BLOODY HELL!!!

The cable islands are in 6-8m of water at chart datum, DALI has/had a draught of at least 9m

I think even carman could work out what would happen.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
Not everybody agrees with you. As I linked to before.....



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 their expertise over yours.
Click to expand...
The guy whose job it is to protect the bridge says nothing could be done - who’d have thought.

We get those and bigger in Southampton- today I was passed by two that were 100m longer than Dali. All I can say is U.K. bridges are protected in the right places.
 
motorbiking said:
The guy whose job it is to protect the bridge says nothing could be done - who’d have thought.

We get those and bigger in Southampton- today I was passed by two that were 100m longer than Dali. All I can say is U.K. bridges are protected in the right places.
Click to expand...
I'd still take his , and the other experts opinions over yours

Not sure why you think you are such an expert in all this, sailor or not. It's more involved than you are trying to suggest.
 
There will be shallower draught vessels the cable towers need to be protected from.

Ferries, dredgers, large leisure vessels etc.
 
A handysize bulk carrier would have still taken the bridge out under the same criteria. Surely you are not suggesting the protection only focuses on Panamax carriers?

Plenty of handysize would not ground in 8m CD.
 
motorbiking said:
A handysize bulk carrier would have still taken the bridge out under the same criteria. Surely you are not suggesting the protection only focuses on Panamax carriers?

Plenty of handysize would not ground in 8m CD.
Click to expand...
No.
I'm saying that you referring to the protection of the cable towers is some kind of eureka/saviour/genius thing - when it actually isn't.
 
Are you suggesting the protection isn’t needed?

It’s not a “genius thing” to protect a structure from an impact that is a reasonable possibility.

The cost of the protection is one day of the economic impact of not having the bridge.

It’s not hard to justify and it would get funded from bridge tolls and harbour dues.
 
motorbiking said:
Are you suggesting the protection isn’t needed?
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is, that making a fuss and championing the protection of the cable towers is pointless in an argument where said protection is useless against a big ship or that the cable towers are in too shallow water to be affected by deeper draught boats.
 
I don’t think you appreciate that plenty of big vessels could still float in 8m of water. It could just as easily have been one of them.

Also your comment about direct hits. You have to remember that the bow of a boat is known as the pointy end for a reason. Deflection is highly likely even if the vessel is square on.

Plenty of experts agree that it needed protection.

Plenty of evidence suggests the US has more than its fair share of bridge collision disasters.

Looks like the structural problems are in the funding, risk assessment, budgeting etc. as much as the bridge design.

The Baltimore bridge disaster: what happened and who will pay?

Collapse will cause economic damage and bring new focus on quality of US infrastructure
www.ft.com www.ft.com
 
I think he is now, a multi million pound worldwide business leader, a lawyer (better than the Royals lawyers), a leading sailor, a tax expert, a European travel expert, and now a waterways and bridge construction expert. Have I missed anything?

Personally strikes me more like Uncle Albert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top