Stupide question? Did the bridge really need to collapse?
Mar 28, 2024 13:06:05 #
Artcameraman
Loc: Springfield NH
Why is the U.S. government paying for the replacement? Isn't there insurance on the ship?
Mar 28, 2024 13:07:13 #
dustie wrote:
A massive, massive, massive, massive catch cable/catch net system....a la aircraft carrier jet catcher idea.....if it's massive enough, and occupies enough harbor area to prevent a ship reaching the bridge......and the ship fails far enough away from the bridge for the catch system to catch it......
KIDDING, man!! Kidding!!
KIDDING, man!! Kidding!!
I was trying to picture that system. Then I saw your last line. 😂
Mar 28, 2024 13:11:00 #
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, anchors are for holding in place, not stopping. If you drop one while moving it drags along the bottom, if it reaches it, and slows the vessel. Even if there was rock or some other solid thing for the anchor to catch on, the chain would have been snapped like an overstretched rubber band.
In this case you are talking about nearly 117,000* tons, loaded, moving at around 9mph.
*stats on the Dali found online
Mar 28, 2024 13:14:12 #
srt101fan wrote:
Oh, good! We have another expert answer. No need to waste money and time on any further investigations....
Amazing how knowledgable half armed (Haha) arm chair quarterbacks can be, particularly with the speculative information available.Mar 28, 2024 13:18:12 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I was trying to picture that system. Then I saw your last line. 😂
Sorry!!
I should have stuck my tongue in my cheek sooner....and hope I didn't take a bite.
Mar 28, 2024 13:19:07 #
This is a older bridge, but the ship is a medium sized supply tanker. It could have upto 15,000 TEU's ( 20 ft equivalents ) on the ship. That makes it extremely top heavy and the weight. The maximum capacity is 47,900 lbs and a total weight of 52,813 lbs per container. That is a lot of dead weight. I would bet that without power, it would have gone through concrete pilings. I bet they change the tug policy to where a tug can't leave until they are through the channel and maybe to the pier.
Mar 28, 2024 13:23:42 #
SteveR wrote:
Concrete would work the same way, don't you think? After all, since the 1980 Tampa bridge disaster, engineers have worked on this problem and there is a standard solution and implemented it.
Ah, but this bridge was built before that. Of course you could build "islands" or whatever so massive they could stop any ship but they would be huge and maybe even block a large portion of the channel, making for even more ships damaged by hitting them. You could even build huge islands to support the bridge creating something looking like a canal and then take the ships through with something like the "Mules" on railroad tracks down each side used in Panama. They both hold the ships in the middle and pull them through at slow speed.
If in the future someone built ships even larger, well, they couldn't get through at all and thus cut down on the usefulness of the port.
Mar 28, 2024 13:27:41 #
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!!!
THAT would be kinda like a 300 lb linebacker running across the field, dropping a treble hook tied to a piece of dental floss, so he could stop in his tracks instead of bumping into the 165 lb referee.
Mar 28, 2024 13:27:51 #
It could have weighted much more than that depending on how many 20 ft equivalents of containers are on the ship. A 20 ft. Container fully loaded could weigh 53,000 lbs each. A 900 ft ship 5 high could hold 9000 containers. This brigde was started in 1972 and went into service in 1977. That is fairly young in comparison to other bridges. I guess we won't find out for several months what it is going to take to rebuild or replace the bridge. It is going to be a pain for Baltimore's residents. I spent 2 years living in Fells Point doing a contract during Y2K and I fell in love with living on the inner harbor. There used to be a bar called the Dead End which was my teams go to after work.
Mar 28, 2024 13:29:24 #
Mar 28, 2024 13:32:36 #
SteveR wrote:
And you know because....
I believe in "Murphy's Law", it is the most consistently right statement by any human that I know of. And the Army version I learned in Vietnam is even better = "Whatever can go wrong, will, sooner or later and probably both times. Then it will get worse."
Mar 28, 2024 13:33:12 #
robertjerl wrote:
...
If it had still been under power, it probably would have gotten quite a bit further. The bow of the ship is past the base the bridge stood on by a little bit.
If it had still been under power, it probably would have gotten quite a bit further. The bow of the ship is past the base the bridge stood on by a little bit.
If it had been under power it would have been in the center of the channel..........
Not at the mercy of the tide and wind.
Mar 28, 2024 13:36:43 #
gouldopfl wrote:
This is a older bridge, but the ship is a medium sized supply tanker. It could have upto 15,000 TEU's ( 20 ft equivalents ) on the ship. That makes it extremely top heavy and the weight. The maximum capacity is 47,900 lbs and a total weight of 52,813 lbs per container. That is a lot of dead weight. I would bet that without power, it would have gone through concrete pilings. I bet they change the tug policy to where a tug can't leave until they are through the channel and maybe to the pier.
Top heavy if the entire load is above deck.
Container ships are not like an empty bottle with the load just attached to the top, outside surface.
Mar 28, 2024 13:37:49 #
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.
Gee, why don't they put brakes on ships so they can stop them. Hard to stop tons of ship and cargo on a dime. Container ship probably would have taken out the bridge at 2 knots. Too much weight.
Mar 28, 2024 13:39:48 #
Longshadow wrote:
If it had been under power it would have been in the center of the channel..........
Not at the mercy of the tide and wind.
Not at the mercy of the tide and wind.
In this case, probably, but what if a ship under power just had a rudder failure? Now, many ships in that situation could reverse the screws to help slow faster. But would it be slowed and stopped in time to prevent a collision???
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.