Container Ship Struck Key Bridge in Baltimore, Bridge has Collapsed

[Charles4515]

38 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

Which suggests that the Vision will just have two cruises out of Norfolk.  Pretty amazing.

They have to get the port open ASAP so I am not surprised by the time line. 

[smokeybandit]

The end of May seems a long time. I assume they've just given themselves some buffer there.

[TPKeller]

10 hours ago, alfaeric said:

Sorry, but it’s still confusing. The discussion moved from a bridge that has no choice but to be replaced to one of additional volume in a different place that eventually will need replacement.  
 

And since cruise ships represent a very small part of the shipping traffic, I don’t see a real need to add height on all bridges as a high priority.

 

I honestly wasn't even thinking about a ROI analysis on the cost of increasing the height of the bridges.

 

It's a cruise forum, and the fact that Baltimore is restricted to older, smaller ships due to the bridge heights is a frequent topic.

Nobody knows how long the ships that will fit under the Bay Bridge will remain in the fleets of Royal Caribbean or Carnival.  The trend certainly suggests there may be a day in the future when that number will be zero.

 

So while cruises aren't a large percentage of the overall port economy, the very real question may soon be, are they willing to lose them all?

 

Theron

[Biker19]

5 hours ago, TPKeller said:

 

It's a cruise forum, and the fact that Baltimore is restricted to older, smaller ships due to the bridge heights is a frequent topic.

The terminal is also somewhat small. It probably wouldn’t work well for anything Voyager class and up. 

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

The end of May seems a long time. I assume they've just given themselves some buffer there.

Not really,  the limited width channel by the end of April will allow ships to transit the bridge site one at a time,  with the Dali still there.  To clear the whole channel will require stabilizing the Dali structurally, to get it able to move,  and then clearing the wreckage around where she is now. And that work would be done with ships passing close by. Seems a reasonable estimate to me. 

[alfaeric]

9 hours ago, TPKeller said:

 

I honestly wasn't even thinking about a ROI analysis on the cost of increasing the height of the bridges.

 

It's a cruise forum, and the fact that Baltimore is restricted to older, smaller ships due to the bridge heights is a frequent topic.

Nobody knows how long the ships that will fit under the Bay Bridge will remain in the fleets of Royal Caribbean or Carnival.  The trend certainly suggests there may be a day in the future when that number will be zero.

 

So while cruises aren't a large percentage of the overall port economy, the very real question may soon be, are they willing to lose them all?

 

Theron

That part I understand.  But the switch to that subject is intertwined into this main story.  And to accomplish what you want, 2 more bridges need to be lifted.  Which is well outside the timeline of this accident.  So when you come in randomly to see if the current news is updated, and you see discussions about the replacement being in a bad place- it's natural to think this is about the FSK bridge, since it HAS to be replaced right now.

 

That's the confusing part- a bridge that has no choice but to be replaced vs. the other two and where they are, when they will be replaced, etc.  Again, IMHO, the cruise aspect of this area is minor compared to the rest of the shipping.  So I don't see the other two bridges changed anytime soon- especially since this bridge gets replaced now.

 

[Pratique]

11 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

The end of May seems a long time. I assume they've just given themselves some buffer there.

The Army Corps of Engineers said that these are "ambitious timelines" with weather delays and the complexity of extracting the wreckage, which sinking into the mud. We need Yoda to come and do that force thing he did on Luke's X-Wing. No doubt they are trying to set expectations for everyone who wants the port reopened yesterday.

[Pratique]

26 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

That part I understand.  But the switch to that subject is intertwined into this main story.  And to accomplish what you want, 2 more bridges need to be lifted.  Which is well outside the timeline of this accident.  So when you come in randomly to see if the current news is updated, and you see discussions about the replacement being in a bad place- it's natural to think this is about the FSK bridge, since it HAS to be replaced right now.

