Stupide question? Did the bridge really need to collapse? (Page 3): Mechanics were working on this ship while in port...

bobups Loc: Bath pa

Mechanics were working on this ship while in port

Canisdirus

srt101fan wrote:

Oh, good! We have another expert answer. No need to waste money and time on any further investigations....

You sound...immature.

I just read more I guess.

Never claimed to be an expert...that was your comment.
Never claimed no need for further investigation...that was your comment.

Straw man.

pendennis

bobups wrote:

Mechanics were working on this ship while in port

Not unusual. All ships have ongoing maintenance while in port. Ships require 24/7 maintenance, and most have a rather complicated schedule of preventive maintenance. That doesn't include maintenance issues that arise from sudden failures.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

srt101fan wrote:

Of course that could have been a cause or contributing cause.

I just object to the dogmatic way some people rush to judgment. It's sadly emblematic of so much of our discourse on vitally important national issues.

Right. If someone had told the designed that a container ship would crash into the bridge in the future, he could have taken steps to change the design. I suspect financial constraints influenced the design. The people who demanded those constraints are now out of the picture, and someone else has to come up with $ millions to rebuild the bridge.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

This bridge collapse was nothing compared to the damage done by the monsters that had attacked Japan in the 50's and 60's. It was so bad that movies were made showing them in action. Oh, the horror...!😁

pendennis

jerryc41 wrote:

Right. If someone had told the designed that a container ship would crash into the bridge in the future, he could have taken steps to change the design. I suspect financial constraints influenced the design. The people who demanded those constraints are now out of the picture, and someone else has to come up with $ millions to rebuild the bridge.

Projects deal with the legs (parameters) - Cost - Time - Scope - of a triangle. Any change in one of the legs changes the other two. Project managers deal with these parameters all the time.

Too many folks commenting on shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Stuff happens, tragically yes, but stuff happens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

sippyjug104 wrote:

This bridge collapse was nothing compared to the damage done by the monsters that had attacked Japan in the 50's and 60's. It was so bad that movies were made showing them in action. Oh, the horror...!😁

And later, those two monsters met and fought it out. Fortunately, they didn't join forces and attack humanity. In that case, the atom bomb would have been our weapon of choice. As in most cases, using an atom bomb against monsters and aliens is totally useless. "We're gonna need a bigger bomb."

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

pendennis wrote:

Projects deal with the legs (parameters) - Cost - Time - Scope - of a triangle. Any change in one of the legs changes the other two. Project managers deal with these parameters all the time.

Too many folks commenting on shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Stuff happens, tragically yes, but stuff happens.

Preventing is better than happening.

Rich2236 Loc: E. Hampstead, New Hampshire

Forget the bridge abutments, why didn't the captain let go the anchor when he first realized the power was out all over the ship. THAT, would have stopped the ship in its tracks!!!

pendennis

Rich2236 wrote:

Forget the bridge abutments, why didn't the captain let go the anchor when he first realized the power was out all over the ship. THAT, would have stopped the ship in its tracks!!!

No it wouldn't. Dropping the bow anchors brings a whole new set of problems with a ship of that mass and length. An emergency anchor was dropped, but that's akin to dropping a fishing line and hook and hoping it catches on some weeds.

Dropping the anchor will require power to the winches and windlass gear. Time is also a factor.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Rich2236 wrote:

Forget the bridge abutments, why didn't the captain let go the anchor when he first realized the power was out all over the ship. THAT, would have stopped the ship in its tracks!!!

A recent report said he did drop an anchor,...

Rich2236 Loc: E. Hampstead, New Hampshire

Longshadow wrote:

A recent report said he did drop an anchor,...

Ahhhh....

Charles Whittier

The bridge was classed as a "Fracture Critical" bridge with "No Redundancy". Meaning if a member falls that would likely cause a portion of, or the entire bridge to collapse. Incorporation of redundancies is the preferred method in present day bridges. This brifge is one of 17,468 Fracture Critical bridges in the US today out of 615,000 total bridges.
As SCHEE said earlier, tugs should escort ships out past the last brodge.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

jerryc41 wrote:

< snip > I suspect financial constraints influenced the design. The people who demanded those constraints are now out of the picture, and someone else has to come up with $ millions to rebuild the bridge.

I've read that the original plan was to build a tunnel, and work had actually begun on approaches to a tunnel when somebody decided they could save money if they built a bridge instead. (Would be interesting to know if perhaps it was a bridge builder who wasn't going to participate in the tunnel work who got to a decision maker with a bridge-is-cheaper proposal.) So yes, financial savings were behind the original decision to build a bridge, and (I assume) are always present during the design stage of any construction project.

kufengler Loc: Meridian, Idaho 83646

SteveR wrote:

Why weren't there protective concrete pylons in front of each bridge support that would have brought any ship to a stop before actually hitting the bridge supports? Granted, I'm not an engineer, but it seems like common sense.

This will most likely be done when a new bridge is built.

I just wonder why the tug boats didn't guide the ship until past the bridge?