Talk:ING 4727

Whether the barge did it

I'm removing the following from the article...

PLEASE NOTE: THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION IN TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS INDICATED THE BARGE DID NOT CAUSE THE LEVEE BREECH. PROFESSOR ROBERT BEA AND OF BERKELEY AND IVOR VAN HEERDEN OF THE LSU HURRICANE CENTER ATTRIBUTED THE FAILURES TO THE STORM SURGE. IN FACT THEY BOTH INDICATE THAT THEIR PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ARE THAT THE BARGE DID NOT CAUSE THE PROBLEM.

... and placing it here on the talk page (obviously), where it can be discussed. I have always doubted that the barge was the culprit, and the professors' testimony and/or conclusions should certainly be included in the article (with references), but slapping in a paragraph in all-capitals is hardly the way to flesh out an encyclopedia article. — Muffuletta 01:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly was the barge before the storm?

The eye witnesss account on Gulf Coast Mariners site seems to place barge in the MRGO. User Runner28 changed that to that it was in the Industrial Canal. For all I know that may be correct, but as no source was offered I reverted that pending additional information or source. Is there any better sourced info on exactly where it was when before the storm? -- Infrogmation 05:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the GCMA eyewitness doesn't seem to have noted the name/number of the runaway barge he saw (can't say I blame him; I would have been busy changing my drawers). And it's possible that Runner28 was referring colloquially to the Industrial Canal, meaning generally that area back there where the IHNC and MRGO and ICW are. Maybe he or she could shed some light on that.

Based on my experience with barge traffic patterns "in the back," I doubt that an empty dry cargo barge would be between Florida Avenue Bridge and Industrial Lock. No reason for it to be there, and I think with the new lock construction going on there wouldn't be anyplace to tie it up. It's more likely that a barge like that would be in one of the barge fleeting areas adjacent to the old bulk plant.

Regarding better-sourced info, Ingram Barge Company has always been rather efficient about keeping track of barges—they had computer systems way back when others in the industry didn't, and they might even have GPS transponders on their barges now—and they're probably the only ones who know exactly where ING 4727 was. Something tells me we won't get that info until Ingram's lawyers feel like telling us. — Muffuletta 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jourdan

I also changed "Jourdan Road" to "Jourdan Avenue"; I've seen and heard both, but "Avenue" is how it's rendered on the closest surviving street sign I saw. -- Infrogmation 06:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Size matters

I took the liberty of removing the phrase, "due to its size"—as in, the barge was notable due to its size and where it landed—simply because ING 4727 is actually a very typical barge for this geographic area. The majority, or at least plurality, of barges on the Mississippi River System (including the Industrial Canal) are either 195 or 200 feet long and 35 feet wide (roughly 60 m by 10.5 m). I would mention this in the article, but I don't have a reference in front of me. The Corps has the data.... — Muffuletta 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the phrase about notable size in, perhaps not as well worded as it could have been, in reference to the vessels which broke their moorings. Yes, many vessels broke their moorings in the storm and flooding, but those visible from driving and walking around the metro area (I was back before most had yet been moved) otherwise had small yachts and shrimp boats as their largest examples. ING 4727 may be typical of size for a modern barge, but for something that washed into the streets of New Orleans, it was uniquely huge. -- Infrogmation 13:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point; maybe we should put a mention back in there. In fact, maybe draw attention to how much bigger the barge is (was) than the average house. A typical double shotgun is 25 feet by maybe 75 feet (roughly 7.5 m by 20 or 25 m), and I think a lot of the houses in the Lower 9th are smaller. I'll ponder that. — Muffuletta 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)