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?

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

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?

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:18:09 +0000
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> 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?

There are already two tunnels, but further inland, nearer to Downtown
Baltimore (and Edgar Allen Poe's gravestone). There was talk this
morning about the fact that the bridge was designed and built before
more stringent protections became mandatory, so any replacement bridge
would need to be constructed up to modern, better, requirements.

I worked in Baltimore for a few months, and liked it. But this was some
years ago, places change. I never used the bridge, it was not on any of
my normal routes. Now, if you want a bridge in the area, try:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_Bridge%E2%80%93Tunnel

--
Davey.

On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?

Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to similar
events?

Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats that do go
under major bridges big enough to destroy them?

On 26/03/2024 16:14, 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?
>
If you have a few billion dollars to spare, sure :-)

> Tim
>

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 26/03/2024 16:38, Pancho wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
>
> Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to similar
> events?
>
> Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats that do go
> under major bridges big enough to destroy them?

We only have a few big estuaries. The Severn is probably the biggest
with the M4 going over it.

But I dont believe it has piers in the navigable channel

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

Davey wrote:

> I worked in Baltimore for a few months, and liked it. But this was some
> years ago, places change.

My only impression of the place came from The Wire, which was supposed
to be quite accurate as of 20 years ago.

> I never used the bridge, it was not on any of
> my normal routes. Now, if you want a bridge in the area, try:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_Bridge%E2%80%93Tunnel

That's quite a detour ...

On 26/03/2024 in message <ututm0$1tb6i$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:

>On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
>
>Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to similar
>events?
>
>Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats that do go
>under major bridges big enough to destroy them?

Harwich & Felixtowe are our biggest but are clear to the seaward side. We
have the M25 QE2 Bridge with ports upstream, don't know if any are
container ports.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those
who can't.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:51:01 +0000
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Davey wrote:
>
> > I worked in Baltimore for a few months, and liked it. But this was
> > some years ago, places change.
>
> My only impression of the place came from The Wire, which was
> supposed to be quite accurate as of 20 years ago.
>

I never saw The Wire, but when I lived in the US, there was a very good
TV series called: 'Homicide, Life on the Street'. I don't know if it
made it over here, it was excellent.

> > I never used the bridge, it was not on any of
> > my normal routes. Now, if you want a bridge in the area, try:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_Bridge%E2%80%93Tunnel
>
> That's quite a detour ...
>
Yeah, you wouldn't use it to cross from one side of Baltimore to the
other. But it gets a lot of traffic just travelling through it to
experience it. It is quite something.

--
Davey.

On 26 Mar 2024, Jeff Gaines wrote

> On 26/03/2024 in message <ututm0$1tb6i$1@dont-email.me> Pancho
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
>>
>> Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to
>> similar events?
>>
>> Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats
>> that do go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?
>
> Harwich & Felixtowe are our biggest but are clear to the seaward
> side. We have the M25 QE2 Bridge with ports upstream, don't know
> if any are container ports.

Looking at satellite images, I think the QE2 towers are probably too
close to the shoreline for a ship to hit them -- any ship big enough
to do collapse-threatening damage would run aground before reaching
them.

Interesting that the ship involved in Baltimore has form:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/mar/26/baltimore-
bridge-collapse-ship-collision-francis-scott-key-updates

"The same vessel that hit the Baltimore Key Bridge on Tuesday,
destroying it and sending people and vehicles tumbling into the
water, was involved in a collision while leaving the port of Antwerp,
Belgium, in 2016.

According to Vessel Finder the weather was fine at the time, and the
incident was reportedly blamed on the ship�s master and pilot
onboard."

--
Cheers, Harvey

On 26/03/2024 04:14 pm, 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?
>
> Tim

Especially as the next upstream crossing is a tunnel.

On 3/26/2024 12:38 PM, Pancho wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
>
> Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to similar events?
>
> Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats that do go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?

Does the Pope have a pointy hat ?

You don't know the nature of human roulette, if
you cannot guess the answer to this.

Can you see the trend at work here ? Make a hole of size "X",
someone makes an item which is "X minus one foot". This is
just human nature. We're not happy unless we're spinning
that roulette wheel. If you redesigned this and made it "2X",
the next ship through would be "2X minus one foot".

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/210421163038-01-viva-superyacht-netherlands.jpg?q=w_1015,c_fill/f_webp

When you design a bridge, maybe it has a 100 year service life.
You design for a ship which is a certain width and height.

By the time the next bridge is to go up, the estimate of ship
height or ship width, is off by a factor of 2 or 3.

Look at some of the cruise ships, for inspiration. There are likely
lots of ports they're not welcome, due to their size.

If there was no bridge or piers to strike, they'd have
a draft too much for the channel, run aground
at low tide, strike the sides of the channel, in short,
"they would find a way...". Look at the Suez Canal.

