Panamax/Suezmax cargo ships are generally provided, as are many smaller vessels in these modern times, with alternative sources of three-phase (and/or through less efficient methodologies) with @ least one electrical power generation & distribution ‘backup’ (even if their reach is not 'ship-wide, to ALL auxiliary systems dedicated to the Life Support needs of the embarked crew, probably because crew consideration don’t count as much as does cargo, Maritime Insurance, & profitability in the operator’s calculations).
There exist global agreements on the ever-evolving Maritime Law - mostly less-older, now, than a ½-century back, but NOT entirely - which specify that compliance with such a provision is mandatory for entry into this or that Port Of Call.
This is an awful story I heard a few years ago:
I saw some coverage of the controlled demolition of the part of the bridge resting on the ship. They waited until all the victims had been recovered before doing this (I’m not really too sentimental, but I can see that being a good thing).
The coverage mentioned that the crew was on board, not only because they normally never leave the ship (even in port), but because they are the ones that would be best able to respond if anything went wrong with the demolition. Makes complete sense.
And of course, if I had ever entertained any thought that working on a ship would be a good idea, this is further evidence to the contrary.
Last I saw, it was not sure if removing the superstructure of the bridge was enough to re-float the ship; a section of roadway is still resting over the ship.
