OT: Baltimore bridge replacment

Waiting to hear analysis from my friend in shipping insurance.

_Possibly_ those lights went off when they were attempting to start an emergency/back up generator[1]. You need to reduce the load to a minimum until the generator is up to speed - only then do you load it up.[2]

Possibly a difference between 'Speed through the water' and speed over the ground'? If the tide was flowing in as the ship was leaving, they may have had to increase their speed through the water to maintain progress.

Oh, a spork, you mean?

There are also flying bridges, at the side, which would give a better view of things closer than those visible from the main bridge.

Other brands are available.

From the tide charts, the ship set sail around low tide. The tide would have been coming in, but not at its fastest.

How does a British manufacturer exporting vehicles to America, then confirming that said vehicles are ok before sale, represent the build quality of American cars?

It says that the term "spork" was coined (and registered for trade purposes) in the early 1950s.

But thanks for the link.

There may yet be people who will never again be allowed to practice in their chosen professions, whether that be in engineering or seafaring.

Not by KFC

Fantasy with engineering.

Unlikely with the captain unless he knew the engines were flaky and chose to leave anyway.

Every car that comes off a bulk car carrying ship get an Italian tune up. :)

Vessels of container ship size are unlikely to get up that far but one Severn Bridge was lost in exactly that way.

The Barges concerned are visible at low tide to this day.

A memorial to the casualties is on the shore nearby.

GH

Based on the ship having electrical problems while it was in port, the entire exit from port was reckless.

This is a replay of the track.

Paul

The extension of that logic is that the ship should never have left port at any time, ever.

Presumably, somebody would have decided that the problems had been resolved and the ship was in a suitable condition to sail. The investigation will determine who that was and whether, given the information available at the time and not hindsight, it was a reasonable decision to make. If not, they are going to get a very large bill from the ship's insurers.

With a known and (presumably) calculable risk of power failure?

I should think so!

But the other alternative was to take some insurance in the form of a tug or two given the known vulnerability ot that bridge after it had been decided that the fault seen while in port had been fixed.

I doubt it was the only ship that had some sort of problem fixed while in port. It is only with hindsight that we can see which of those could have benefitted from a tug escorting them out, assuming, of course, that it would have made any difference. There was not a lot of time to get a tug in position and making a difference to the course between the power failure and the impact.