Paul

On 26/03/2024 in message <XnsB141B690C45A5whhvans@135.181.20.170> HVS wrote:

>On 26 Mar 2024, Jeff Gaines wrote
>
>>On 26/03/2024 in message <ututm0$1tb6i$1@dont-email.me> Pancho
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
>>>
>>>Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to
>>>similar events?
>>>
>>>Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats
>>>that do go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?
>>
>>Harwich & Felixtowe are our biggest but are clear to the seaward
>>side. We have the M25 QE2 Bridge with ports upstream, don't know
>>if any are container ports.
>
>Looking at satellite images, I think the QE2 towers are probably too
>close to the shoreline for a ship to hit them -- any ship big enough
>to do collapse-threatening damage would run aground before reaching
>them.
>
>Interesting that the ship involved in Baltimore has form:
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/mar/26/baltimore-
>bridge-collapse-ship-collision-francis-scott-key-updates
>
>"The same vessel that hit the Baltimore Key Bridge on Tuesday,
>destroying it and sending people and vehicles tumbling into the
>water, was involved in a collision while leaving the port of Antwerp,
>Belgium, in 2016.
>
>According to Vessel Finder the weather was fine at the time, and the
>incident was reportedly blamed on the ship’s master and pilot
>onboard."

Be interesting to see what happens this time, the vessel had reported to
the port authorities that it was not under command.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Did you know on the Canary Islands there is not one canary?
And on the Virgin Islands same thing, not one canary.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:56:48 GMT
HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

> On 26 Mar 2024, Jeff Gaines wrote
>
> > On 26/03/2024 in message <ututm0$1tb6i$1@dont-email.me> Pancho
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
> >>
> >> Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to
> >> similar events?
> >>
> >> Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats
> >> that do go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?
> >
> > Harwich & Felixtowe are our biggest but are clear to the seaward
> > side. We have the M25 QE2 Bridge with ports upstream, don't know
> > if any are container ports.
>
> Looking at satellite images, I think the QE2 towers are probably too
> close to the shoreline for a ship to hit them -- any ship big enough
> to do collapse-threatening damage would run aground before reaching
> them.
>
> Interesting that the ship involved in Baltimore has form:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/mar/26/baltimore-
> bridge-collapse-ship-collision-francis-scott-key-updates
>
> "The same vessel that hit the Baltimore Key Bridge on Tuesday,
> destroying it and sending people and vehicles tumbling into the
> water, was involved in a collision while leaving the port of Antwerp,
> Belgium, in 2016.
>
> According to Vessel Finder the weather was fine at the time, and the
> incident was reportedly blamed on the ship_s master and pilot
> onboard."
>

"The vessel experienced a loss of power before ramming the bridge. A
mayday call was issued shortly before the crash.

The call, alerting authorities to the ship’s power outage, allowed
officials to rush to limit the number of cars travelling over the
bridge,"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/03/26/how-dali-container-ship-crashed-baltimore-bridge/

--
Joe

In article <utuubn$1u41s$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 16:38, Pancho wrote:
> > On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
> >
> > Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to similar
> > events?
> >
> > Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats that do
> > go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?

> We only have a few big estuaries. The Severn is probably the biggest
> with the M4 going over it.

How about the Forth, the Humber, the Clyde and, even the Thames and there's
also Milford Haven at the mouth of the Cleddau

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?

A look at the geological map of the area shows that the mouth of the
estuary is, unsurprisingly, composed of fine silt and sand. Not the best
material to try to tunnel though.

>
> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?

I was surprised that there appeared to be no starlings, especially as
the navigation markers a short way upstream of the bridge have quite
large ones. I doubt they would stop a container ship at speed, but they
might have deflected it away from the actual support pillar.

--
Colin Bignell

Colin Bignell wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>
> I was surprised that there appeared to be no starlings

Other people seem to describe them as dolphins, I've never heard of
either term used in that sense before.

> especially as the navigation markers a short way upstream of the
> bridge have quite large ones.

Those aren't navigational markers, but transmission poles for HV cables,
they do happen to have red beacons on top, probably for the benefit of
planes?

> I doubt they would stop a container ship at speed, but they
> might have deflected it away from the actual support pillar.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?

"Dolphins" are the answer

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge#1980_collapse
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)

--
Alan J. Wylie https://www.wylie.me.uk/

Dance like no-one's watching. / Encrypt like everyone is.
Security is inversely proportional to convenience

On 26-Mar-24 17:56, HVS wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2024, Jeff Gaines wrote
>
>> On 26/03/2024 in message <ututm0$1tb6i$1@dont-email.me> Pancho
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/03/2024 16:18, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Tim+ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thereā€™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?
>>>
>>> Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to
>>> similar events?
>>>
>>> Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats
>>> that do go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?
>>
>> Harwich & Felixtowe are our biggest but are clear to the seaward
>> side. We have the M25 QE2 Bridge with ports upstream, don't know
>> if any are container ports.
>
> Looking at satellite images, I think the QE2 towers are probably too
> close to the shoreline for a ship to hit them -- any ship big enough
> to do collapse-threatening damage would run aground before reaching
> them.
>
> Interesting that the ship involved in Baltimore has form:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/mar/26/baltimore-
> bridge-collapse-ship-collision-francis-scott-key-updates
>
> "The same vessel that hit the Baltimore Key Bridge on Tuesday,
> destroying it and sending people and vehicles tumbling into the
> water, was involved in a collision while leaving the port of Antwerp,
> Belgium, in 2016.
>
> According to Vessel Finder the weather was fine at the time, and the
> incident was reportedly blamed on the ship’s master and pilot
> onboard."
>
I was _not_ surprised by the Financial Times headline:

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

--
Sam Plusnet

On 26/03/2024 18:03, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 04:14 pm, 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?
>>
>> Tim
>
> Especially as the next upstream crossing is a tunnel.

