On 28/03/2024 18:07, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:49:57 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/2024 13:40, Paul wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 6:36 PM, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> On 27/03/2024 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 27-Mar-24 4:42, Paul wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 12:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There’s already talk of replacing the bridge (which was
>>>>>>>> undoubtably an
>>>>>>>> elegant structure), but surely at the mouth of a very busy
>>>>>>>> shipping port a
>>>>>>>> tunnel would make much more sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Material          Steel
>>>>>> Total length      8,636 feet
>>>>>> Longest span      1,200 feet (366 m)
>>>>>> Clearance below   185 feet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The span is too big to do entirely without piers.
>>>>>> (The total length will include boring bits over land on either side.)
>>>>>> But the piece for the shipping channel might be made longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they could pre-fabricate some of the pieces on land,
>>>>>> to speed up the process (time versus cost tradeoff).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An actual decently detailed report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68664664
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      "He said the vessel had been moving at a "very, very rapid"
>>>>>>       eight knots, or roughly 9mph (15km/h)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you would suspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you listen to the radio traffic in a harbour,
>>>>>> there's a bit of surveillance going on. Including video tape
>>>>>> at various points, of your arrival and departure. You're not
>>>>>> exactly "leaving under cover of darkness". You're being watched,
>>>>>> and usually, with multiple video cameras, for infractions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The radio channel recording in one of the reports, is not
>>>>>> the harbour channel. That one sounds more like ATC in nature.
>>>>>> I've listened to that, in the neighbours boat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's possible there's a speed limit there. And there were not one
>>>>>> but two pilots aboard (the pilots are normally provided by the
>>>>>> harbour you are entering, and having more than one pilot is
>>>>>> not abnormal). And the last thing you want to do, is
>>>>>> be speeding going under a bridge (because your wake
>>>>>> can degrade those islands that protect the bridge).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/coast-pilot/files/cp3/CPB3_C15_WEB.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly a difference between 'Speed through the water' and speed
>>>>> over the ground'?
>>>>> If the tide was flowing in as the ship was leaving, they may have
>>>>> had to increase their speed through the water to maintain progress.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  From the tide charts, the ship set sail around low tide. The tide
>>>> would have been coming in, but not at its fastest.
>>>  Based on the ship having electrical problems while it was in port,
>>> the entire exit from port was reckless.
>>
>> The extension of that logic is that the ship should never have left
>> port at any time, ever.
>>
>> Presumably, somebody would have decided that the problems had been
>> resolved and the ship was in a suitable condition to sail. The
>> investigation will determine who that was and whether, given the
>> information available at the time and not hindsight, it was a
>> reasonable decision to make. If not, they are going to get a very
>> large bill from the ship's insurers.
>
> But the other alternative was to take some insurance
> in the form of a tug or two given the known vulnerability
> ot that bridge after it had been decided that the fault
> seen while in port had been fixed.

I doubt it was the only ship that had some sort of problem fixed while
in port. It is only with hindsight that we can see which of those could
have benefitted from a tug escorting them out, assuming, of course, that
it would have made any difference. There was not a lot of time to get a
tug in position and making a difference to the course between the power
failure and the impact.

>
>>>  This is a replay of the track.
>>>       https://youtu.be/N39w6aQFKSQ
>>>  You can see how much room there is for navigation.
>>>      Paul

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 06:23:38 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 18:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:49:57 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/03/2024 13:40, Paul wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 6:36 PM, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/2024 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> On 27-Mar-24 4:42, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 12:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There’s already talk of replacing the bridge (which was
>>>>>>>>> undoubtably an
>>>>>>>>> elegant structure), but surely at the mouth of a very busy
>>>>>>>>> shipping port a
>>>>>>>>> tunnel would make much more sense?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Material Steel
>>>>>>> Total length 8,636 feet
>>>>>>> Longest span 1,200 feet (366 m)
>>>>>>> Clearance below 185 feet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The span is too big to do entirely without piers.
>>>>>>> (The total length will include boring bits over land on either
>>>>>>> side.)
>>>>>>> But the piece for the shipping channel might be made longer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe they could pre-fabricate some of the pieces on land,
>>>>>>> to speed up the process (time versus cost tradeoff).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An actual decently detailed report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68664664
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "He said the vessel had been moving at a "very, very rapid"
>>>>>>> eight knots, or roughly 9mph (15km/h)."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you would suspect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you listen to the radio traffic in a harbour,
>>>>>>> there's a bit of surveillance going on. Including video tape
>>>>>>> at various points, of your arrival and departure. You're not
>>>>>>> exactly "leaving under cover of darkness". You're being watched,
>>>>>>> and usually, with multiple video cameras, for infractions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The radio channel recording in one of the reports, is not
>>>>>>> the harbour channel. That one sounds more like ATC in nature.
>>>>>>> I've listened to that, in the neighbours boat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's possible there's a speed limit there. And there were not one
>>>>>>> but two pilots aboard (the pilots are normally provided by the
>>>>>>> harbour you are entering, and having more than one pilot is
>>>>>>> not abnormal). And the last thing you want to do, is
>>>>>>> be speeding going under a bridge (because your wake
>>>>>>> can degrade those islands that protect the bridge).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/coast-pilot/files/cp3/CPB3_C15_WEB.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly a difference between 'Speed through the water' and speed
>>>>>> over the ground'?
>>>>>> If the tide was flowing in as the ship was leaving, they may have
>>>>>> had to increase their speed through the water to maintain progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the tide charts, the ship set sail around low tide. The tide
>>>>> would have been coming in, but not at its fastest.
>>>> Based on the ship having electrical problems while it was in port,
>>>> the entire exit from port was reckless.
>>>
>>> The extension of that logic is that the ship should never have left
>>> port at any time, ever.
>>>
>>> Presumably, somebody would have decided that the problems had been
>>> resolved and the ship was in a suitable condition to sail. The
>>> investigation will determine who that was and whether, given the
>>> information available at the time and not hindsight, it was a
>>> reasonable decision to make. If not, they are going to get a very
>>> large bill from the ship's insurers.
>> But the other alternative was to take some insurance
>> in the form of a tug or two given the known vulnerability
>> ot that bridge after it had been decided that the fault
>> seen while in port had been fixed.

