. That allowing no chance of a ship hitting them. That brings up the question , Were the piers when the bridge was built outside the then navigation channel?

Agree that a pair of bridges is a much safer solution.

 

[Rover]

I'd like to know who and when was the idea to add concrete abutments to the Key Bridge voted down??? Certainly they must have considered adding extended concrete abutments after the 1980 Florida bridge disaster, and the Skyway Bridge rebuild, completed in 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge


NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy briefs the media on the NTSB investigation of a cargo ship striking and subsequent collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland.


Maritime expert Sal Mercogliano, host of the What's Going on With Shipping YouTube channel, joins Ward Carroll to provide in-depth analysis about what caused the MV Dali to hit the Francis Scott Key Bridge at the mouth of the Baltimore Harbor early in the morning of March 26, 2024.

 

[Maverickstation]

Philly.com brought up a good point about the traffic nightmares that will occur due to this bridge being closed for the foreseable future. The remaining routes available are already packed at many times of the day.

The question being does Amtrak have the capacity, and equipment to increase service between Philly, and D.C. ??

Ken

 

[Widfara]

https://gcaptain.com/ships-mayday-call-before-baltimore-bridge-crash-saved-lives/

Reports are the crew of the ship had responded well to the emergency. Radio traffic to stop most vehicles from entering the bridge. Dropped anchor to attempt to stop the ship. The loss of power withstanding sound like the crew was trying hard to deal with the problem.

A cruise ship got in trouble a few years back. The underlining issues was a low oil shut down in a storage tank that feed the engines.

The video seem to show thick black smoke exiting the funnel. Hard to say, but generally heavy black smoke is a sign of incomplete combustion. Something when wrong. The NTSB is going to want some samples of the various fuels onboard.

The heavy smoke might have been from an attempt at backing the engine, if they still had power at that time. When I had the conn on my last ship I once had to do an ALL STOP then BACK TWO THIRDS and we were very smoky. Thankfully my ammunition ship was able to avoid hitting the aircraft carrier we were plane guarding (but why were we? I've always wondered.)

 

[jis]

Whatever type bridge is built, it is most likely that the support piers will be way outside the navigation channel. That allowing no chance of a ship hitting them. That brings up the question , Were the piers when the bridge was built outside the then navigation channel?

Agree that a pair of bridges is a much safer solution.

The piers of the current collapsed bridge were outside the navigation channel. The ship was out of control and not sailing through the navigation channel at the time of the strike.

A hypothetical new Cable Stayed Bridge would likely have its piers still in water but much further from the navigation channel since such bridges typically are most convenient at upto a km in length. Anything longer than that which would enable putting the pillars on land would require it to be a Suspension Span.

Incidentally, the techniques used to protect critical pillars is nicely illustrated in this photo of the new Sunshine Skyway Bridge (included by URL Copyright Britannica)

 

[fairviewroad]

There is the I-895 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel both of which are further upstream. I have used both of those many times but somehow never been on I-695 across the Key Bridge.

Philly.com brought up a good point about the traffic nightmares that will occur due to this bridge being closed for the foreseable future. The remaining routes available are already packed at many times of the day.

The question being does Amtrak have the capacity, and equipment to increase service between Philly, and D.C. ??

Hot take: There will not be traffic nightmares as the result of this bridge collapse. As jis alludes, there is virtually no reason for thru-travelers to use the Key Bridge. I lived in SE Penna for years and often traveled through the Balt/DC area to get to NoVa, and while I used the tunnels frequently, the only time I drove over the Key Bridge was one time when I was running ahead of schedule and figured "why the heck not use the bridge for once." I-695 is fairly meandering in that area, as far as beltways go, and--aside from hazmats and claustrophobic drivers--would never be used for thru traffic.

Heck, the approaches to the bridge were just two lanes (total!) for much of its history, despite being an interstate highway. Yes, there will be some local drivers who are seriously inconvenienced by this, but they'll adapt. There will also be absolutely no need for additional capacity on Amtrak as a result of this.

I'll go even further: Aside from some sort of civic pride in having a contiguous beltway, is there a specific need to rebuild the bridge at all? It's a purely redundant bit of infrastructure located in a challenging place. Put in a ferry for the locals who simply must commute across the Patapsco River, re-route hazmats around the north side of Baltimore, and save everybody the bazillion dollars it would cost to replace the bridge.

 

[west point]

"IF" insurance pays mostly for the damage you can bet a new bridge(s) will be built. Best be it for 2 - 3 lane bridges for redundancy.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Somebody on another message board which I follow, which shall remain nameless (non-transportation), was posting about acquiring used ferries. Of course, they hadn't thought about the need to build some kind of terminal for them....