But wagons with flammable loads are apparently barred from that tunnel
and would presumably be barred from a new tunnel.

On 26-Mar-24 19:03, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
>
> A look at the geological map of the area shows that the mouth of the
> estuary is, unsurprisingly, composed of fine silt and sand. Not the best
> material to try to tunnel though.
>
>>
>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>
> I was surprised that there appeared to be no starlings, especially as
> the navigation markers a short way upstream of the bridge have quite
> large ones. I doubt they would stop a container ship at speed, but they
> might have deflected it away from the actual support pillar.

Taking things in a different direction for a moment.
Is the port of Baltimore out of business for an indefinite period of time?

There seems to be wreckage blocking its access to the sea.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 3/26/2024 4:40 PM, Alan J. Wylie wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
>
>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>
> "Dolphins" are the answer
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge#1980_collapse
> and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
>

I had to go through a few pages of Google results, to get a picture
of what a normal structure would look like. And these aren't
really all that much protection.

https://mgicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/resim_2023-07-07_135825365-1024x682.png

There seems to be a built-in assumption that large vessels
are "always under control".

If that were not true, you would use four tugs to haul the thing in and out.

https://www.alamy.com/the-rms-queen-mary-being-pulled-by-tugs-image359626481.html

Paul

On 26/03/2024 21:08, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 26-Mar-24 19:03, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 26/03/2024 16:18, 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?
>>
>> A look at the geological map of the area shows that the mouth of the
>> estuary is, unsurprisingly, composed of fine silt and sand. Not the
>> best material to try to tunnel though.
>>
>>>
>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>
>> I was surprised that there appeared to be no starlings, especially as
>> the navigation markers a short way upstream of the bridge have quite
>> large ones. I doubt they would stop a container ship at speed, but
>> they might have deflected it away from the actual support pillar.
>
> Taking things in a different direction for a moment.
> Is the port of Baltimore out of business for an indefinite period of time?
>
> There seems to be wreckage blocking its access to the sea.
>

There are already reports of ships anchoring up, waiting to get in. At
least the ones in the port get some extra shore leave. I imagine that
clearing the shipping lane will be the first priority once the search
and rescue/recover is complete.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/03/2024 23:02, Paul wrote:
> On 3/26/2024 4:40 PM, Alan J. Wylie wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>>
>> "Dolphins" are the answer
>>
>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge#1980_collapse
>> and
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)
>>
>
> I had to go through a few pages of Google results, to get a picture
> of what a normal structure would look like.

You only need to Google Tower Bridge and look at what is at the base of
the towers.

> And these aren't
> really all that much protection.
>
> https://mgicons.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/resim_2023-07-07_135825365-1024x682.png
>
> There seems to be a built-in assumption that large vessels
> are "always under control".
>
> If that were not true, you would use four tugs to haul the thing in and out.
>
> https://www.alamy.com/the-rms-queen-mary-being-pulled-by-tugs-image359626481.html
>
> Paul

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:01:46 +0000
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 26-Mar-24 17:56, HVS wrote:
> > On 26 Mar 2024, Jeff Gaines wrote
> >
> >> On 26/03/2024 in message <ututm0$1tb6i$1@dont-email.me> Pancho
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 26/03/2024 16:18, Andy Burns wrote:
> >>>> Tim+ wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thereā€™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?
> >>>
> >>> Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to
> >>> similar events?
> >>>
> >>> Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats
> >>> that do go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?
> >>
> >> Harwich & Felixtowe are our biggest but are clear to the seaward
> >> side. We have the M25 QE2 Bridge with ports upstream, don't know
> >> if any are container ports.
> >
> > Looking at satellite images, I think the QE2 towers are probably too
> > close to the shoreline for a ship to hit them -- any ship big enough
> > to do collapse-threatening damage would run aground before reaching
> > them.
> >
> > Interesting that the ship involved in Baltimore has form:
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/mar/26/baltimore-
> > bridge-collapse-ship-collision-francis-scott-key-updates
> >
> > "The same vessel that hit the Baltimore Key Bridge on Tuesday,
> > destroying it and sending people and vehicles tumbling into the
> > water, was involved in a collision while leaving the port of
> > Antwerp, Belgium, in 2016.
> >
> > According to Vessel Finder the weather was fine at the time, and the
> > incident was reportedly blamed on the ship’s master and pilot
> > onboard."
> >
> I was _not_ surprised by the Financial Times headline:
>
> "The Baltimore bridge disaster: what happened and who will pay?"
>

Nothing like getting your priorities sorted out.

--
Davey.