> I doubt it was the only ship that had some sort of problem fixed while
> in port.

Corse not, but that is a separate issue to whether
that has happened with something as crucial as
the main engine, at a port with such a vulnerable
bridge, whether it makes sense to include a couple
of tugs on the trip out of the port so that it it had not
been properly fixed, the tugs could ensure that there
was no possibility of the ship taking out that bridge.

> It is only with hindsight that we can see which of thosecould have
> benefitted from a tug escorting them out,

That's bullshit. perfectly possible to realise that
it might not have been fixed and to include that
insurance that if it turned out to be an intermittent
fault, that the bridge would still be safe.

> assuming, of course, that it would have made any difference.

Of course it would have if the tugs were all hawsered up so
that they could take over if the main engines failed again.

> There was not a lot of time to get a tug in position

Perfectly possible to have them in position
in case they were needed, or even use the
tugs to get the ship past the bridge so the
ship engines were irrelevant.

> and making a difference to the coursebetween the power failure and the
> impact.

Stupid to do it that way.
>
>>
>>>> This is a replay of the track.
>>>> https://youtu.be/N39w6aQFKSQ
>>>> You can see how much room there is for navigation.
>>>> Paul

On 28/03/2024 21:24, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 06:23:38 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/2024 18:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:49:57 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/03/2024 13:40, Paul wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2024 6:36 PM, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/03/2024 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27-Mar-24 4:42, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 12:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There’s already talk of replacing the bridge (which was
>>>>>>>>>> undoubtably an
>>>>>>>>>> elegant structure), but surely at the mouth of a very busy
>>>>>>>>>> shipping port a
>>>>>>>>>> tunnel would make much more sense?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Material          Steel
>>>>>>>> Total length      8,636 feet
>>>>>>>> Longest span      1,200 feet (366 m)
>>>>>>>> Clearance below   185 feet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The span is too big to do entirely without piers.
>>>>>>>> (The total length will include boring bits over land on either
>>>>>>>> side.)
>>>>>>>> But the piece for the shipping channel might be made longer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe they could pre-fabricate some of the pieces on land,
>>>>>>>> to speed up the process (time versus cost tradeoff).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An actual decently detailed report.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68664664
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      "He said the vessel had been moving at a "very, very rapid"
>>>>>>>>       eight knots, or roughly 9mph (15km/h)."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you would suspect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you listen to the radio traffic in a harbour,
>>>>>>>> there's a bit of surveillance going on. Including video tape
>>>>>>>> at various points, of your arrival and departure. You're not
>>>>>>>> exactly "leaving under cover of darkness". You're being watched,
>>>>>>>> and usually, with multiple video cameras, for infractions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The radio channel recording in one of the reports, is not
>>>>>>>> the harbour channel. That one sounds more like ATC in nature.
>>>>>>>> I've listened to that, in the neighbours boat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's possible there's a speed limit there. And there were not one
>>>>>>>> but two pilots aboard (the pilots are normally provided by the
>>>>>>>> harbour you are entering, and having more than one pilot is
>>>>>>>> not abnormal). And the last thing you want to do, is
>>>>>>>> be speeding going under a bridge (because your wake
>>>>>>>> can degrade those islands that protect the bridge).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/coast-pilot/files/cp3/CPB3_C15_WEB.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possibly a difference between 'Speed through the water' and speed
>>>>>>> over the ground'?
>>>>>>> If the tide was flowing in as the ship was leaving, they may have
>>>>>>> had to increase their speed through the water to maintain progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  From the tide charts, the ship set sail around low tide. The tide
>>>>>> would have been coming in, but not at its fastest.
>>>>>  Based on the ship having electrical problems while it was in port,
>>>>> the entire exit from port was reckless.
>>>>
>>>> The extension of that logic is that the ship should never have left
>>>> port at any time, ever.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably, somebody would have decided that the problems had been
>>>> resolved and the ship was in a suitable condition to sail. The
>>>> investigation will determine who that was and whether, given the
>>>> information available at the time and not hindsight, it was a
>>>> reasonable decision to make. If not, they are going to get a very
>>>> large bill from the ship's insurers.
>>>  But the other alternative was to take some insurance
>>> in the form of a tug or two given the known vulnerability
>>> ot that bridge after it had been decided that the fault
>>> seen while in port had been fixed.
>
>> I doubt it was the only ship that had some sort of problem fixed while
>> in port.
>
> Corse not, but that is a separate issue to whether
> that has happened with something as crucial as
> the main engine,

The reports I have seen only said an electrical problem. No mention of
problems with the engines while in port.

> at a port with such a vulnerable
> bridge, whether it makes sense to include a couple
> of tugs on the trip out of the port so that it it had not
> been properly fixed, the tugs could ensure that there
> was no possibility of the ship taking out that bridge.
>
>> It is only with hindsight that we can see which of thosecould  have
>> benefitted from a tug escorting them out,
>
> That's bullshit. perfectly possible to realise that
> it might not have been fixed and to include that
> insurance that if it turned out to be an intermittent
> fault, that the bridge would still be safe.

Tugs doing escort duty at Baltimore cost $1,700 per tug per hour, and
the ship reached the bridge just over an hour after undocking. Wire
hawsers cost an additional $1,900 to attach and a further $1,900 to
detach. Who is going to pay for this 'insurance' given that the pilots
would have needed to have assurances that the ship was seaworthy before
allowing it to undock?

