Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nwiswell 817 days ago
The sheet piling didn't need to be 50 years old.

In 1977 (and in 1972, when construction began), vessels of this size did not exist, and certainly were not allowed in the harbor[1]. But over time, they were given authorization, despite the fact that they could collapse the unprotected bridge like a load of toothpicks.

The real crime here is that there was no retrofit to protect the pylons. It was almost certainly considered and rejected due to cost.

[1]: https://logisticselearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Co...

The ship in question here was 10K TEU.
1 comments
ViewTrick1002 817 days ago
The Oil Tankers of the 70s were the largest vessels ever built. Today the largest container vessels are starting to creep up to their size, but not weight.

The container vessel in question is tiny compared to e.g. the Seawise giant or Batillus Class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawise_Giant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batillus-class_supertanker

link
nwiswell 816 days ago
Those ships would never have been permitted in the Baltimore harbor. They presumably still aren't, since there's no reason for them to be there.
link
ViewTrick1002 816 days ago
It only depends on where the large-scale refineries are. If Baltimore had one they would be going there.

The smaller VLCCs are dime a dozen and they are 2-3x the weight of the Dali.

link
nwiswell 815 days ago
The Port of Baltimore does not even have an oil handling facility, never mind the fact it could not admit a VLCC even if it had cause to.

Even ports on the US Gulf Coast do not generally have the capability to dock VLCCs.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36232

If Baltimore had been anticipating VLCC traffic in the 70s, then presumably the bridge would have been built accordingly and this incident would not have led to a collapse.

link