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Hot take: There will not be traffic nightmares as the result of this bridge collapse. As jis alludes, there is virtually no reason for thru-travelers to use the Key Bridge. I lived in SE Penna for years and often traveled through the Balt/DC area to get to NoVa, and while I used the tunnels frequently, the only time I drove over the Key Bridge was one time when I was running ahead of schedule and figured "why the heck not use the bridge for once." I-695 is fairly meandering in that area, as far as beltways go, and--aside from hazmats and claustrophobic drivers--would never be used for thru traffic.

Heck, the approaches to the bridge were just two lanes (total!) for much of its history, despite being an interstate highway. Yes, there will be some local drivers who are seriously inconvenienced by this, but they'll adapt. There will also be absolutely no need for additional capacity on Amtrak as a result of this.

I'll go even further: Aside from some sort of civic pride in having a contiguous beltway, is there a specific need to rebuild the bridge at all? It's a purely redundant bit of infrastructure located in a challenging place. Put in a ferry for the locals who simply must commute across the Patapsco River, re-route hazmats around the north side of Baltimore, and save everybody the bazillion dollars it would cost to replace the bridge.

I agree with the above comment kind of. This bridge was very much a dated design and was not enjoyable route the one time I drove it. My customer was just past the bridge going north.

However a modern structure would help increase the traffic on this route. So not knowing the number of cars and trucks on it every week I am not going to discount the need for this bridge. I would not be surprise if there a replacement bridge design that was been worked on. It was that out of date.

 

[Asher]

The heavy smoke might have been from an attempt at backing the engine, if they still had power at that time. When I had the conn on my last ship I once had to do an ALL STOP then BACK TWO THIRDS and we were very smoky. Thankfully my ammunition ship was able to avoid hitting the aircraft carrier we were plane guarding (but why were we? I've always wondered.)

I was thinking the same thing, reverse full power would create a lot of black smoke. They claim they lost power. I guess it was a foul running power plant that was puking out all the black smoke. Losing power puts any boat/ship in a terrible situation. About all you can do is drop the anchor and a ship like that is not going to be able to do that in the time frame they had. Back in the day in narrow waterways the navy required an anchor watch whereby any issue the first order was to drop the hook. It’s weird how something that was probably very minor created something so tragic.

 

[NW cannonball]

Maybe the crew tried "going into reverse" but that doesn't work well on trains, planes, ships, nor automobiles (nor horses, nor on foot). They did try "dropping the hook" but a 10-20 ton anchor will take ?how long? to fall 50 feet to the mud-slushy bottom and how much longer to grab enough to even slow a hundred-thousand-ton ship? Kinda like when the brakes fail on your car, so you open the driver door and drag your foot on the pavement trying to stop.
In the current news I've seen a few reports from those who have actually done the transition from "slow ahead" to"full astern", it takes time. Most container ships now use a single 8-16 cylinder direct-drive in-line diesel (bore near 1 meter, stroke near 2 meters, crankshaft masses over 300ton, 0-150 rpm)* Even starting that monster up again after a total power failure takes time that DELI didn't have.

I've been on two Amtrak trains that went into "emergency" braking. (SWC once, EB once) no big deal.(But the illusion of gravity shifting was weird).
Say very roughly 8K horsepower on a 1500-ton train, maybe 40-90? seconds to stop. My informant who worked one of the four main engines (that's 0.25 of the 260,000 hp total propulsion power on a 100,000-ton NAVY vessel) told me that they sometimes, as an exercise, did the "full ahead" to reverse. No details (obviously), BUT, a commercial vessel of similar mass, depending on a single failed engine with way less horsepower per ton, to restart it, and reverse thrust, forlorn hope.

Reminds me of pictures from my youth, of the drivers of the sleds that long ago took giant logs down from Alpine forests, steering the front sled down the steep slippery slopes with a multi-ton load at their back.

Seems the ship crew was well trained, did all they could, but . . .





* see Waartsila and MAN websites for data on their commercial marine propulsion units.

 

[MARC Rider]

I'll go even further: Aside from some sort of civic pride in having a contiguous beltway, is there a specific need to rebuild the bridge at all? It's a purely redundant bit of infrastructure located in a challenging place. Put in a ferry for the locals who simply must commute across the Patapsco River, re-route hazmats around the north side of Baltimore, and save everybody the bazillion dollars it would cost to replace the bridge.

Uh, the route through the "north side of Baltimore" is a heavily residential area that already has a lot of traffic jams. As someone who lives there, I, for one would not appreciate adding additional hazmat trucks to the mix.