>
>> assuming, of course, that  it would have made any difference.
>
> Of course it would have if the tugs were all hawsered up so
> that they could take over if the main engines failed again.
>
>> There was not a lot of time to get a  tug in position
>
> Perfectly possible to have them in position
> in case they were needed, or even use the
> tugs to get the ship past the bridge so the
> ship engines were irrelevant.
>
>> and making a difference to the coursebetween the power  failure and
>> the impact.
>
> Stupid to do it that way.
>>
>>>
>>>>>  This is a replay of the track.
>>>>>       https://youtu.be/N39w6aQFKSQ
>>>>>  You can see how much room there is for navigation.
>>>>>      Paul

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:44:59 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 21:24, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 06:23:38 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/03/2024 18:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:49:57 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/03/2024 13:40, Paul wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 6:36 PM, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/03/2024 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27-Mar-24 4:42, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 12:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There’s already talk of replacing the bridge (which was
>>>>>>>>>>> undoubtably an
>>>>>>>>>>> elegant structure), but surely at the mouth of a very busy
>>>>>>>>>>> shipping port a
>>>>>>>>>>> tunnel would make much more sense?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Material Steel
>>>>>>>>> Total length 8,636 feet
>>>>>>>>> Longest span 1,200 feet (366 m)
>>>>>>>>> Clearance below 185 feet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The span is too big to do entirely without piers.
>>>>>>>>> (The total length will include boring bits over land on either
>>>>>>>>> side.)
>>>>>>>>> But the piece for the shipping channel might be made longer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe they could pre-fabricate some of the pieces on land,
>>>>>>>>> to speed up the process (time versus cost tradeoff).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An actual decently detailed report.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68664664
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "He said the vessel had been moving at a "very, very rapid"
>>>>>>>>> eight knots, or roughly 9mph (15km/h)."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As you would suspect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you listen to the radio traffic in a harbour,
>>>>>>>>> there's a bit of surveillance going on. Including video tape
>>>>>>>>> at various points, of your arrival and departure. You're not
>>>>>>>>> exactly "leaving under cover of darkness". You're being watched,
>>>>>>>>> and usually, with multiple video cameras, for infractions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The radio channel recording in one of the reports, is not
>>>>>>>>> the harbour channel. That one sounds more like ATC in nature.
>>>>>>>>> I've listened to that, in the neighbours boat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's possible there's a speed limit there. And there were not one
>>>>>>>>> but two pilots aboard (the pilots are normally provided by the
>>>>>>>>> harbour you are entering, and having more than one pilot is
>>>>>>>>> not abnormal). And the last thing you want to do, is
>>>>>>>>> be speeding going under a bridge (because your wake
>>>>>>>>> can degrade those islands that protect the bridge).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/coast-pilot/files/cp3/CPB3_C15_WEB.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Possibly a difference between 'Speed through the water' and speed
>>>>>>>> over the ground'?
>>>>>>>> If the tide was flowing in as the ship was leaving, they may have
>>>>>>>> had to increase their speed through the water to maintain
>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the tide charts, the ship set sail around low tide. The tide
>>>>>>> would have been coming in, but not at its fastest.
>>>>>> Based on the ship having electrical problems while it was in port,
>>>>>> the entire exit from port was reckless.
>>>>>
>>>>> The extension of that logic is that the ship should never have left
>>>>> port at any time, ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably, somebody would have decided that the problems had been
>>>>> resolved and the ship was in a suitable condition to sail. The
>>>>> investigation will determine who that was and whether, given the
>>>>> information available at the time and not hindsight, it was a
>>>>> reasonable decision to make. If not, they are going to get a very
>>>>> large bill from the ship's insurers.
>>>> But the other alternative was to take some insurance
>>>> in the form of a tug or two given the known vulnerability
>>>> ot that bridge after it had been decided that the fault
>>>> seen while in port had been fixed.
>>
>>> I doubt it was the only ship that had some sort of problem fixed while
>>> in port.

>> Corse not, but that is a separate issue to whether
>> that has happened with something as crucial as
>> the main engine,

> The reports I have seen only said an electrical problem.No mention of
> problems with the engines while in port.

But clearly an electrical problem can see
the ship hit and demolish that bridge pylon.

>> at a port with such a vulnerable
>> bridge, whether it makes sense to include a couple
>> of tugs on the trip out of the port so that it it had not
>> been properly fixed, the tugs could ensure that there
>> was no possibility of the ship taking out that bridge.
>>
>>> It is only with hindsight that we can see which of thosecould have
>>> benefitted from a tug escorting them out,

>> That's bullshit. perfectly possible to realise that
>> it might not have been fixed and to include that
>> insurance that if it turned out to be an intermittent
>> fault, that the bridge would still be safe.

> Tugs doing escort duty at Baltimore cost $1,700 per tug per hour,and
> the ship reached the bridge just over an hour after undocking.

Much cheaper than it will cost now.

> Wire hawsers cost an additional $1,900 to attach and a further$1,900
> to detach. Who is going to pay for this 'insurance' giventhat the
> pilots would have needed to have assurances that theship was seaworthy
> before allowing it to undock?

Fat lot of good those 'assurances' turned out to be.

Of course the shipping company pays for the costs
when the port requires them to do that when there
is a real possibility that the fault has not been fixed
and the consequences are so expensive if it turns
out that it had not been properly fixed.

>>> assuming, of course, that it would have made any difference.

>> Of course it would have if the tugs were all hawsered up so
>> that they could take over if the main engines failed again.

>>> There was not a lot of time to get a tug in position

>> Perfectly possible to have them in position
>> in case they were needed, or even use the
>> tugs to get the ship past the bridge so the
>> ship engines were irrelevant.

>>> and making a difference to the coursebetween the power failure and
>>> the impact.

>> Stupid to do it that way.

