|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 26, 2024 15:04:53 GMT
Cargo ships don't melt steel beams
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 26, 2024 15:12:17 GMT
I get that it's an old bridge, but these types of structures are constantly checked over and upgraded (or at least should be). I guess putting it simply if you were to ask the question of any bridge of this nature on a busy shipping lane "If a cargo ship was to hit it what would happen?" and the answer was "the whole thing would collapse like a deck of cards" then that seems pretty problematic to me............. Not often in the U.S. It’s why Biden’s infrastructure bill is incredibly important. The U.S. likes to say it is the best in the World with a lot of things but that’s often a Hollywood perception. Actual infrastructure is questionable and the last Democratic President wasn’t really in a position to fix anything either given that the World was in recession. Edit: the catastrophe is great but the chances of it happening are so small. There are very strict regulations regarding ongoing safety cases for structures such as these. In Plymouth, anbout 25 years ango, our MoD wanted to build a ship ammunitioning facility on the River Tamar next to the Ernesettle ammunition storage. The initial safety case was accepted by Plymouth City Council however, after millions had been spent preparing the shoreline another risk emerged regarding the transfer of a new type of missile that, if it exploded during transfer, could wipe out Tamar road bridge which was only a short distance away. The whole project was abandoned at great cost.
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Mar 26, 2024 15:38:51 GMT
Already Simon & Garfunkle have released a fund raising record...
Bridge Under Troubled Waters.
YEAH YEAH YEAH...Too Soon
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Mar 26, 2024 15:39:40 GMT
Why did it collapse so quickly.
Cuz they should have Bolteditmore....
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Mar 26, 2024 15:43:22 GMT
The people who know all the answers are the pilots and the crew on the bridge.
I am sure they will have been lawyerd up and told to make little orno comment at this stage.
The costs will be astronomical. As well as the obvious losses shipping locked inside the harbour fully laden with millions of dollars of cargo will be loosing money and high daily costs if unable to leave.
Litigation could well go on for years.
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Mar 26, 2024 15:45:04 GMT
Unless mentioned earlier wouldn't there be a pilot on board navigating local waters?.
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Mar 26, 2024 16:00:11 GMT
The people who know all the answers are the pilots and the crew on the bridge. I am sure they will have been lawyerd up and told to make little orno comment at this stage. The costs will be astronomical. As well as the obvious losses shipping locked inside the harbour fully laden with millions of dollars of cargo will be loosing money and high daily costs if unable to leave. Litigation could well go on for years. Not to mention compensation for loss of life, that could well escalate into criminal litigation if it was found the ship's mechanical equipment that failed had not been maintenance checked.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 27, 2024 2:22:36 GMT
The people who know all the answers are the pilots and the crew on the bridge. I am sure they will have been lawyerd up and told to make little orno comment at this stage. The costs will be astronomical. As well as the obvious losses shipping locked inside the harbour fully laden with millions of dollars of cargo will be loosing money and high daily costs if unable to leave. Litigation could well go on for years. Not to mention compensation for loss of life, that could well escalate into criminal litigation if it was found the ship's mechanical equipment that failed had not been maintenance checked. Bloody hell, didn't even think of that. No wonder there're so many safety checks. When I went to work in Lapland I had half a day "training" for obvious stuff like don't get between an angry reindeer and her babies, or don't piss on the snow in the avalanche area. Most of it seemed like a waste of both our time.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 27, 2024 7:09:52 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 27, 2024 8:25:37 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that The thick black smoke pouring out of the funnel appears just before the ship lights up again. That would be normal for a diesel generator starting and immediately taking a lot of load due to turbo lag. If the ship is diesel electric then a generator failure would definitely cause power loss to the main engine. But surely leaving harbour they would have 2 generators running for safety.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 27, 2024 8:31:53 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that When I was on the Liverpool we lost all power just as we were going into Trinidad, we were floating about in a main shipping lane with very little control. Turned out the tankies had got their ballast tanks mixed up and we were trying to run two gas turbines and two diesel generators on seawater 🤦 Chief of the Watch took the rap for not checking the fuel, which was a once a watch (hourly after this incident!) routine, got fined about a month's pay.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 27, 2024 8:40:45 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that When I was on the Liverpool we lost all power just as we were going into Trinidad, we were floating about in a main shipping lane with very little control. Turned out the tankies had got their ballast tanks mixed up and we were trying to run two gas turbines and two diesel generators on seawater 🤦 Chief of the Watch took the rap for not checking the fuel, which was a once a watch (hourly after this incident!) routine, got fined about a month's pay. Was he smoking weed at the time?