It would be nice if they rebuilt the bridge with a rail line, too, so that freight traffic through Baltimore could be taken out of the Howard St. Tunnel. We already had one tunnel fire that shut down downtown Baltimore and the east coast freight rail network for weeks; it might be nice to get freight rail traffic diverted to the i8ndustrial area of the port.

 

[jis]

Uh, the route through the "north side of Baltimore" is a heavily residential area that already has a lot of traffic jams. As someone who lives there, I, for one would not appreciate adding additional hazmat trucks to the mix.

It would be nice if they rebuilt the bridge with a rail line, too, so that freight traffic through Baltimore could be taken out of the Howard St. Tunnel. We already had one tunnel fire that shut down downtown Baltimore and the east coast freight rail network for weeks; it might be nice to get freight rail traffic diverted to the i8ndustrial area of the port.

A bridge that is high enough to clear harbor traffic hosting a freight line seems exceedingly unlikely given the gradient restrictions that freight lines tend to have.

 

[MARC Rider]

A bridge that is high enough to clear harbor traffic hosting a freight line seems exceedingly unlikely given the gradient restrictions that freight lines tend to have.

So what's the steepest gradient high clearance freight rail bridge in service? Do they run freight trains over the Hell Gate Bridge?

 

[jis]

So what's the steepest gradient high clearance freight rail bridge in service? Do they run freight trains over the Hell Gate Bridge?

I did not say it cannot be done. I said it is highly unlikely that it will be done, because it does considerably increase the overall cost.

Depending on traffic projections the quickest way to build would be to substantially use the current approach roads and perhaps even the viaduct and just replace the part that fell into the river with a new technology bridge with better protected piers.

However, It is also probable that well meaning people will insist on various things and delay the project many years and increase the cost many fold anyway, like is normal in this country. And eventually whatever happens might happen in twenty years. Exhibit 1 is the new Hudson Tubes. Although in the case of the tunnels it is now 40 years and counting.

 

[fairviewroad]

Uh, the route through the "north side of Baltimore" is a heavily residential area that already has a lot of traffic jams. As someone who lives there, I, for one would not appreciate adding additional hazmat trucks to the mix.

That's fair, though I suppose the people living along the SE side of Baltimore would also appreciate fewer hazmats.

Anyhow, my suggestion to NOT rebuild the bridge is complete fancy, of course. The "we WILL rebuild" rhetoric was unleashed even before the sun came up Tuesday morning. No self-respecting politician would ever suggest anything other than rebuilding the bridge. There are certainly smarter, more strategic ways to do so, and hopefully those will be given due diligence as opposed to rushing into a half-baked plan.

For instance, if the main utility of the bridge is to provide a route for hazmats and local commuters, is a pair of three-lane bridges really needed?

 

[WWW]

I did not say it cannot be done. I said it is highly unlikely that it will be done, because it does considerably increase the overall cost.

Depending on traffic projections the quickest way to build would be to substantially use the current approach roads and perhaps even the viaduct and just replace the part that fell into the river with a new technology bridge with better protected piers.

Great idea !

However, It is also probable that well meaning people will insist on various things and delay the project many years and increase the cost many fold anyway, like is normal in this country. And eventually whatever happens might happen in twenty years. Exhibit 1 is the new Hudson Tubes. Although in the case of the tunnels it is now 40 years and counting.

Don't forget about that "Big Ditch" in Boston
Southwest light rail in MSP et al others
If this was happening in a World War time there would no stalling around to rebuild bridges and other infrastructures !

We are fast becoming a Grid Lock society as far as automobile travel in the city and urban areas.
I read that New York City is thinking a creating a toll zone for non-business travel/use within the limits.
Therein the need to utilize if not establish more of the best of all time people movers - TRAINS - yes planes
air travel play a part for moving the masses over greater distances.

 

[blueman271]

I was thinking the same thing, reverse full power would create a lot of black smoke. They claim they lost power. I guess it was a foul running power plant that was puking out all the black smoke. Losing power puts any boat/ship in a terrible situation. About all you can do is drop the anchor and a ship like that is not going to be able to do that in the time frame they had. Back in the day in narrow waterways the navy required an anchor watch whereby any issue the first order was to drop the hook. It’s weird how something that was probably very minor created something so tragic.

On submarines, in restricted waters, when the maneuvering watch is stationed, an anchor watch is still required. I’m not sure what the requirements are for surface ships.

 

[Widfara]

On submarines, in restricted waters, when the maneuvering watch is stationed, an anchor watch is still required. I’m not sure what the requirements are for surface ships.

