How does a huge vessel hit a huge bridge?
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Some kind of engine failure? Apparently there was a big puff of smoke from it.
Very scary how quickly it seems to have happened.
Very scary how quickly it seems to have happened.
It’s Baltimore, not Boston
I was just reading on reddit that the smoke was likely them trying to stop the ship using reverse thrust.
Not sure if the OP would be able to change it now.
Can't believe how easily the bridge came down it literally crumpled like paper 
Doh! How did I get that so wrong? Thanks for the mod edit
Reminds me of this incident, though the boat involved there shouldn't have been on that stretch of river.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Apparently there was an experienced harbour pilot on board in Baltimore, and the weather looked clear, so it's baffling. If it was a mechanical problem, it's awful luck that it happened in the vicinity of a massive bridge.
Big Bayou Canot rail accident - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Apparently there was an experienced harbour pilot on board in Baltimore, and the weather looked clear, so it's baffling. If it was a mechanical problem, it's awful luck that it happened in the vicinity of a massive bridge.
The lights went out a couple of times as it approached the bridge so looks like engine/ power failure.
Biden has said that the federal government will pay for the replacement bridge but surely the ships insurance should be doing that.
Biden has said that the federal government will pay for the replacement bridge but surely the ships insurance should be doing that.
I can't watch the footage of it, seeing those cars whizz by, the lorries.....all not knowing this was their last moments.
And those poor workmen, some probably doing over time, some maybe shouldn't have been there but did a favour. Waved their families off never to come back home. Its just awful, makes me shudder when they show the footage.
Praying the families get to put their loved ones to rest and all are recovered.
And those poor workmen, some probably doing over time, some maybe shouldn't have been there but did a favour. Waved their families off never to come back home. Its just awful, makes me shudder when they show the footage.
Praying the families get to put their loved ones to rest and all are recovered.
Biden said they managed to stop vehicles but there were construction vehicles parked on the Bridge unfortunately.
This makes more sense when they said on the news several vehicles were dected under water by sonar but they were only looking for 6 construction workers i was confused nobody was actually in the vehicles that were lost
It was pretty confusing when first reported.
That collapse is not a huge surprise. The infrastructure is absolutely dire and creaking at the seams, it's so much worse than European countries. Much of it is near the end of it's life after many years of patching things up. It's a (tragic) reminder of how bad things are and how much investment is needed.
I'm not sure why some foreign media is reporting as if its a total shock that stuff like this happens in the states.
I'm not sure why some foreign media is reporting as if its a total shock that stuff like this happens in the states.
Just seen the collapse of the Seattle bridge on one of those engineering disaster programs
en.wikipedia.org
Lacey V. Murrow Memorial Bridge - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This was a relatively new bridge, only opened in March 1977, in comparison to many built just after the 1930s, designed to carry vehicles over a stretch of water. Whilst all such bridges undergo regular maintenance checks, this one was having work carried out at the time of the crash.
However, listening to engineers being interviewed throughout the day on Sky News, it lacked in design, supporting cables and didn't have large enough concrete supports at the base.
The new bridge cannot incorporate any of the remaining one as it will not be strong enough, therefore it will all need to be demolished before starting the rebuild, that will require a complete redesign with a more robust structure. A decision will need to be made whether to make it taller to accommodate the increasing size of ships, or to limit the size of vessels allowed to pass under it.
Does anyone know yet whether terrorism has been ruled out. It had been mentioned yesterday but not confirmed either way?
As I understand it, the ship had only just set off and had the usual safety checks passed. It was being operated by a third party. Why?
However, listening to engineers being interviewed throughout the day on Sky News, it lacked in design, supporting cables and didn't have large enough concrete supports at the base.
The new bridge cannot incorporate any of the remaining one as it will not be strong enough, therefore it will all need to be demolished before starting the rebuild, that will require a complete redesign with a more robust structure. A decision will need to be made whether to make it taller to accommodate the increasing size of ships, or to limit the size of vessels allowed to pass under it.
Does anyone know yet whether terrorism has been ruled out. It had been mentioned yesterday but not confirmed either way?
As I understand it, the ship had only just set off and had the usual safety checks passed. It was being operated by a third party. Why?
The bridge was "OK", in that it wasn't itself falling down in every day operations, what it was lacking was proper protection around the supports to deflect the enormous size and tonnage of today's enormous cargo ships vs what was a normal cargo ship when it was built. The supports are always the vulnerable parts so normally/today they always have stone islands or sacrificial metalwork built around them, which either prevent any ships hitting the supports at all, or crumple and collapse but absorb the energy so if a ship does hit there's no energy left to do any damage.
These chunky protections should have been added around the bridge supports to keep up with modern ship sizes but they never were, apparently all it had was a couple of marker poles either side of the supports.
Third party crewing is normal and everyday in large scale maritime operations, it's very common for large ships to be owned, chartered, crewed by completely separate entities, my partner worked for one of the biggest ship management companies for a while. It doesn't mean that the crew just pitched up that day and took the ship out for their first time as though they'd just turned up to collect an unfamiliar rental car. Especially the key officers, they can stay with the same ship for years, it's just that they work for the vessel management company rather than whoever actually owns it. Actual ownership of large ships is a pretty murky business.
These chunky protections should have been added around the bridge supports to keep up with modern ship sizes but they never were, apparently all it had was a couple of marker poles either side of the supports.
Third party crewing is normal and everyday in large scale maritime operations, it's very common for large ships to be owned, chartered, crewed by completely separate entities, my partner worked for one of the biggest ship management companies for a while. It doesn't mean that the crew just pitched up that day and took the ship out for their first time as though they'd just turned up to collect an unfamiliar rental car. Especially the key officers, they can stay with the same ship for years, it's just that they work for the vessel management company rather than whoever actually owns it. Actual ownership of large ships is a pretty murky business.
Last edited:
But a ship ploughed into it - which is, er, shocking. Or the infrastructure of the bridge buckling like that?