Container Ship Struck Key Bridge in Baltimore, Bridge has Collapsed

[Pratique]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, it happened again just a couple days ago, in Baltimore.  Has happened 42 times in the last 3 years in Maryland waters.  Happens all the time, and will continue to happen.

What doesn't happen all the time is lives lost,  bridges destroyed, and billions in economic impact over the course of years by the failure of an $8 part. So it seems like the attitude is to cross our fingers and hope it doesn't happen again because the mitigation is too expensive for the shipping industry (which I still don't believe needs to be expensive at all, but what do I know). Doesn't have to be that way but whatever, it's not my problem to solve.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

What doesn't happen all the time is lives lost,  bridges destroyed, and billions in economic impact over the course of years by the failure of an $8 part. So it seems like the attitude is to cross our fingers and hope it doesn't happen again because the mitigation is too expensive for the shipping industry (which I still don't believe needs to be expensive at all, but what do I know). Doesn't have to be that way but whatever, it's not my problem to solve.

But the mitigation for the ships would not be completely reliable, while mitigation of the bridge infrastructure would ensure mitigation of the lost lives and destroyed bridges.  Would the replacement for the $8 part be 100% reliable?  How do you prove that?

[Pratique]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

But the mitigation for the ships would not be completely reliable, while mitigation of the bridge infrastructure would ensure mitigation of the lost lives and destroyed bridges.  Would the replacement for the $8 part be 100% reliable?  How do you prove that?

Who said it had to be 100% reliable? It's a false argument to say it must be 100% or not worth doing at all. But as I said, not my problem to solve.

[chengkp75]

37 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Who said it had to be 100% reliable? It's a false argument to say it must be 100% or not worth doing at all. But as I said, not my problem to solve.

Okay, would the replacement part be any more reliable than what it replaces?  Obviously, the part that failed was extensively tested, and has been used in millions (if not billions) of applications around the world (and not just in the maritime, but in all industries), and has an apparently acceptable failure ratio.

[Pratique]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

Okay, would the replacement part be any more reliable than what it replaces?  Obviously, the part that failed was extensively tested, and has been used in millions (if not billions) of applications around the world (and not just in the maritime, but in all industries), and has an apparently acceptable failure ratio.

I don't envision replacing the part. The part is not necessarily the problem. The issue is the overall design of the electrical system. I don't know enough to have any specific ideas, but I'm pretty certain there are design changes that can be made relatively inexpensively that would reduce if not eliminate this particular hazard of losing engine power under certain conditions. Any further mitigation is potentially helpful even if not 100% - since we are rolling the dice it makes sense to improve the odds, no?

 

As I mentioned before, I have expertise in the design of safety systems, so I'm not entirely clueless. I'm sure some smart grad students could spend a semester researching this and proposing some options. But as you noted, individual governments can't force foreign flagged ships to make any changes, so it would take a collaborative effort and I know that is asking a lot. Maybe too much.

 

In the meantime, let's fix the bridges too. Every little bit helps but nothing is perfect or easy. I think it's fair to be upset that the Dali collided with the bridge, and it is worth having a discussion about how to prevent it from happening again. Everything should be on the table for the solution(s) to even be considered.

[broberts]

42 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I'm pretty certain there are design changes that can be made relatively inexpensively that would reduce if not eliminate this particular hazard of losing engine power under certain conditions

 

This may or may not be true, but given the average service life of a container ship any fundamental design change would likely take several decades to effect. 

[smokeybandit]

54 minutes ago, Pratique said:

In the meantime, let's fix the bridges too. Every little bit helps but nothing is perfect or easy. I think it's fair to be upset that the Dali collided with the bridge, and it is worth having a discussion about how to prevent it from happening again. Everything should be on the table for the solution(s) to even be considered.

America's biggest weakness: keeping up with infrastructure. What to do is never the long pole. It's the when, how ($$$) and sometimes where.

Edited Thursday at 03:19 PM by smokeybandit

[Pratique]

11 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

This may or may not be true, but given the average service life of a container ship any fundamental design change would likely take several decades to effect. 

Absolutely. But they are building new ships every day so it's never too late to start thinking about it!