>>>>>> This is a replay of the track.
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/N39w6aQFKSQ
>>>>>> You can see how much room there is for navigation.
>>>>>> Paul

On 28/03/2024 23:11, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:44:59 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/2024 21:24, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 06:23:38 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/03/2024 18:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:49:57 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/03/2024 13:40, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 6:36 PM, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/03/2024 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27-Mar-24 4:42, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 12:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s already talk of replacing the bridge (which was
>>>>>>>>>>>> undoubtably an
>>>>>>>>>>>> elegant structure), but surely at the mouth of a very busy
>>>>>>>>>>>> shipping port a
>>>>>>>>>>>> tunnel would make much more sense?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Material          Steel
>>>>>>>>>> Total length      8,636 feet
>>>>>>>>>> Longest span      1,200 feet (366 m)
>>>>>>>>>> Clearance below   185 feet
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The span is too big to do entirely without piers.
>>>>>>>>>> (The total length will include boring bits over land on either
>>>>>>>>>> side.)
>>>>>>>>>> But the piece for the shipping channel might be made longer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe they could pre-fabricate some of the pieces on land,
>>>>>>>>>> to speed up the process (time versus cost tradeoff).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An actual decently detailed report.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68664664
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      "He said the vessel had been moving at a "very, very rapid"
>>>>>>>>>>       eight knots, or roughly 9mph (15km/h)."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As you would suspect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you listen to the radio traffic in a harbour,
>>>>>>>>>> there's a bit of surveillance going on. Including video tape
>>>>>>>>>> at various points, of your arrival and departure. You're not
>>>>>>>>>> exactly "leaving under cover of darkness". You're being watched,
>>>>>>>>>> and usually, with multiple video cameras, for infractions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The radio channel recording in one of the reports, is not
>>>>>>>>>> the harbour channel. That one sounds more like ATC in nature.
>>>>>>>>>> I've listened to that, in the neighbours boat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's possible there's a speed limit there. And there were not one
>>>>>>>>>> but two pilots aboard (the pilots are normally provided by the
>>>>>>>>>> harbour you are entering, and having more than one pilot is
>>>>>>>>>> not abnormal). And the last thing you want to do, is
>>>>>>>>>> be speeding going under a bridge (because your wake
>>>>>>>>>> can degrade those islands that protect the bridge).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/coast-pilot/files/cp3/CPB3_C15_WEB.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Possibly a difference between 'Speed through the water' and
>>>>>>>>> speed over the ground'?
>>>>>>>>> If the tide was flowing in as the ship was leaving, they may
>>>>>>>>> have had to increase their speed through the water to maintain
>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  From the tide charts, the ship set sail around low tide. The
>>>>>>>> tide would have been coming in, but not at its fastest.
>>>>>>>  Based on the ship having electrical problems while it was in port,
>>>>>>> the entire exit from port was reckless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The extension of that logic is that the ship should never have
>>>>>> left port at any time, ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably, somebody would have decided that the problems had been
>>>>>> resolved and the ship was in a suitable condition to sail. The
>>>>>> investigation will determine who that was and whether, given the
>>>>>> information available at the time and not hindsight, it was a
>>>>>> reasonable decision to make. If not, they are going to get a very
>>>>>> large bill from the ship's insurers.
>>>>>  But the other alternative was to take some insurance
>>>>> in the form of a tug or two given the known vulnerability
>>>>> ot that bridge after it had been decided that the fault
>>>>> seen while in port had been fixed.
>>>
>>>> I doubt it was the only ship that had some sort of problem fixed
>>>> while in port.
>
>>>  Corse not, but that is a separate issue to whether
>>> that has happened with something as crucial as
>>> the main engine,
>
>> The reports I have seen only said an electrical problem.No mention of
>> problems with the engines while in port.
>
> But clearly an electrical problem can see
> the ship hit and demolish that bridge pylon.
>
>>> at a port with such a vulnerable
>>> bridge, whether it makes sense to include a couple
>>> of tugs on the trip out of the port so that it it had not
>>> been properly fixed, the tugs could ensure that there
>>> was no possibility of the ship taking out that bridge.
>>>
>>>> It is only with hindsight that we can see which of thosecould  have
>>>> benefitted from a tug escorting them out,
>
>>>  That's bullshit. perfectly possible to realise that
>>> it might not have been fixed and to include that
>>> insurance that if it turned out to be an intermittent
>>> fault, that the bridge would still be safe.
>
>> Tugs doing escort duty at Baltimore cost $1,700 per tug per hour,and
>> the ship reached the bridge just over an hour after undocking.
>
> Much cheaper than it will cost now.
>
>> Wire  hawsers cost an additional $1,900 to attach and a further$1,900
>> to  detach. Who is going to pay for this 'insurance' giventhat the
>> pilots  would have needed to have assurances that theship was
>> seaworthy before  allowing it to undock?
>
> Fat lot of good those 'assurances' turned out to be.
>
> Of course the shipping company pays for the costs
> when the port requires them to do that when there
> is a real possibility that the fault has not been fixed
> and the consequences are so expensive if it turns
> out that it had not been properly fixed.

