Is bending steel back into shape as strong as the original? I’d think not and I would be surprised if any bridge engineer would want to use a beam that was banged back into shape for a bridge. I doubt they could guarantee its strength.
Not placing a wager or nothing but to my thinking a fair proportion of the fallen trusses will still be in the water in 3 months time, rather than, in some form, newly spanning the Patapsco River.
No, even the steel that isn’t visibly warped has suffered terrible stresses and microfractures that we don’t want to deal with. And that’s ignoring the half century of active use and concomitant wear and tear - it’s not like this was a new bridge to begin with.
No sane professional engineer would sign off on this sort of plan. Not only would they be risking their license, they’d be risking criminal liability for anything that happened after.
He said you could rebuild a destroyed 50 year old, 1.5 mile long, steel bridge in 3-6 months by reusing the broken pieces.
Calling that stupid is charitable.
He may not be stupid but he sure can be wacky sometimes, and doesn’t always seem connected to the same reality the rest of us are.
^ This.
According to the BBC, “A temporary alternative route for ships is to be opened”
According to a statement from the Key Bridge Response, a taskforce set up in the wake of the incident, port officials are preparing to open the temporary channel to the north-east side of the main channel near the collapsed bridge, for “commercially essential vessels”.
11 ships are stranded at the docks. They’ll be relieved to have a way out.
Not counting the many tugs, pilot boats, etc. that normally stay in the area, I see the following stranded ships on Marine Traffic:
Fast sealift vehicle cargo ship SS Denebola (Military Sealift Command’s Ready Reserve Force)
High speed container ship SS Antares (Military Sealift Command’s Ready Reserve Force)
RORO Vehicle Cargo Ship MV Gary I. Gordon (Military Sealift Command’s Ready Reserve Force)
Oil/Chemical Tanker Palanca Rio
General cargo ship Balsa 94
Bulk carrier Klara Oldendorff
General cargo ship Saimaagracht
Vehicle carrier Carmen
Bulk carrier JY River
Training patrol ship YP-707 (USCG)
Bulk carrier Phatra Naree
Are the crews of these ships allowed to get off the ship and go have fun in the city or are they restricted to staying on their ships? (particularly if they are foreigners…I assume they all have passports but then wouldn’t they need to go through some form of customs check each time they got off and on?)
Customs/Immigration officials would have boarded the ship and cleared it once the ship is staying for ant length of time. Once that’s done, all seamen are supposed to be allowed ashore on shore leave or to transit through a country to join or sign off from the ship and return to their country of origin. Seamen are issued a special seaman’s ID card, which is also called CDC (continuous discharge certificate) or a Merchant Mariner’s passport to facilitate this. Even when in port for an extended period a crew will spend most of it’s time doing their regular watches and carrying out maintenance duties, especially the stuff that’s deferred when they are at sea. Perfect time to do that engine overhaul.
From the depiction of the provisional channel, it will not be suited for larger vessels but should allow at least for tug and barge traffic and already I see news a fuel barge has been allowed through, plus the movement of the response craft themselves. A second provisional channel is announced as being in the works.
I pity the crew of the Dali. I’m betting they’ll be staying on board for quite a while.
With all their clocks melted, they won’t even be able to keep track of how long they’ve been there.
ISWYDT.
Nice.
& if they didn’t have any issues, they would have been at sea for 28(?) days until their next port of call. It’s less work but probably also less dull than if they didn’t hit the bridge.
This is why we can’t have nice things. Utterly ridiculous:
Full Title: Singaporean firm whose ship took down the Baltimore bridge just cited an 1851 maritime law to cap liability at $44 million
Their joint filing seeks to cap the companies’ liability at roughly $43.6 million. It estimates that the vessel itself is valued at up to $90 million and was owed over $1.1 million in income from freight. The estimate also deducts two major expenses: at least $28 million in repair costs and at least $19.5 million in salvage costs.
The companies filed under a pre-Civil War provision of an 1851 maritime law that allows them to seek to limit their liability to the value of the vessel’s remains after a casualty. It’s a mechanism that has been employed as a defense in many of the most notable maritime disasters, said James Mercante, a New York City-based attorney with over 30 years of experience in maritime law.
According to this, that law is “a common starting point for litigation over a marine casualty in the United States.”
They didn’t exactly dust off some ancient forgotten text to screw over Baltimore, I bet every big shipper who comes to our shores knows this law inside and out.
Just to be clear, this isn’t some obscure law they dug up, this particular limitation of liability is very well known in the shipping world, and it was predictable that they would invoke it.
Ninja’d!
It’s also a reason why US importers/exports have been paying under the odds for their international shipping for over 150 years.
@Princhester for some professional insight on this latest legal maneuver.
FYI there is something similar in passenger aviation called the Warsaw Convention - Wikipedia. Which limits liability in an international air disaster to IIRC $1M per person, period, amen, no matter what. Including raging negligent malfeasance and callous disregard for safety, law, and industry standard practices.
At the time it was negotiated, $1M sounded about like $10B does to us today.
Its provisions are popular with the industry’s airlines who seem oddly resistant to any updating of the dollar amount cap, or any indexing of it to inflation.