TPKeller

A couple new pictures from over the weekend posted by the USACE just a few minutes ago.

Theron

https://www.facebook.com/USACEBaltimore/posts/pfbid02QBxZKncxRFtvnFy7FcStU7Zuh5VsUzSZ26NMNukozQdxXRgE1MJ73Eo4xCF8etJYl

2 hours ago, Tatka said:

So this is easy. If customers are not happy they shouldn’t book it. There are ships sailing from Bayonne, Boston sailing to Bermuda. Do they care? Or Royal can charge more to cover fuel increases.

I haven't.

But how is Royal Caribbean supposed to know that (some) customers are not happy with their new itinerary unless we (they) talk about it?

Theron

7 minutes ago, Tatka said:

What do you mean? New regulations ?

Ha, if only.  No... it's all about dollars.  Slower speed = less gas, who cares if the customers have less time in port...  😞

Theron

6 minutes ago, Tatka said:

so 5 dayers to Bermuda from there are not as attractive.

They used to be, when the ships went faster and you actually got to spend almost two days in Bermuda, rather than less than one, like they do now.  😞  Huge difference!

Theron

5 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

I understand and agree with you and @Charles4515.  But I was being specific to the 5-7 nights cruises, more specifically the 7 night, which IMO is what most people tend to typically book.  My point being that they are more limited in ports of call from there with those itineraries.

Yep... unfortunately, a 7-night cruise (heading south) out of Baltimore is about the same as a 5-night cruise out of Florida.

Except for Bermuda. I'd love for Royal Caribbean to do a 7-night Bermuda cruise from Baltimore!

Theron

2 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

I hated the Carnival ship. The vibe and decor were not to my taste.

I toured one once.  IMHO, the word you are looking for is "gaudy!"  😉

Theron

2 hours ago, robtulipe said:

We once sailed out of Baltimore on X Summit which is slightly larger at 91K gross tons than Radiance class ships that are 90 gross tons so I suspect the latter could sail out of that port.

Not to nit-pick, but since others have also questioned your report... if you check your signature, it shows your only time on Summit was a Southern Caribbean B2B in November 2010.

"X Summit, Nov.10 B2B S. Carib"

Summit was doing that itinerary out of San Juan at that time.

So it must have been a different ship from Baltimore!  🙂

Theron

16 minutes ago, leaveitallbehind said:

but the itineraries from there are somewhat limited. In particular with 5 - 7 night cruises, where there is always a fair amount of sea days getting to the few ports of call accessible from there.

That's one way to look at it, but here is another:

A 9-night cruise out of Baltimore can cover the same itinerary as a 7-night cruise out of Florida.  If you live anywhere in the mid-Atlantic region, that leaves you with "how do you get to Florida?"  You can drive or fly, each taking at least the better part of a day of "fun."

OR... you can take the ship from Baltimore, with that extra day on the front and back cruising down and back up the coast.

It's not a difficult choice!  😄

Theron

11 hours ago, Southern Dan said:

It would be cool if they built a new port terminal south of the Bay Bridge to accommodate larger ships. 

11 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Cool, but certainly unlikely.

This!

Cut to the chase:  Hosting large cruise ships south of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is never gonna happen!

Lots of reasons, I don't know that the order matters, so just as they come to me:

1. Transportation: The reason Baltimore (and New York, Boston, and Norfolk) work well as cruise terminals is that the passengers can get there easily via several major modes of transportation.  Air, rail, especially road.

The entrance to the parking lot for the Baltimore cruise terminal is literally 120 seconds from the exit off I-95.

Nothing south of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge comes even close to that until you get to Norfolk.

This affects not only arriving and departing passengers, but supplies for the ships as well.  It would be possible for the ships to provision at another port, such as Port Canaveral or Miami, but that ties the itineraries to one of those ports for every cruise.

The further south you go in the bay, the farther you get from all the major transportation lines.