Had there been doubt, the port would have been negligent to allow an
unseaworthy ship to set sail. Doing so would be to risk it being lost at
sea. You are applying 20/20 hindsight in saying that any additional
precautions should have been taken.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:49:07 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 28/03/2024 23:11, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:44:59 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/03/2024 21:24, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 06:23:38 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/03/2024 18:07, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:49:57 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/03/2024 13:40, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 6:36 PM, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/03/2024 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 27-Mar-24 4:42, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 12:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s already talk of replacing the bridge (which was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> undoubtably an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegant structure), but surely at the mouth of a very busy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipping port a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tunnel would make much more sense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Material Steel
>>>>>>>>>>> Total length 8,636 feet
>>>>>>>>>>> Longest span 1,200 feet (366 m)
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearance below 185 feet
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The span is too big to do entirely without piers.
>>>>>>>>>>> (The total length will include boring bits over land on either
>>>>>>>>>>> side.)
>>>>>>>>>>> But the piece for the shipping channel might be made longer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe they could pre-fabricate some of the pieces on land,
>>>>>>>>>>> to speed up the process (time versus cost tradeoff).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An actual decently detailed report.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68664664
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "He said the vessel had been moving at a "very, very
>>>>>>>>>>> rapid"
>>>>>>>>>>> eight knots, or roughly 9mph (15km/h)."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As you would suspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you listen to the radio traffic in a harbour,
>>>>>>>>>>> there's a bit of surveillance going on. Including video tape
>>>>>>>>>>> at various points, of your arrival and departure. You're not
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly "leaving under cover of darkness". You're being
>>>>>>>>>>> watched,
>>>>>>>>>>> and usually, with multiple video cameras, for infractions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The radio channel recording in one of the reports, is not
>>>>>>>>>>> the harbour channel. That one sounds more like ATC in nature..
>>>>>>>>>>> I've listened to that, in the neighbours boat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's possible there's a speed limit there. And there were not
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> but two pilots aboard (the pilots are normally provided by the
>>>>>>>>>>> harbour you are entering, and having more than one pilot is
>>>>>>>>>>> not abnormal). And the last thing you want to do, is
>>>>>>>>>>> be speeding going under a bridge (because your wake
>>>>>>>>>>> can degrade those islands that protect the bridge).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/coast-pilot/files/cp3/CPB3_C15_WEB.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Possibly a difference between 'Speed through the water' and
>>>>>>>>>> speed over the ground'?
>>>>>>>>>> If the tide was flowing in as the ship was leaving, they may
>>>>>>>>>> have had to increase their speed through the water to maintain
>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From the tide charts, the ship set sail around low tide. The
>>>>>>>>> tide would have been coming in, but not at its fastest.
>>>>>>>> Based on the ship having electrical problems while it was in
>>>>>>>> port,
>>>>>>>> the entire exit from port was reckless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The extension of that logic is that the ship should never have
>>>>>>> left port at any time, ever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presumably, somebody would have decided that the problems had been
>>>>>>> resolved and the ship was in a suitable condition to sail. The
>>>>>>> investigation will determine who that was and whether, given the
>>>>>>> information available at the time and not hindsight, it was a
>>>>>>> reasonable decision to make. If not, they are going to get a very
>>>>>>> large bill from the ship's insurers.
>>>>>> But the other alternative was to take some insurance
>>>>>> in the form of a tug or two given the known vulnerability
>>>>>> ot that bridge after it had been decided that the fault
>>>>>> seen while in port had been fixed.
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt it was the only ship that had some sort of problem fixed
>>>>> while in port.
>>
>>>> Corse not, but that is a separate issue to whether
>>>> that has happened with something as crucial as
>>>> the main engine,
>>
>>> The reports I have seen only said an electrical problem.No mention of
>>> problems with the engines while in port.
>> But clearly an electrical problem can see
>> the ship hit and demolish that bridge pylon.
>>
>>>> at a port with such a vulnerable
>>>> bridge, whether it makes sense to include a couple
>>>> of tugs on the trip out of the port so that it it had not
>>>> been properly fixed, the tugs could ensure that there
>>>> was no possibility of the ship taking out that bridge.
>>>>
>>>>> It is only with hindsight that we can see which of thosecould have
>>>>> benefitted from a tug escorting them out,
>>
>>>> That's bullshit. perfectly possible to realise that
>>>> it might not have been fixed and to include that
>>>> insurance that if it turned out to be an intermittent
>>>> fault, that the bridge would still be safe.
>>
>>> Tugs doing escort duty at Baltimore cost $1,700 per tug per hour,and
>>> the ship reached the bridge just over an hour after undocking.
>> Much cheaper than it will cost now.
>>
>>> Wire hawsers cost an additional $1,900 to attach and a further$1,900
>>> to detach. Who is going to pay for this 'insurance' giventhat the
>>> pilots would have needed to have assurances that theship was
>>> seaworthy before allowing it to undock?
>> Fat lot of good those 'assurances' turned out to be.
>> Of course the shipping company pays for the costs
>> when the port requires them to do that when there
>> is a real possibility that the fault has not been fixed
>> and the consequences are so expensive if it turns
>> out that it had not been properly fixed.

On 3/28/2024 7:49 PM, Colin Bignell wrote:

>>
>>>>> There was not a lot of time to get a  tug in position

There were two tugs, to pull the vessel safely away from the dock.
They stayed at the side of the vessel, until it was making the
straight run towards the bridge. Then, they departed to the side
of the vessel (steered away from it). This was presumably done,
to avoid an incident like the dock strike that the DALI was
involved in before. Their job was dock departure control.

Those two tugs would not likely have the power to escort the
ship safely through the channel, the way the vessel could do
on its own. The tugs were more functioning like bow or stern
thrusters, to safely leave the dock.

When the mayday came in, the (small) tugs fired up engines and tried to catch
up with the ship, but they were too late. And likely no match for
a braking operation. There is a picture of a tug stationed near
the bow of the ship. That one looks like a harbor tug and not
an ocean going one (used to haul oil drill rigs or the like).

*******

MV Dali

Singapore
Installed power
41,480 kW (55,630 hp) MAN B&W 9S90ME-C9 diesel engine

Propulsion 1 fixed pitch B-1-3000 thruster
Speed 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph)

"In this ship the engine turns at just 82 RPM, matching the optimal
rotational speed of the propeller, so no reduction gear is needed.

There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite direction."

Hmmm. That's a handy feature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali

"Dali is propelled by a single low-speed two-stroke crosshead
diesel engine coupled to a fixed-pitch propeller. Her main engine,
a 9-cylinder MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2 55,630 hp 82.5 rpm.