 

That's the confusing part- a bridge that has no choice but to be replaced vs. the other two and where they are, when they will be replaced, etc.  Again, IMHO, the cruise aspect of this area is minor compared to the rest of the shipping.  So I don't see the other two bridges changed anytime soon- especially since this bridge gets replaced now.

 

The discussion's diversion to the other bridges seems like putting the cart before the horse. They can future-proof the new Key Bridge by making it higher. They can also go back to the drawing board on the other bridges in light of these unexpected circumstances.

[exm]

5 hours ago, Biker19 said:

The terminal is also somewhat small. It probably wouldn’t work well for anything Voyager class and up. 

 

They can always make the terminal bigger, that shouldn't be an issue. The question is if there's a large enough cruising market (which I think there is).

[TPKeller]

28 minutes ago, Pratique said:

They can also go back to the drawing board on the other bridges in light of these unexpected circumstances.

 

An excellent point.  With two bridges (three spans) blocking bigger ships, it's easy to dismiss it as too expensive, and too far into the future to justify the expense.  Now that one will need to be rebuilt ASAP, and plans for the other not locked in stone, the whole thing may deserve another look!

 

Theron

[chengkp75]

30 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The discussion's diversion to the other bridges seems like putting the cart before the horse. They can future-proof the new Key Bridge by making it higher. They can also go back to the drawing board on the other bridges in light of these unexpected circumstances.

The key improvement to the Key bridge will be to build large "islands" around each footing, so that a ship is stopped before it can contact the bridge structure,  as they did with Florida's Sunshine Skyline bridge. The "dolphins" they placed in response to the Skyline bridge failure are a joke, and totally inadequate. They need to be increased in size as well as creating islands at the footings. The power line supports need increased protection as well.  Going higher does not make the bridge safer from accidents like this. 

[Pratique]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

The key improvement to the Key bridge will be to build large "islands" around each footing, so that a ship is stopped before it can contact the bridge structure,  as they did with Florida's Sunshine Skyline bridge. The "dolphins" they placed in response to the Skyline bridge failure are a joke, and totally inadequate. They need to be increased in size as well as creating islands at the footings. The power line supports need increased protection as well.  Going higher does not make the bridge safer from accidents like this. 

I was not referring to safety, I was referring to expanded capacity for taller ships. I agree that new bridge designs should incorporate defensive fortifications as well. Although incidents like this are very rare, we just witnessed one of the most expensive ones in history, so it makes sense to fortify the new structures.

[alfaeric]

Seems that one other thing they can do is keep the shipping channel width the same, but make the bridge span longer.   That would add a ship grounding area before the bridge structure to add some safety to any other boundary hardware.

[chengkp75]

30 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

That part has had me confused also. Unless I am missing something, I don't foresee container ships going higher. Maybe longer or wider but higher would seem, in my mind anyway, to make them more unstable in storms.

To go higher, a cargo ship needs to go deeper as well, so the channel would need to be deepened as well as raising the bridge.

 

A cruise ship is mostly air.  Oasis has a GT of 226,000, but only weighs (displacement) about 100,000 metric tons (plus passengers, luggage, booze and food).  The largest container ship in the world has a GT of about 225,000 as well, and she weighs only about 60,000 metric tons, plus cargo.  That cargo can weigh over 200,000 metric tons, so the container ship could load 2 Oasis class ships onboard and still float.  That much weight means the container ship has to displace more water, therefore riding deeper in the water than a cruise ship (14-15 meters draft for the container ship vs 9.3 meters for Oasis).  So, if you stack more weight on top of a container ship, it just sinks lower in the water.

[TeeRick]

1 hour ago, exm said:

 

They can always make the terminal bigger, that shouldn't be an issue. The question is if there's a large enough cruising market (which I think there is).

Why do you think Baltimore is a large (enough) cruising market?  It is secondary at best offering smaller older ships from a few cruise lines. It serves limited passengers.

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, exm said:

 

They can always make the terminal bigger, that shouldn't be an issue. The question is if there's a large enough cruising market (which I think there is).