2. Channels - or lack thereof:  If you pull up a chart of the Chesapeake Bay you will see that the channel running down the center is around 55 to 60 feet deep.  The big cruise ships draw 25+ feet.  Outside that channel, the Bay is fairly shallow.  Looking at Annapolis for one data point, the depth as you approach the Severn River quickly drops to around 17 feet, and it continues to drop as you get closer in to Annapolis.  You'd have to dig almost a 4 mile channel of at least 30-35 feet deep by several hundred feet wide to get a larger cruise ship in to that area.  You need the extra width to be able to handle windy days.  If there is any crosswind the ship must "crab" in order to stay in the channel, which makes the width requirement quite a bit wider than "just" the beam of the ship.  Remember the full width of the channel under the Key Bridge is around 700 feet!

This same depth problem exists (even more so) all the way down the bay until you get to Norfolk.

3: Local resistance:  The further south you get away from Baltimore, the more "rural" the areas near the bay become, exacerbating the Transportation issue, in convenience and capacity, AND increasing resistance by the local folks to having thousands of additional vehicles on their small roads bringing passengers and supplies to a ship docked near their quiet little towns.

There are probably more, but these 3 are really enough.

• Passengers can't get there easily.
• Ships can't get there at all without spending billions of dollars to dig channels and build facilities.
• And the local residents will fight it tooth-and-nail!

IMHO, the best option for getting a big ship in the area would be to start trying to influence the decisions coming up about the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which has the same height as the Key Bridge.  There have been discussions and even some preliminary planning for increasing the capacity of that bridge.

With the Key Bridge providing an equal height restriction, it was very easy to dismiss any thoughts to increase the height of the CBB.  Now that the Key Bridge is gone, that whole question is ripe for another look.

I fully believe that's the only practical option, rebuilding the Key Bridge higher, and either rebuilding or modifying the CBB to that same new height.

Theron

44 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While it is nice to see cruise ships returning to Baltimore, the channel is not cleared.  They are still using the narrow "limited use" channel with restrictions on under keel clearance, winds, etc for large ships.  Even in the "limited use" channel, the bottom is not 100% cleared.

From later in the press release I posted above:

"To restore the Federal Channel to its original 700-foot width and 50-foot depth, USACE continues to clear wreckage from the riverbed. The continued work involves digging out the bottom cord of the remaining truss and cutting it into three sections to safely lift the wreckage.

[...]

Only about one-third of this truss is visible above the water as it stretches down to the riverbed and sits buried in the mud line. Based on the latest dive surveys and engineer analyses conducted after precision cutting and refloating the M/V Dali, the work to restore the Federal Channel is projected to conclude between June 8-10. The adjusted timing accounts for the complexity of the cutting and rigging required to lift portions of the large span. It also accounts for safety measures and possible inclement weather potentially impacting ongoing salvage operations."

Theron

Any locals know if the road to Fort Armistead is actually closed?  (Google maps says that it is.)  That would be a great place to get a few cool shots of Vision leaving this afternoon.

Theron

19 minutes ago, BND said:

The news right now is showing how much the lack of the Key bridge is impacting Memorial Day weekend traffic.  

I don't follow Baltimore rush hour traffic often enough to know if this is out of the ordinary, but here's a current screen shot of Google Maps traffic.

Theron

Here's the latest update from the USACE.

"Along with the removal of the M/V Dali, salvage crews expanded the Port of Baltimore limited access channel to a width of 400 feet and a depth of 50 feet on May 20, allowing for the transit of all deep-draft commercial vessels calling on the Port of Baltimore."

https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/3787297/us-army-corps-of-engineers-expands-port-of-baltimore-limited-access-channel/

3 hours ago, Biker19 said:

You can play back the video of her arrival at this Youtube channel for a few hours today:

If you pull up the video embedded above, you can "back up" to starting around 4:50 AM local time (by the time stamp at the top of the video) to see Vision returning to the port.

As noted, this will soon disappear, as the past video is limited.

Theron

The move, captured by MarineTraffic.

Looks like it took about 2 hours.  I captured the time stamp about half way.  Just a reminder, UTC is +4 hours from Baltimore right now, 4 hours later than here, so according to the track here, the move was from around 7 to 9 AM this morning.  Does that match what people saw?

Theron

16 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

... (did they actually say "long tons", because about the only ships in the world that still measure deadweight or displacement in long tons are US government vessels).