Her service speed is 22 knots.

For maneuvering in ports, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow thruster.

Electricity is generated onboard by
two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp)
two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp)
[auxiliary diesel generators]
"

Then it's left to your imagination, to figure out whether a pair
is for engine maintenance and steerage, and a pair is for general ship power.
The auxiliary power is roughly equal to eight of our train locomotives
(the diesel-electric ones).

How is the output power modulated ? The prop pitch is fixed.
It seems to be direct drive.

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
> Colin Bignell wrote

>> There was not a lot of time to get a tug in position

> There were two tugs, to pull the vessel safely away from the dock.
> They stayed at the side of the vessel, until it was making the
> straight run towards the bridge. Then, they departed to the side
> of the vessel (steered away from it). This was presumably done,
> to avoid an incident like the dock strike that the DALI was
> involved in before. Their job was dock departure control.

But were quite adequate to ensure that if the fault did manifest
again, that the ship would not take out the bridge pilon.

> Those two tugs would not likely have the power to escort the
> ship safely through the channel, the way the vessel could do
> on its own. The tugs were more functioning like bow or stern
> thrusters, to safely leave the dock.

But could obviously do the same thing to avoid the
ship taking out the bridge pilon if the fault recurred.

> When the mayday came in, the (small) tugs firedup engines and tried to
> catch up with the ship,

So they clearly knew that they were quite
capable of doing something useful if they
could have got to the ship in time.

> but they were too late.

But wouldnt have been if they had tracked the ship
until it was past the bridge and was no longer any
threat to the bridge if the fault recurred.

> And likely no match for a braking operation.

But perfectly capable of acting as a thruster
to avoid the ship hitting the pilon because
that is what they did when moving it away
from the dock and turning it around so
that it could move out of the port.

> There is a picture of a tug stationed near the bow of theship. That one
> looks like a harbor tug and not an oceangoing one (used to haul oil
> drill rigs or the like).

Dont need one of those to stop the ship hitting the pilon

> *******
>
> MV Dali
>
> Singapore
>
> Installed power
>
> 41,480 kW (55,630 hp) MAN B&W 9S90ME-C9 diesel engine
>
> Propulsion 1 fixed pitch B-1-3000 thruster
> Speed 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph)
>
> "In this ship the engine turns at just 82 RPM, matching the optimal
> rotational speed of the propeller, so no reduction gear is needed.
>
> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite direction."
>
> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali
>
> "Dali is propelled by a single low-speed two-stroke crosshead
> diesel engine coupled to a fixed-pitch propeller. Her main engine,
> a 9-cylinder MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2 55,630 hp 82.5 rpm.
>
> Her service speed is 22 knots.
>
> For maneuvering in ports, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow
> thruster.
>
> Electricity is generated onboard by
> two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp)
> two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp)
> [auxiliary diesel generators]
> "
>
> Then it's left to your imagination, to figure out whether a pair
> is for engine maintenance and steerage, and a pair is for general ship
> power.
> The auxiliary power is roughly equal to eight of our train locomotives
> (the diesel-electric ones).
>
> How is the output power modulated ? The prop pitch is fixed.
> It seems to be direct drive.
>
> Paul

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 02:07:28 -0400
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> "
>
> Then it's left to your imagination, to figure out whether a pair
> is for engine maintenance and steerage, and a pair is for general
> ship power. The auxiliary power is roughly equal to eight of our
> train locomotives (the diesel-electric ones).
>
> How is the output power modulated ? The prop pitch is fixed.
> It seems to be direct drive.
>
> Paul

I believe that the auxiliary engines just provide power to an
electrical bus, which supplies power to whatever needs it.
This would include a hydraulic system which powers everything
mechanical, including the fuel pumps and the steering gear. No
auxiliary engines, or no bus power, no engine or any control.
Power control would presumably be by modulation of the fuel delivery.

Having once owned a two-stroke engined car, I had a vision of mixing
vast quantities of lubricating oil with the engine fuel, although I
don't know whether a 2-stroke diesel needs lubricating oil added, or
does the diesel do it's own lubricating?

There are lots of Youtube videos available of large engines starting up.

The ship was named after Salvador Dali. I winder what he would think of
this mess?
--
Davey.

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite direction."
>
> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>
It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of
a gearbox to handle 55000hp.

--
Chris Green
·

In message <Iz%MN.106894$_a1e.63910@fx16.iad>, at 20:45:27 on Wed, 27
Mar 2024, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:

>>> The ship suffered a total power loss as can be seen from the
>>> videos. They dropped the port anchor but that slewed the
>>> vessel towards the bridge support.

>> But they were way off course already, the power loss (from the
>> pictures I've seen) only seems to happen seconds before the ship hit
>> the bridge. It takes minutes, if not hours, to change direction in
>> ships that big.
>>
>_Possibly_ those lights went off when they were attempting to start an
>emergency/back up generator[1].
>You need to reduce the load to a minimum until the generator is up to
>speed - only then do you load it up.[2]
>
>[1] i.e. The power failure happened before that point in time.
>
>[2] Or maybe someone just hit the wrong switch due to the incredible
>stress that the crew must have been operating under.

A vox-pop I saw once, and only once, from a port worker said the boat
had too many refrigerated containers on board and they kept tripping the
vessel's electrical power.
--
Roland Perry

On 29/03/2024 06:07, Paul wrote:
> How is the output power modulated ? The prop pitch is fixed.
> It seems to be direct drive.
Via a fuel injection throttle

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

Roland Perry wrote:

> A vox-pop I saw once, and only once, from a port worker said the boat
> had too many refrigerated containers on board and they kept tripping the
> vessel's electrical power.

At 3:51 into this video

<https://www.itv.com/news/2024-03-26/major-bridge-in-baltimore-collapses-following-collision-with-cargo-ship>

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
>> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
>> direction."
>>
>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>>
> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of a
> gearbox to handle 55000hp.

