Jump to content

Baltimore Bridge Disaster


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

Just an idea, and without knowing anything about the local geology, but I do wonder if wouldn't be quicker to tunnel.  Those massive boring machines can chew about 1/6 of a mile in 30 days or so.  Considering the total length of the bridge, about 1.6 miles they could conceivably bore that in about 180 days.  Fitting the tunnel after the fact is another matter, but it may well be a quicker solution.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Just an idea, and without knowing anything about the local geology, but I do wonder if wouldn't be quicker to tunnel.  Those massive boring machines can chew about 1/6 of a mile in 30 days or so.  Considering the total length of the bridge, about 1.6 miles they could conceivably bore that in about 180 days.  Fitting the tunnel after the fact is another matter, but it may well be a quicker solution.  

A tunnel would take years. They’ll have the bridge rebuilt and open in a year tops. Governments have emergency contracts in place for when stuff like this happens, with massive financial incentives for companies to finish ahead of schedule. And with no traffic to worry about they can work almost unimpeded. They had that bridge in Minneapolis open like 10 months after it fell in the river. That Philly bridge that collapsed recently was reopened weeks later, although it was over land. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, CoTex said:

As someone who has been on the bridge of a large vessel during docking maneuvers, I thought I would share a little about how it works.

1.  The guy steering the boat isn't the captain.  Some low level dude.

2.  He's not holding a large wheel like Jack Sparrow.  It's probably a knob on a panel.

3.  Captain and pilot are standing nearby drinking coffee.

4.  If they lost steerage, or power, this unfolded slowly and there was little they could do.

Is there anything about these big ships that makes them more likely to lose power at low speed vs cruising? Or just straight up terrible luck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Helobious said:

A tunnel would take years. They’ll have the bridge rebuilt and open in a year tops. Governments have emergency contracts in place for when stuff like this happens, with massive financial incentives for companies to finish ahead of schedule. And with no traffic to worry about they can work almost unimpeded. They had that bridge in Minneapolis open like 10 months after it fell in the river. That Philly bridge that collapsed recently was reopened weeks later, although it was over land. 

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems like there is a huge difference between this:

I35W_Bridge.jpg.8b8c920bf414398278caa414cce1dd3e.jpg

and this:

Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_Eastern_View.jpg.webp

Edited by tokamak
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tokamak said:

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems like there is a huge difference between this:

I35W_Bridge.jpg.8b8c920bf414398278caa414cce1dd3e.jpg

and this:

 

Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_Eastern_View.jpg.webp 21.58 kB · 2 downloads

Helobius is being a moron again? Go figure. The Googles say the Minnesota bridge that collapsed was 1907 feet long. The Francis Scott Key Bridge is/was 57,546 feet long.

Just 'slightly' different.

 

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I was wondering how this wasn’t hundreds dead. Holy shit. 

I doubt there was too much traffic on it at 1:15AM on a Tuesday morning but, yes, it's amazing there aren't more cars/people who went into the water.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Daddy Fat Sax said:

Is there anything about these big ships that makes them more likely to lose power at low speed vs cruising? Or just straight up terrible luck?

Good question.  There are multiple failure modes and we need to know more.  Here are some kinda obvious examples

1.  The prop falls off.  No forward or reverse thrust.  They still have headway which means they maybe can steer and try to thread the needle/dodge the support.

2.  Fire in the engine room and everything auto shuts off to keep the ship from burning up.  In that case, you can turn the helm/call for more or less power but no response.

I predict that they start the engine some time before they leave the dock, let it warm up, and go through some check/tests.  Those are designed to expose anything big.  Also, noteworthy, the engine shutting off may or may not cause the lights flickering like they did.  That ship has batteries, backups.  If my car stalls the lights don't all go off - same concept.  

There is redundancy and none of it helped here, for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

I thought I was the only one.  Crossing the Bay Bridge or the Golden Gate used to make me sweat.  

My brother--when we're in San Francisco, I won't do it.  The last couple times to Napa, Mrs.LL knows I am going to pull over at the scenic overlook before we get to the Golden Gate Bridge and she is driving across.  I'm going to sit there and stare at my phone in the passenger seat as we go across.  But there's no fucking way I'm driving it.

The weird thing is--I'll walk out on it.  I mean, not to the center.  But I'll go out a hundred feet or so onto the bridge on the sidewalk.  But no fucking way I'm driving.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I doubt there was too much traffic on it at 1:15AM on a Tuesday morning but, yes, it's amazing there aren't more cars/people who went into the water.

Here's a pretty good time lapse.  You can see the volume of traffic and how it stops towards the end.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Helobious said:

They had that bridge in Minneapolis open like 10 months after it fell in the river. That Philly bridge that collapsed recently was reopened weeks later, although it was over land.

They aren't completing an 8,000 foot suspension bridge over the fucking ocean in under a year. That's an absurd timetable. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

They aren't completing an 8,000 foot suspension bridge over the fucking ocean in under a year. That's an absurd timetable. 