 

Yep.  He was reading directly from Coast Guard Marine Safety Information Bulletin 043-24, which can be found here.  See third paragraph:

https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/89633/MSIB 043-24 Fort McHenry Limited Access Channel (35ftx300ft).pdf

Theron

7 hours ago, alfaeric said:

Reviving this thread as there's going to be a limited access channel opening on Thursday.  

 

 

So it's quite possible the channel will be totally back open when the Vision returns to service.

He mentions a limit of 60,000 long tons, due to the possible perturbation of Dali by the water as the ship passes.  But cruise ships are not measured in weight or displacement, they are measured in volume, so it can be exceedingly difficult to find out what the weight of the two ships hoping to get back into Baltimore are.  There are way too many different ways ship sizes are labeled.  I suspect that both cruise ships exceed that 60,000 long ton limit.

Plus there are limits on the transition by the wind and the tide.  With a narrow channel, crosswinds above a certain speed will prevent the ship from adjusting their heading to counter balance the force.  (Long-time Bermuda cruisers will remember the crosswind limits on ships transiting the "Town Cut" channel in or out of St. Georges, for the very same reason.  The ship cannot "yaw" enough to counter the crosswind forces without scraping the sides of the channel.  According to Google Maps, Town Cut is about 290 feet wide.)

Those limits would put the extremely tight and unforgiving itinerary schedule of a cruise ship at great risk.

All these things add up to reduce the chances that cruise ships will return until they get Dali removed and the channel open wider.

Theron

A friend of mine is a tug boat captain out of Norfolk.  He has pushed some of the recovery equipment up to Baltimore.  This morning he happened to catch this, and allowed me to share.

Compliments of Howard Wainwright.

"Vision of the Seas bound for Norfolk, Virginia 0400."

1 hour ago, SRF said:

I hear that another issue is, the cruise terminal is being used as the command center for the cleanup operation.

 

So even if the channel is open, the cruise terminal may not be available

Ah yes, that was reported.  Hopefully they will have time to move or at least shrink enough to allow the terminal to be used.  It was an emergency situation to stand up that command center, and a convenient place that they knew would be available for the short term.

But a command center can be located anywhere, while a cruise terminal cannot.

Theron

Port of Baltimore announced yesterday they are still planning to have a channel open by the end of May, which should accommodate Vision returning for her next scheduled sailing.

Here's hoping!

Theron

On 4/6/2024 at 5:48 PM, not-enough-cruising said:

Bridge design and construction had little to do with the collapse. 
The lack of adequate barricades around the support structures was the downfall. 

Go back and watch the first NTSB press conference after the collapse.  The Chair of the NTSB described the design of the bridge as fracture critical.  That literally means that if even one load-bearing component of the bridge fails, the entire bridge will fail.

This weakness was knowingly and intentionally designed into the bridge from the drawing board.  The Chair went on to say that modern bridges are built with redundancy.

Design played a huge role in the collapse.  Obviously, if the ship had not hit it, it would still be standing, but it's simply incorrect to say that the design had "little to do" with it.

I doubt we will ever know if a more robust design would have survived the allision, although I suspect the engineers will certainly play those simulations with the designs they propose to replace the bridge.  I suspect that as reporters start covering the news of whatever new bridge is to come, that will be a very often asked question, "Will this bridge survive a similar impact?"  If the interviewees consistently redirect those questions to talk about increased protection against future impacts, then I guess we will be able to assume the answer is "no!"

Theron

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

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

2 hours ago, alfaeric said:

Confusing. 

It was immediately obvious that not everyone "caught" the slight addition of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in the discussion.  But it was a valid addition, as noted above, since the two bridges were the same height (air draft) that restricted the size of ships that could pass beneath.

As best I am aware, there has been no detailed information provided about a replacement for the Key Bridge, which just collapsed.

There has been years of discussion about adding capacity to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which is what these last few posts have been about.

Again, it's all relative here, because if they add spans without removing the current spans (which is the latest plan, I believe) then we will not see an increase in the size of ships that can sail from Baltimore.

I snagged this picture from a news web page report, it shows the location of the two bridges we are talking about.

Theron

53 minutes ago, Lane Hog said:

Duh.  Disregard.... I forgot about the bridge at Annapolis with almost the same name as the CBBT....

They are deceptively similar!!

Theron