At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the 1960s
needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of points, and
start in reverse.

My hybrid car can only reverse on electric; no reverse gear on the engine.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 29 Mar 2024 12:09:46 GMT
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

> British three wheel car

My British three wheel car had a three speeds AND reverse! Luxury.

--
Davey.

On 29/03/2024 12:09, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>
>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
>>> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
>>> direction."
>>>
>>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>>>
>> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of a
>> gearbox to handle 55000hp.
>
> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the 1960s
> needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of points, and
> start in reverse.

The rules at the time allowed cars without a reverse gear to be driven
on a motorbike licence.

>
> My hybrid car can only reverse on electric; no reverse gear on the engine.
>
>
>

--
Colin Bignell

Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>
> > Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
> >> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
> >> direction."
> >>
> >> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
> >>
> > It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of a
> > gearbox to handle 55000hp.
>
> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the 1960s
> needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of points, and
> start in reverse.
>
Oh yes, I remember one of our neighbours had one of those, a Bond
Minicar with the engine mounted on the single, steering, front wheel.

--
Chris Green
·

On 29/03/2024 13:14, Chris Green wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>>
>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
>>>> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
>>>> direction."
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>>>>
>>> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of a
>>> gearbox to handle 55000hp.
>>
>> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the 1960s
>> needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of points, and
>> start in reverse.
>>
> Oh yes, I remember one of our neighbours had one of those, a Bond
> Minicar with the engine mounted on the single, steering, front wheel.

The Bond Minicar did not reverse the rotation of the engine and nor did
it have a reverse gear - the entire front wheen, with the engine sitting
on it, could be turned right around to face backwards to reverse the car.

On 2024-03-30 17:24, SteveW wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 13:14, Chris Green wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
>>>>>      the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
>>>>>      direction."
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>>>>>
>>>> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of a
>>>> gearbox to handle 55000hp.
>>>
>>> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the
>>> 1960s
>>> needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of points, and
>>> start in reverse.
>>>
>> Oh yes, I remember one of our neighbours had one of those, a Bond
>> Minicar with the engine mounted on the single, steering, front wheel.
>
> The Bond Minicar did not reverse the rotation of the engine and nor did
> it have a reverse gear - the entire front wheen, with the engine sitting
> on it, could be turned right around to face backwards to reverse the car.
>

That doesn't quite fit with my memory of a school colleague's example.
The engine rotated a long way so it could turn on a sixpence but not
actually go backwards.

Ah, Wikipedia says:

"... had no reverse gear. However, this was a minimal inconvenience,
because the engine, gearbox and front wheel were mounted as a single
unit and could be turned by the steering wheel up to 90 degrees either
side of the straight-ahead position, enabling the car to turn within its
own length.

"A method of reversing the car was offered on later models via a
reversible Dynastart unit. The Dynastart unit, which doubled as both
starter motor and dynamo on these models incorporated a built-in
reversing solenoid switch. After stopping the engine and operating this
switch the Dynastart, and consequently the engine, would rotate in the
opposite direction."

But I also recall it was quite easy to just lift up the car and turn it
the way you wanted it!

I also vaguely remember a motorbike-type kick start under the bonnet if
the battery was flat?

nib

SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 13:14, Chris Green wrote:
> > Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
> >>>> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
> >>>> direction."
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
> >>>>
> >>> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of a
> >>> gearbox to handle 55000hp.
> >>
> >> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the 1960s
> >> needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of points, and
> >> start in reverse.
> >>
> > Oh yes, I remember one of our neighbours had one of those, a Bond
> > Minicar with the engine mounted on the single, steering, front wheel.
>
> The Bond Minicar did not reverse the rotation of the engine and nor did
> it have a reverse gear - the entire front wheen, with the engine sitting
> on it, could be turned right around to face backwards to reverse the car.
>
Even cleverer! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:24:51 +0000, SteveW wrote:

> On 29/03/2024 13:14, Chris Green wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
>>>>> the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
>>>>> direction."
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>>>>>
>>>> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc. of
>>>> a gearbox to handle 55000hp.
>>>
>>> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the
>>> 1960s needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of
>>> points, and start in reverse.
>>>
>> Oh yes, I remember one of our neighbours had one of those, a Bond
>> Minicar with the engine mounted on the single, steering, front wheel.
>
> The Bond Minicar did not reverse the rotation of the engine and nor did
> it have a reverse gear - the entire front wheen, with the engine sitting
> on it, could be turned right around to face backwards to reverse the
> car.

Yes, I was thinking of the Invacar.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:53:52 +0000, nib wrote:

> On 2024-03-30 17:24, SteveW wrote:
>> On 29/03/2024 13:14, Chris Green wrote:
>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse
>>>>>>      thrust,
>>>>>>      the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
>>>>>>      direction."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc.
>>>>> of a gearbox to handle 55000hp.
>>>>
>>>> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the
>>>> 1960s needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of
>>>> points, and start in reverse.
>>>>
>>> Oh yes, I remember one of our neighbours had one of those, a Bond
>>> Minicar with the engine mounted on the single, steering, front wheel.
>>
>> The Bond Minicar did not reverse the rotation of the engine and nor did
>> it have a reverse gear - the entire front wheen, with the engine
>> sitting on it, could be turned right around to face backwards to
>> reverse the car.
>>
>>
> That doesn't quite fit with my memory of a school colleague's example.
> The engine rotated a long way so it could turn on a sixpence but not
> actually go backwards.
>
> Ah, Wikipedia says:
>
> "... had no reverse gear. However, this was a minimal inconvenience,
> because the engine, gearbox and front wheel were mounted as a single
> unit and could be turned by the steering wheel up to 90 degrees either
> side of the straight-ahead position, enabling the car to turn within its
> own length.
>
> "A method of reversing the car was offered on later models via a
> reversible Dynastart unit. The Dynastart unit, which doubled as both
> starter motor and dynamo on these models incorporated a built-in
> reversing solenoid switch. After stopping the engine and operating this
> switch the Dynastart, and consequently the engine, would rotate in the
> opposite direction."
>
> But I also recall it was quite easy to just lift up the car and turn it
> the way you wanted it!
>
> I also vaguely remember a motorbike-type kick start under the bonnet if
> the battery was flat?