They could move the cruise port  south of the bridges. They could build ships that fit under the existing bridges. Why should the taxpayers pay for new bridges for foreign flagged cruise ships? If new bridges would enhance cargo it might make economic sense. For the cruising market I doubt it. 

[Another_Critic]

8 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Why do you think Baltimore is a large (enough) cruising market?  It is secondary at best offering smaller older ships from a few cruise lines. It serves limited passengers.

It is secondary because of the smaller older ships and limited cruise lines.

 

Larger ships will increase demand.  I certainly would prefer to sail a Voyager class from Baltimore instead of Cape Liberty.

[Charles4515]

5 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

It is secondary because of the smaller older ships and limited cruise lines.

 

Larger ships will increase demand.  I certainly would prefer to sail a Voyager class from Baltimore instead of Cape Liberty.

Before there were larger ships, when the largest ships of their time were sailing out of Baltimore, it was a secondary market. There are limited itineraries from Baltimore because of the weather and it takes 10 or more hours to get to the ocean. It will remain a secondary market even if they increase the heights of the bridges. 

[Tatka]

38 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Before there were larger ships, when the largest ships of their time were sailing out of Baltimore, it was a secondary market. There are limited itineraries from Baltimore because of the weather and it takes 10 or more hours to get to the ocean. It will remain a secondary market even if they increase the heights of the bridges. 

 

Itineraries are actually pretty good and match ones in New Jersey.

 

Bahamas(with variations), Bermuda, NE/Canada, Southern Caribbean.

Edited April 5 by Tatka

[SRF]

17 hours ago, toad455 said:

I don't think the Vision left on time today out of Norfolk(5pm). Probably closer to 6:30pm. The Carnival Legend was also late leaving on Monday(~7pm).

 

Not a big deal.  They are each starting with an 8 - 10 hour headstart.

[SRF]

16 hours ago, alfaeric said:

Which suggests that the Vision will just have two cruises out of Norfolk.  Pretty amazing.

 

Except they immediate commented that things may push the dates back.

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, Tatka said:

 

Itineraries are actually pretty good and match ones in New Jersey.

 

Bahamas(with variations), Bermuda, NE/Canada, Southern Caribbean.

The Bermuda itineraries are horrible and don’t match the ones out of New Jersey. They are five days arriving late the first day and leaving early the second day. Useless. Longer itineraries are okay if you like the Bahamas. Meh. 

[Tatka]

1 minute ago, Charles4515 said:

The Bermuda itineraries are horrible and don’t match the ones out of New Jersey. They are five days arriving late the first day and leaving early the second day. Useless. Longer itineraries are okay if you like the Bahamas. Meh. 

I agree about Bermuda, but everything else is very similar to NJ.

 

We just returned yesterday from 12 dayer to Southern Caribbean which we do from there once per year. (USVI, St Maarten, Barbados, St Lucia, St Kitts)

There are way more cruises to Southern Caribbean from Baltimore than from NJ.

[alfaeric]

10 minutes ago, Tatka said:

I agree about Bermuda, but everything else is very similar to NJ.

 

We just returned yesterday from 12 dayer to Southern Caribbean which we do from there once per year. (USVI, St Maarten, Barbados, St Lucia, St Kitts)

There are way more cruises to Southern Caribbean from Baltimore than from NJ.

They can adjust the number of 11/12 nighters out of NJ.  The time it takes to sail to destinations south is almost exactly the same, anyway.

 

Really, the only thing special about Baltimore is the small, old, ships which generally means lower priced itineraries.  We would have chosen the Anthem had the prices been anywhere near the Vision for the B2Bs we just took.

[Tatka]

Just now, alfaeric said:

They can adjust the number of 11/12 nighters out of NJ.  The time it takes to sail to destinations south is almost exactly the same, anyway.

 

Really, the only thing special about Baltimore is the small, old, ships which generally means lower priced itineraries.  We would have chosen the Anthem had the prices been anywhere near the Vision for the B2Bs we just took.

 

I would love it, although we like to experience small ship once out of 5 a year cruises.