Freightliner oops

[whole diary]

[inspector_blakey]

Probably not really the "lighter side" if you're the insurance company paying out for this, but here's what happened when 70012, a brand new Freightliner diesel locomotive, was dropped "15-20 feet" back into the hold of the ship delivering it when part of the lifting rig failed.

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-piccies-of-celebrity-loco-70012.html

[caliwag]

On the heavier side!

[JonG]

A celebrity for all the wrong reasons!

[Tim]

Apparently Freightliner's insurers are not responsible because the loco fell back into the ship (imagine the bill if the ship had also been damaged!) and so technically had not yet "landed in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)" at the time of the acident.

[inspector_blakey]

Apparently there was modest damage to the vessel, but not enough to prevent it sailing more or less on schedule to its next port in Belgium. I think the loco has been sent back to Erie, PA^▸ (Public Address (broadcast loudspeaker announcements) or Passenger Assist (railway staff providing physical assistance to passengers with mobility issues), depending on context) where it was made, but general opinion seems to be that it's a write-off. Does that mean that the shipping company is liable for the loss, given that they dropped it before it landed in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), or is the legal situation more complicated?

[Tim]

Does that mean that the shipping company is liable for the loss, given that they dropped it before it landed in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom),

possibly, or maybe the party operating the crane?

[rogerpatenall]

Probably the Marine insurers are liable, until the freight has crossed the railings of the ship upon unloading. Interesting case I had, where an item was unloaded, but there was insufficient space on dockside to lower, so it was taken back onto the ship, over the railings, and then the worst happened! Dock authorities had to pay under their Public Liability as they should have checked the space available.
But, of course, depends on the contract.

[inspector_blakey]

I read elsewhere in relation to this incident that there are two definitions of "crossing the rail" - one is vertically (i.e. lifted above the level of the ship's rail but still above the hold) and the other laterally (swung outside the footprint of the ship). I've no idea how accurate this it, but it was suggested that this case may be complicated by the fact that the load had been raised above the level of the ship's rail before being dropped, but not been swung outboard.

Glad I'm not the lawyer/insurance company dealing with this!

[JayMac]

Another nice image of the banana'd Class 70 Powerfall:

http://martinturner.fotopic.net/p68663398.html

An all over yellow livery would perhaps be appropriate!

Do we know whether the lifting gear was shore mounted or ship mounted?

[inspector_blakey]

Ship-mounted, by the look of it:

http://www.cargolaw.com/2011nightmare_GE.Class70.html

A slightly strange web page, from the law offices of Countryman and McDaniel in Los Angeles, CA. But if you scroll down (in amongst the pictures of class 70 models!) there are lots of pics of the Beluga Endurance, including the loading procedure at Erie, PA^▸ (Public Address (broadcast loudspeaker announcements) or Passenger Assist (railway staff providing physical assistance to passengers with mobility issues), depending on context). The class 70s are sufficiently small compared to the US loading gauge that they were actually delivered to the port on flat wagons.

[JayMac]

Good find there blakey! I was right behind you - I'd found a blog post about the Beluga Endurance which confirmed it was a ship mounted crane. Google had thrown up the page you linked to further down the list.

Here's an excellent comparison of just how dinky the Class 70 is when compared to the beasts that prowl the lines in the US:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czF7n0umETo