I dunno.....word is they've already got a crack team lined up for the job.....

13ec0fd94a95ffca1a3cc55c5b7e19e73496a413

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

They aren't completing an 8,000 foot suspension bridge over the fucking ocean in under a year. That's an absurd timetable. 

Well I definitely wouldn’t be giving your company a contract with that defeatist attitude. 
 

They need that thing open for commerce, for automobiles and all the ships that have to pass beneath it. It’ll be an all out push and people will be back driving on it March 2025. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

My brother--when we're in San Francisco, I won't do it.  The last couple times to Napa, Mrs.LL knows I am going to pull over at the scenic overlook before we get to the Golden Gate Bridge and she is driving across.  I'm going to sit there and stare at my phone in the passenger seat as we go across.  But there's no fucking way I'm driving it.

The weird thing is--I'll walk out on it.  I mean, not to the center.  But I'll go out a hundred feet or so onto the bridge on the sidewalk.  But no fucking way I'm driving.

I had a legitimate, full-blown panic attack while driving over the Ravenel bridge in Charleston, SC many years ago. My first (and thankfully one of the last) panic attacks, so had no idea what was going on. Remains one of the most terrifying experiences of my life. None since, but every time I hit a bridge behind a wheel I take a deep breath and think "here we go." 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You can feel it swaying underneath us.

I took a few ~250’ tall (long) towers over the Fred Hartman once.  1.2mm pounds each or thereabouts. Took in the neighborhood of 60 axles, 2 pull trucks and 2 push trucks for each tower.   It was swaying like a mf when they were coming up that thing.  I was legit pretty nervous and hoping the bridge engineer that go is the permits didn’t get his degree from aggy.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CoTex said:

When shit hits the fan the engineer runs to the engine room like Scotty in a Star Trek movie.

I predict they're going 5-10 knots and, when the engine stops (presuming it did), the ship is going to keep going 5-10 knots until it hits something hard or drifts to a stop.

How it probably went down

https://media1.tenor.com/images/8856829276753769696359b9a5767521/tenor.gif

tenor.gif?itemid=13595515
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

Wow never knew people could be such pussies about driving over a bridge

Dont be so callous and unempathetic.
My worst fear is being stuck in a car with people who are afraid of bridges. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

No worries, me and my guys will have that thing up an running in a couple of weeks, and by a couple of weeks, I mean about 400 and just a few billion dollars.  

In all seriousness, that's pretty awful, though I have to admit I'm surprised we don't get more of this.  Between failing infrastructure and just weird shit, its a chaotic world.  

This will obviously be much more difficult logistically, but that I95 bridge that fell around PHILLY got put up pretty quick. Maybe get some of those dudes to strap on scuba gear and help out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Helobius is being a moron again? Go figure. The Googles say the Minnesota bridge that collapsed was 1907 feet long. The Francis Scott Key Bridge is/was 57,546 feet long.

Just 'slightly' different.

 

I doubt there was too much traffic on it at 1:15AM on a Tuesday morning but, yes, it's amazing there aren't more cars/people who went into the water.

You may wanna rethink your math there, Professor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Native Horn said:

You may wanna rethink your math there, Professor.

He - or someone else - appears to have fat fingered 10.6 miles instead of 1.6.

Edited by ztejas
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Helobious said:

Well I definitely wouldn’t be giving your company a contract with that defeatist attitude. 
 

They need that thing open for commerce, for automobiles and all the ships that have to pass beneath it. It’ll be an all out push and people will be back driving on it March 2025. 

image.gif.e3cbb33b2275333b8c5b9c0029c2cc60.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

yeah we usually take that route when we're driving to NYC. That whole stretch from DC up to NYC is busy all the time.

It's a bit more of a choice from where you area coming from, but I always recommend going up the eastern shore and avoiding I-95

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Just an idea, and without knowing anything about the local geology, but I do wonder if wouldn't be quicker to tunnel.  Those massive boring machines can chew about 1/6 of a mile in 30 days or so.  Considering the total length of the bridge, about 1.6 miles they could conceivably bore that in about 180 days.  Fitting the tunnel after the fact is another matter, but it may well be a quicker solution.  

As someone who is a road builder and lives in a area with multiple underwater tunnels, two currently under construction for parallel tunnels,  I can assure you this is seriously not the case.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

They aren't completing an 8,000 foot suspension bridge over the fucking ocean in under a year. That's an absurd timetable. 

The real immediate issue is that the debris may block passage in and out of the port of Baltimore.  So ships can't exit the port, ships can't get in, and cargo can't go in or out.  First issue is to clear debris so ship traffic can flow and the port can resume operations.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve driven over this bridge over 50 times already this year and every single time I think about that bridge collapsing. The cruise ships that dock in NO are absolutely taller than the street level of the bridge. I assume the cruise ships need to take on some water to get low enough to make it under, but the thought that they may have grazed the bridge and caused some damage is in the back of my mind every time I cross it.

 

IMG_1443.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...