Francis Scott Key Bridge - Class I Impact

I'm going to say it here... it's time to wind down this thread.

Latest word from unified response command is that the whole span is set to reopen the first week of July, if not by July 10th. I'm trying to find an article on this but long weekend, and I was busy elsewhere (sadly not railfanning).

Meanwhile, a 400 foot wide by 50 foot deep channel is open for 24/7 operations per WYPR. Vessels that size still need an escort.

As I predicted, CSX and NS are rehiring, so things should start getting back to normal. I can see them unloading the Dali in Norfolk so it can be dry-docked and repaired properly. Some of the cargo has already spoiled so they have to unload and shift through it. I don't trust those ship's engines, TBH.

That said, it's getting harder to relate this back to freight, so I think this is going to be my last post on this topic... unless they slap track on the new bridge.

Everything in the NTSB's preliminary report points to the engines themselves operating fine and generating electricity... What's called into question is the electrical switchgear & transformers.

Much like a diesel electric locomotive, it's the electricity being generated that matters -- it powers the lube pumps and the rudders.

If the full channel isn't open until July, even my 90 day estimate will have missed the mark. We already know it wasn't two weeks, although being 80% functional at two months is an amazing feat by the ACOE.

Here's a report from The Baltimore Sun noting the June 10 700ft wide 50ft draft Federal Channel.

The now-open 400ft wide channel noted by Mr. Wolf (please hang around; you represent local knowledge) does not give sufficient margin of error for the ultra large container vessels (Mediterranean Shipping has several) that have a beam of 201ft.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:49 pm Here's a report from The Baltimore Sun noting the July 10 700ft wide 50ft draft Federal Channel.

The now-open 400ft wide channel noted by Mr. Wolf (please hang around; you represent local knowledge) does not give sufficient margin of error for the ultra large container vessels (Mediterranean Shipping has several) that have a width of 201ft.

All right, you got me for a while. But it's not all free and clear sailing. The channel requires those large container vessels to be escorted by a police boat and two tugs while it goes through the area. It'll get better when they get

BTW they said June 10th, not July 10th, while they previously mentioned the end of the month.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYlki99rimU

They're pulling the last of the bridge out, but are having trouble as some of the bridge's deck is embedded in the bottom of the channel, thus the delay. Still, good progress being made, and the RFP for the replacement is due at the end of the month.

https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/06/traf ... ed-bridge/

The full channel is open unrestricted. Hope CSX and NS has staffed back up!

Good to see. Still wonder how much debris was left on the bottom...

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Well Mr. Olesen, supposedly the channel is good for 53' MLW

It would be a "bottom scraper", but Mediterranean Shipping' s m/v Irinia could make its way through the channel.

OK, maybe not quite at the ebb, but, it could still navigate, however, this vessel does not seem to sail near the Port of Baltimore.

Submitted for "closure":

Associated Press

So here's the latest so far, and NPR has some good location details.

The MV Dali is now in West Norfolk's Virginia International Gateway port, where it's going to be offloaded of 1500 containers (heads up CSX!) before heading over to Norfolk International Terminal (you too, Norfolk Southern) for further salvage and repairs.

NTSB is focusing on the electrical system, wondering what tripped some main breakers. They've taken the terminal block and some control wiring. They already interviewed the crew, and while some can go home, others are being held in the US and all will be made available for other interviews (federal, state, Baltimore City investigators).

The main "federal channel" has been scraped clean. They are probably scraping clean the remaining channels so any building will have clear water to build.

And before I go too far, people are wanting to put light rail on the new bridge. My response is in this thread:

put-light-rail-on-baltimore-s-fs-key-br ... 77095.html

Looks like the little "smack smack" will run somebody $100M:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/justice-dep ... _permalink

Might any of our barristers around here who may be familiar with Admiralty Law know to what extent Maersk, the m/v Dali's charterer, could be on tap? Likely the vessel's actual owner had inadequate insurance and will be petitioning for Bankruptcy in whatever jurisdiction they reside.

Maersk could be the only party in interest with pockets deep enough to satisfy a claim this size. They do have a US subsidiary and US flagged vessels (Jones Act compliant for intracoastal shipping) which would make me think they are potentially exposed.

I think it depends if Maersk was a "demise" charterer or a "non-demise" charterer of the ship. In a demise charter, the chaterer leases the boat but provides its own crew, while non-demise charters have crews provided by the owner of the ship. (I'd describe a demise charter as similar to the dry lease of an aircraft and a non-demise charter as similar to the wet lease of an aircraft.)

Mr. Randall W, from the media reports, it would appear that m/v Dali was chartered to Maersk "non-demise".

But, with their comparative "deep pockets", some injured party will go after them, but you, as apparently a Barrister, have a better "handle" on their potential success.

Journal

Times

It appears that The Times' article provides greater detail. There are many other parties, such as the families of the deceased workers, shippers who lost their cargo, that have standing as well. The $100M that Justice seeks may begin to cover the costs incurred by the Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, and Federal Officers from various agencies at the scene.

Since we gather here to discuss railroad industry affairs, no doubt Chessie and Topper will jump in for some Fancy Feast and oats.

Not even noted is the $1.9B (and four years) that The Times reports as the estimated cost to replace the bridge.

Of interest, neither article mentions any potential liability to which Maersk, the vessel's charterer, could be exposed, so as Mr. Randall W infers, they could be "off the hook".

But finally, if there is foundation to The Times reporting, that vessel was not seaworthy and was simply not fit to sail.