4 ms·

I don’t drive boats or around water much but I’ve seen “bumpers” on bridge pylons before that make a collision more of a glancing blow and guide the boat to the

I don’t drive boats or around water much but I’ve seen “bumpers” on bridge pylons before that make a collision more of a glancing blow and guide the boat to the side. I guess there wasn’t any installed on this bridge? Also, someone on Imgur pointed out that when this bridge was built boats that large weren’t a risk. That may or may not be true but sounds plausible.

fl7305 3y ago
> when this bridge was built boats that large weren’t a risk Doesn't sound plausible to me. Very large Panamax ships were used in the 1970's when the bridge was built.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Sorry, but you're very wrong. A civil engineer on Sky News even raised this issue. https://www.container-transportation.com/worlds-largest-container-ship.html https://www.container-transportation.com/worlds-largest-cont...
  - fl7305 3y ago
    Panamax specifications (320 m length, 32 m width) have been in effect since the opening of the canal in 1914. Some ships were already larger than that back then. The Titanic was about that size. The ship that knocked down the bridge could weigh ("DWT") up to 115 000 tons. Some ships from the 1960s and 1970s: Universe Ireland: Launched in 1968, it had a DWT of over 300 000 tons. Esso Atlantic (1977): DWT of over 500 000 tons. But these were tankers. You're right that container ships were not as big back then. One of the larger container ships when the bridge was built in 1977 was MV Hamburg Express. It was 280 meters long, 32 meters wide, and had a DWT of 50 000 tons. Do you really think a 280 meter long ship weighing 50 000 tons would not have knocked down the bridge in exactly the same way? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg-Express-Klasse_(1972) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg-Express-Klasse_(1972)
hnburnsy 3y ago
There were tiny bumpers, two for each pylon, one on each side, but looks like they were place too far out, you can see them here... https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1c/6e/f8/1c6ef8db981c77b1bd780982742d5e65--spangled-banner-star-spangled.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1c/6e/f8/1c6ef8db981c77b1bd7809827... Ironically there are power lines running in parallel that have much more substantial protection, here you can see the powerline protection and the tiny bumpers... https://patabook.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/cbsn-fusion-baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-details-rescue-efforts-reactions-thumbnail-2787613-640x360.jpg https://patabook.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/cbsn-fu...
1letterunixname 3y ago
Fenders and such. A major problem is this bridge was designed and built in an era where ships were substantially smaller (3000 TEU) than they are today (20000 TEU).
- fl7305 3y ago
  The ship that brought down the bridge had a capacity of 10 000 TEU. It's max weight (DWT) was 115 000 tons. There were container ships with a DWT of 50 000 tons when the bridge was built. There were also tankers with 10x that (500 000 tons), so large and heavy ships shouldn't be a Pikachu-face surprise to the bridge designers. If nothing else, the trend in increasing ship sizes was clear to anyone looking at it. Do you think the bridge steel pylons would have resisted a 50 000 tons ship plowing into them?

fl7305 3y ago

> when this bridge was built boats that large weren’t a risk Doesn't sound plausible to me. Very large Panamax ships were used in the 1970's when the bridge was built.

1letterunixname 3y ago
Sorry, but you're very wrong. A civil engineer on Sky News even raised this issue. https://www.container-transportation.com/worlds-largest-container-ship.html https://www.container-transportation.com/worlds-largest-cont...
- fl7305 3y ago
  Panamax specifications (320 m length, 32 m width) have been in effect since the opening of the canal in 1914. Some ships were already larger than that back then. The Titanic was about that size. The ship that knocked down the bridge could weigh ("DWT") up to 115 000 tons. Some ships from the 1960s and 1970s: Universe Ireland: Launched in 1968, it had a DWT of over 300 000 tons. Esso Atlantic (1977): DWT of over 500 000 tons. But these were tankers. You're right that container ships were not as big back then. One of the larger container ships when the bridge was built in 1977 was MV Hamburg Express. It was 280 meters long, 32 meters wide, and had a DWT of 50 000 tons. Do you really think a 280 meter long ship weighing 50 000 tons would not have knocked down the bridge in exactly the same way? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg-Express-Klasse_(1972) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg-Express-Klasse_(1972)

hnburnsy 3y ago

There were tiny bumpers, two for each pylon, one on each side, but looks like they were place too far out, you can see them here... https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1c/6e/f8/1c6ef8db981c77b1bd780982742d5e65--spangled-banner-star-spangled.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1c/6e/f8/1c6ef8db981c77b1bd7809827... Ironically there are power lines running in parallel that have much more substantial protection, here you can see the powerline protection and the tiny bumpers... https://patabook.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/cbsn-fusion-baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-details-rescue-efforts-reactions-thumbnail-2787613-640x360.jpg https://patabook.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/cbsn-fu...

1letterunixname 3y ago

Fenders and such. A major problem is this bridge was designed and built in an era where ships were substantially smaller (3000 TEU) than they are today (20000 TEU).

fl7305 3y ago
The ship that brought down the bridge had a capacity of 10 000 TEU. It's max weight (DWT) was 115 000 tons. There were container ships with a DWT of 50 000 tons when the bridge was built. There were also tankers with 10x that (500 000 tons), so large and heavy ships shouldn't be a Pikachu-face surprise to the bridge designers. If nothing else, the trend in increasing ship sizes was clear to anyone looking at it. Do you think the bridge steel pylons would have resisted a 50 000 tons ship plowing into them?