BLOODY HELL!!!

motorbiking said:
but given the depth in the area, a bit of banking or breakwater around the critical pillars would have caused a grounding rather than total destruction.
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind I still know nothing about ships! There have been a couple of mentions on this thread about a "channel". I'm guessing this is what they use a dredger for? Could they have avoided this disaster by dredging in such a way that the ship would have run aground if it had strayed too near to the bridge?
 
More the other way around. Bridge designers tend to install the supports in the shallower water. But in this case that would not have been possible.
 
It’s a wide channel. If you go to navionics and look at the chart viewer. You can see the span and depth. You will also see the overhead power/comms cables are protected. A few dolphin piles strategically placed would have done the job. We aren’t talking millions.
 
motorbiking said:
If only there was a whole industry dedicated to installing impact protection solutions for bridges in shipping channels
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, back in Congress, whilst Republicans vote against infrastructure spending, people are dying. Thank the Lord, they are not all as stupid as Trump and his idiot horn-smokers.

God Bless the RWR. (n)
 
motorbiking said:
If only there was a whole industry dedicated to installing impact protection solutions for bridges in shipping channels…. Oh wait, there is.
Click to expand...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing


The incident is raising questions about how much money American taxpayers are willing to spend to protect against these rare but deadly catastrophes. And not everyone agrees the Key Bridge could have been saved.

“There's a lot of debate taking place among the engineering community about whether any of those features could have had any role in a situation like this,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Wednesday at a White House briefing.


I will take his experience and advice above yours if you don't mind.
 
Someone thought it was worth protecting the overhead cables. I guess they didn’t listen to the “experts”.
IMG_5703.jpeg
 
You are aware they were they are not as old as the bridge and meet newer requirements, mb
 
Last edited:
noseall said:
Can you narrow it down for me please? In what way did they protect the overhead cables?
Click to expand...
The overhead option is still a complex project, as the Patapsco River is approximately 2 miles wide where the overhead lines will be placed. BGE will construct eight total transmission towers; five of them will be placed in the Patapsco River and equipped with collision-protection structures.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
The overhead option is still a complex project, as the Patapsco River is approximately 2 miles wide where the overhead lines will be placed. BGE will construct eight total transmission towers; five of them will be placed in the Patapsco River and equipped with collision-protection structures.
Click to expand...
So they are visually less easy to distinguish at the water line? Whereas the bridge supports are supposedly easier to define in most scenarios (fog, poor weather, poor light etc).
 
No none of that is a problem for ships.

The towers in the deep channel are protected with collision prevention “fenders”. Think retaining concrete walls around the towers with bumpers attached.

Ships and boats have been dealing with night time / poor visibility for years.

1. Everything is on a chart
2. The towers / banks will have a navigation aids / light sequence (also on the chart). For example these have a light that has a sequence of 4 quick white flashes.
3. Everyone has radar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top