Goes back to 1983, but we were on the forecastle for the entire movement through the Suez Canal, and the Kiel Canal. Always had an anchor watch in any kind of restricted waters. If the Navy has changed that, shame on them. Those two Navy ships that hit freighters in Asia seem to both have had watchstanders depending entirely on the electronics, not looking out the windows.

 

[Stephen Levine]

I did not say it cannot be done. I said it is highly unlikely that it will be done, because it does considerably increase the overall cost.

Depending on traffic projections the quickest way to build would be to substantially use the current approach roads and perhaps even the viaduct and just replace the part that fell into the river with a new technology bridge with better protected piers.

However, It is also probable that well meaning people will insist on various things and delay the project many years and increase the cost many fold anyway, like is normal in this country. And eventually whatever happens might happen in twenty years. Exhibit 1 is the new Hudson Tubes. Although in the case of the tunnels it is now 40 years and counting.

The Hell Gate Bridge has long viaducts at each approach that appear to have very little grade.

 

[jis]

The Hell Gate Bridge has long viaducts at each approach that appear to have very little grade.

Hell Gate Bridge was designed to carry freight.

There are many high bridges that carry freight. Huey Long Bridge near New Orleans is a prime example.

The question here is not whether there is a technical issue or financial. My take is that the issue is financial. Who is going to pay for it and how much are the freight railroads willing to pay to use it on an ongoing basis. Afterall there has to be a plan in place to pay down the bonds and such..

For example, there has been a plan for a cross harbor freight tunnel from NJ to Long Island, but one of the flies in the ointment has been that none of the potential freight railroad users of it are willing to use it since they cannot justify the service charge they will have to pay within their overall business plan for serving the NY area.

 

[MARC Rider]

Hell Gate Bridge was designed to carry freight.

There are many high bridges that carry freight. Huey Long Bridge near New Orleans is a prime example.

The question here is not whether there is a technical issue or financial. My take is that the issue is financial. Who is going to pay for it and how much are the freight railroads willing to pay to use it on an ongoing basis. Afterall there has to be a plan in place to pay down the bonds and such..

For example, there has been a plan for a cross harbor freight tunnel from NJ to Long Island, but one of the flies in the ointment has been that none of the potential freight railroad users of it are willing to use it since they cannot justify the service charge they will have to pay within their overall business plan for serving the NY area.

I don't think there's as much of a market for through freight from New Jersey to Long Island as there might be for a reroute of the main east coast freight railroad, which would also serve one of the busiest ports in the US. Also, getting hazmat trains out of the Howard St. Tunnel (and possibly the B&P/Frederic Douglass Tunnel) might be worth the price to the citizens of Baltimore. But, you're probably right, in today's America, nobody wants to pay for infrastructure that would make their communities a better place.

 

[MARC Rider]

That's fair, though I suppose the people living along the SE side of Baltimore would also appreciate fewer hazmats.

Anyhow, my suggestion to NOT rebuild the bridge is complete fancy, of course. The "we WILL rebuild" rhetoric was unleashed even before the sun came up Tuesday morning. No self-respecting politician would ever suggest anything other than rebuilding the bridge. There are certainly smarter, more strategic ways to do so, and hopefully those will be given due diligence as opposed to rushing into a half-baked plan.

For instance, if the main utility of the bridge is to provide a route for hazmats and local commuters, is a pair of three-lane bridges really needed?

The I-695 route from the Key Bride (Sparrows Point) to I-95 N doesn't pass through any residential areas. It seems that the old Sparrows Point Steel Mill/Shipyard complex has been repurposed into a major warehouse/distribution district, including a major Amazon fulfillment center. I'm sure they're all thrilled about losing their direct connection to the south.

By the way, I moved to Baltimore in 1979 and would take the Key Bridge for my work field trips from Towson to the Eastern Shore when the Harbor Tunnel was jammed, or I just wanted to take the scenic route. When I started doing it, the parking lots for the Sparrows Point Steel Mill were packed full. Over the years, I saw them empty out, even though the steel mill was still a going business. I guess technology reduced the labor needs. I recently read that the plant closed in 2012, which surprised me. I thought it had closed a lot earlier than that.

 

[jis]

Just saw the SecDOT talking about the bridge on TV a few moments back. He said that they want to rebuild the bridge (he meant a replacement using appropriate new technology) as soon as possible. Apparently the replacement design work has begun with a $60 Million grant from emergency funds. So we should know soon what they have in mind.

 

[Asher]

I wonder what this accident is going to create as far as more terrorist prevention.