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 27, 2024 8:45:31 GMT
When I was on the Liverpool we lost all power just as we were going into Trinidad, we were floating about in a main shipping lane with very little control. Turned out the tankies had got their ballast tanks mixed up and we were trying to run two gas turbines and two diesel generators on seawater 🤦 Chief of the Watch took the rap for not checking the fuel, which was a once a watch (hourly after this incident!) routine, got fined about a month's pay. Was he smoking weed at the time? Even a hint of that and he would've been discharged with Services No Longer Required stamped all over his record probably after a stretch in a military detention centre. He would also have forfeited his (quite considerable) pension. He might have been pissed or hung over tho, it happened rarely, but it happened.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 27, 2024 9:00:40 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that When I was on the Liverpool we lost all power just as we were going into Trinidad, we were floating about in a main shipping lane with very little control. Turned out the tankies had got their ballast tanks mixed up and we were trying to run two gas turbines and two diesel generators on seawater 🤦 Chief of the Watch took the rap for not checking the fuel, which was a once a watch (hourly after this incident!) routine, got fined about a month's pay. We had similar on Antelope. Type 21s did not have water compensated fuel tanks, but on this occasion sea water swamped the main engine ready us tanks and got into fuel systems. It happened after the skipper ran over the ammunitioning buoy in Devonport and unknowingly ruptured a small storage tank. One night at sea the tankies switched to that tank and their testing showed 95% full. I was Engineer Officer of the watch in SCC and ordered the tank into use. Of course as the fuel was transferred this turned into sea water and suddenly we lost both Tyne cruise engines. Fortunately the Olympus ready use tanks were not affected neither were the generators. We spent many hours cleaning filters and flushing the fuel system.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 27, 2024 9:12:46 GMT
When I was on the Liverpool we lost all power just as we were going into Trinidad, we were floating about in a main shipping lane with very little control. Turned out the tankies had got their ballast tanks mixed up and we were trying to run two gas turbines and two diesel generators on seawater 🤦 Chief of the Watch took the rap for not checking the fuel, which was a once a watch (hourly after this incident!) routine, got fined about a month's pay. We had similar on Antelope. Type 21s did not have water compensated fuel tanks, but on this occasion sea water swamped the main engine ready us tanks and got into fuel systems. It happened after the skipper ran over the ammunitioning buoy in Devonport and unknowingly ruptured a small storage tank. One night at sea the tankies switched to that tank and their testing showed 95% full. I was Engineer Officer of the watch in SCC and ordered the tank into use. Of course as the fuel was transferred this turned into sea water and suddenly we lost both Tyne cruise engines. Fortunately the Olympus ready use tanks were not affected neither were the generators. We spent many hours cleaning filters and flushing the fuel system. Years later we did the T42 simulator at Sultan, after throwing all sorts of scenarios at us with me as COW, their finale was the exact scenario the Liverpool had experienced. My mate that ran the simulator was gobsmacked at how quickly I sussed the problem but it's not something you're likely to forget 😂
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 27, 2024 14:22:54 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that The thick black smoke pouring out of the funnel appears just before the ship lights up again. That would be normal for a diesel generator starting and immediately taking a lot of load due to turbo lag. If the ship is diesel electric then a generator failure would definitely cause power loss to the main engine. But surely leaving harbour they would have 2 generators running for safety. Thanks, I hadn't seen that bit of a video, if it had been running you wouldn't expect that much smoke on a restart. Yes you would expect all were running for 'specials' in and out of harbour.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 27, 2024 14:56:57 GMT
We had similar on Antelope. Type 21s did not have water compensated fuel tanks, but on this occasion sea water swamped the main engine ready us tanks and got into fuel systems. It happened after the skipper ran over the ammunitioning buoy in Devonport and unknowingly ruptured a small storage tank. One night at sea the tankies switched to that tank and their testing showed 95% full. I was Engineer Officer of the watch in SCC and ordered the tank into use. Of course as the fuel was transferred this turned into sea water and suddenly we lost both Tyne cruise engines. Fortunately the Olympus ready use tanks were not affected neither were the generators. We spent many hours cleaning filters and flushing the fuel system. Years later we did the T42 simulator at Sultan, after throwing all sorts of scenarios at us with me as COW, their finale was the exact scenario the Liverpool had experienced. My mate that ran the simulator was gobsmacked at how quickly I sussed the problem but it's not something you're likely to forget 😂 Good to get one over the smart arses at Sultan simulator
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Mar 27, 2024 20:14:12 GMT
If this was wartime, the Yanks would have cleared a passageway for all shipping, in and out, within a couple of days.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 27, 2024 20:46:18 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that When I was on the Liverpool we lost all power just as we were going into Trinidad, we were floating about in a main shipping lane with very little control. Turned out the tankies had got their ballast tanks mixed up and we were trying to run two gas turbines and two diesel generators on seawater 🤦 Chief of the Watch took the rap for not checking the fuel, which was a once a watch (hourly after this incident!) routine, got fined about a month's pay. Tankies were probably too concerned about going to pick up the pot mess.
|
|
|
Post by innocentbystander on Mar 27, 2024 21:52:52 GMT
If it had taken on fuel for its engines I'd be checking it wasn't contaminated and had been checked before being taken on, especially with a total power loss like that Seems to be the current line of investigation.
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Mar 27, 2024 23:29:33 GMT
Don't believe I've ever driven on that bridge when I've been to Baltimore. All this speculation about what happened was quite apparent this morning when I was relating what I had heard on the radio news while my co-worker was saying he'd heard a fairly different report. Speculation on what caused this is not news. It's going to be a little bit of time before all the facts migrate their way out of this horrible incident. I believe search parties were still looking for five bodies (assumption is they are most likely dead at this point). Hope those search and rescue persons stay safe--that's a dangerous job right now.
|
|