Yes, I remember the Dynastart. And seeing someone standing with one leg
under the bonnet, kickstarting one.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 30/03/2024 18:53, nib wrote:
> On 2024-03-30 17:24, SteveW wrote:
>> On 29/03/2024 13:14, Chris Green wrote:
>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:15:31 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      There is also no reversing gear so, to generate reverse thrust,
>>>>>>      the engine is stopped and restarted turning the opposite
>>>>>>      direction."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. That's a handy feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's pretty standard on big ships like this, imagine the cost etc.
>>>>> of a
>>>>> gearbox to handle 55000hp.
>>>>
>>>> At the other end of the scale, some British three wheel cars in the
>>>> 1960s
>>>> needed the same. Stop the engine, switch to another set of points, and
>>>> start in reverse.
>>>>
>>> Oh yes, I remember one of our neighbours had one of those, a Bond
>>> Minicar with the engine mounted on the single, steering, front wheel.
>>
>> The Bond Minicar did not reverse the rotation of the engine and nor
>> did it have a reverse gear - the entire front wheen, with the engine
>> sitting on it, could be turned right around to face backwards to
>> reverse the car.
>>
>
> That doesn't quite fit with my memory of a school colleague's example.
> The engine rotated a long way so it could turn on a sixpence but not
> actually go backwards.
>
> Ah, Wikipedia says:
>
> "... had no reverse gear. However, this was a minimal inconvenience,
> because the engine, gearbox and front wheel were mounted as a single
> unit and could be turned by the steering wheel up to 90 degrees either
> side of the straight-ahead position, enabling the car to turn within its
> own length.

Fair, enough. I obviously remembered that there was no reverse and the
engine moving with the wheel, but was wrong about how far it turned.

> "A method of reversing the car was offered on later models via a
> reversible Dynastart unit. The Dynastart unit, which doubled as both
> starter motor and dynamo on these models incorporated a built-in
> reversing solenoid switch. After stopping the engine and operating this
> switch the Dynastart, and consequently the engine, would rotate in the
> opposite direction."

A later addition though. The original did not have such an option.

> But I also recall it was quite easy to just lift up the car and turn it
> the way you wanted it!

Sounds about right.

> I also vaguely remember a motorbike-type kick start under the bonnet if
> the battery was flat?

I've taken a look at that wiki and it does, indeed, show a kick-start.

On 27/03/2024 17:02, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 16:06, Chris Green wrote:
>> Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 27/03/2024 12:43, Chris Green wrote:
>>>> Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be interesting to see what happens this time, the vessel had
>>>>>>>> reported
>>>>>>>> to the port authorities that it was not under command.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under command, or under control? They are, to me, different things,
>>>>>>> unless maritime useage mangles the English language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not under command, it is an internationally accepted maritime
>>>>>> expression:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.wartsila.com/encyclopedia/term/vessel-not-under-command#:~:text=marine,another%20vessel%2C%20(COLREG).
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The ship suffered a total power loss as can be seen from the
>>>>> videos. They dropped the port anchor but that slewed the
>>>>> vessel towards the bridge support.
>>>>
>>>> But they were way off course already, the power loss (from the
>>>> pictures I've seen) only seems to happen seconds before the ship hit
>>>> the bridge.  It takes minutes, if not hours, to change direction in
>>>> ships that big.
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to which report you read, the ship radioed that it had lost
>>> power either two minutes or four minutes before it hit the bridge.
>>>
>> Still very, very little time to change course in one of those monsters.
>>
>> Stopping times and distances are huge, a quick search turned up this
>> figure for the stopping distance of a not very big cargo ship:-
>>
>>      Cargo ships loaded, displacement 28000 tonnes L 145 m
>>      11-13 ship's length
>>      9-11 minutes
>>
>> This is much smaller than the ship that hit the Baltimore bridge.
>> Changes of direction will take a bit less time two to four minutes
>> isn't enough to make a major change of direction.
>>
>
> A chap I knew, who had been Chief Engineer on a supertanker told me that
> their emergency stop distance from cruising speed was 30 miles.
>

There is a useful YouTube site called "Whats going wrong with shipping"
or something very similar that shows a lot of interesting data about
this incident and others affecting shipping.

On 29/03/2024 06:40, Davey wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 02:07:28 -0400
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "
>>
>> Then it's left to your imagination, to figure out whether a pair
>> is for engine maintenance and steerage, and a pair is for general
>> ship power. The auxiliary power is roughly equal to eight of our
>> train locomotives (the diesel-electric ones).
>>
>> How is the output power modulated ? The prop pitch is fixed.
>> It seems to be direct drive.
>>
>> Paul
>
> I believe that the auxiliary engines just provide power to an
> electrical bus, which supplies power to whatever needs it.
> This would include a hydraulic system which powers everything
> mechanical, including the fuel pumps and the steering gear. No
> auxiliary engines, or no bus power, no engine or any control.
> Power control would presumably be by modulation of the fuel delivery.
>
> Having once owned a two-stroke engined car, I had a vision of mixing
> vast quantities of lubricating oil with the engine fuel, although I
> don't know whether a 2-stroke diesel needs lubricating oil added, or
> does the diesel do it's own lubricating?
>

The famous "Detroit Diesels" that were used everywhere, are
two-stroke, but still have a conventional sump full of
lubricating oil.

See YouTube Channel "Bus Grease Monkeys"