On 27/03/2024 17:02, Colin Bignell wrote:

>
> 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.
>
That is fairly consistent with my understanding, too.

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:56:56 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 08:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>> brian wrote:
>>
>>> There's a runcible mast
>> What? I thought that was a nonsense word applied to cats and spoons?

Yep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runcible

> A runcible spoon is a spoon with fork prongs cut in it.

Doesnt explain a runcible mast on a ship.

> These days it is likely to have a cutting edge and be sold as a buffet
> spoon.

Ours are sold as spayds and are the size of a normal
small spoon and arent just used for buffets. I eat my
currys with mine and most microwave ready meals.
https://www.google.com/search?q=splayd&tbm=isch

Also called a spork.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:03:12 +1100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 04:42, Paul wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't think it is.
>
> At least not *deep water* piers
>
> AFAICT the reason that they couldn't make it bigger is that it is a
> *truss* structure, rather than a suspension bridge. Cheap, but limited..
>
> Once you get to suspension bridges....
>
> Golden gate is 1200 metres span
>
> Dartford crossing is 485 metres span.
>
> Øresund Bridge is 450 metres at the widest span and 57m high.
>
> Sydney Harbour Bridge 503 metres span

That's not a suspension bridge.

> No, nothing precludes a replacement bridge entirely avoiding the piers
> and a ship being able to be in the same place.

> Clearly the original bridge was done on the cheap, which is how a lot of
> the USA infrastructure got built.
>
> But again, when it was built did mega container ships even exist?
>
> 1977...hmm. Big ships were already around.
>
> Its another Fukushima. No one though the chances of collision with a
> mega ship high enough to think about taking precautions.
>
> In my mind it was a cheap design with inherent weaknesses to this kind
> of situation, and there probably needs to be a general principle applied
> that any pier built in water deep enough to take a given size of ship
> ought to be able to take an impact from such a ship.
>
>

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:43:41 +1100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> 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.

It doesnt take anything like hours when leaving port like that.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 03:21:27 +1100, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 02:02 pm, HVS wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell wrote
>>> On 27/03/2024 08:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> brian wrote:
>>
>>>>> There's a runcible mast
>>>>
>>>> What? I thought that was a nonsense word applied to cats and
>>>> spoons?
>>>
>>> A runcible spoon is a spoon with fork prongs cut in it.
>> I think that's also called a "spork".
>
> Was it KFC who coined that word, back in the 1970s?

A century before that in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork#History

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
> It's not like anyone on the bridge, could actually see where they're going.
> Look at how the load is stacked.

I’ve looked. The stack clearly stops short of the bridge.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 04:02:46 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> 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.

But it would not have been going at cruising speed and the
ship that hit the bridge tower could drop the anchor and did.

And with all power out, it presumably wouldnt have
even been possible to go into full reverse.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:06:39 +0000, JNugent wrote:

>> I was _not_ surprised by the Financial Times headline:
>>
>> "The Baltimore bridge disaster: what happened and who will pay?"
>
> There's more than one way to pay.

Waiting to hear analysis from my friend in shipping insurance.

--
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 27-Mar-24 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.
>
_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.

--
Sam Plusnet

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.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27 Mar 2024 at 09:56:56 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 08:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>> brian wrote:
>>
>>> There's a runcible mast
>>
>> What? I thought that was a nonsense word applied to cats and spoons?
>
> A runcible spoon is a spoon with fork prongs cut in it. These days it is
> likely to have a cutting edge and be sold as a buffet spoon.

Oh, a spork, you mean?

--
Tim

On 27/03/2024 19:28, Tim+ wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> It's not like anyone on the bridge, could actually see where they're going.
>> Look at how the load is stacked.
>
> I’ve looked. The stack clearly stops short of the bridge.

There are also flying bridges, at the side, which would give a better
view of things closer than those visible from the main bridge.

--
Colin Bignell

On 27/03/2024 21:50, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2024 at 09:56:56 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/03/2024 08:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a runcible mast
>>>
>>> What? I thought that was a nonsense word applied to cats and spoons?
>>
>> A runcible spoon is a spoon with fork prongs cut in it. These days it is
>> likely to have a cutting edge and be sold as a buffet spoon.
>
> Oh, a spork, you mean?
>

Other brands are available.

--
Colin Bignell

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.

--
Colin Bignell

On 27 Mar 2024 08:21:08 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 in message <utvpjs$2ec46$3@dont-email.me> Davey wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:08:34 +0000
> >Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Taking things in a different direction for a moment.
> >>Is the port of Baltimore out of business for an indefinite period of
> >>time?
> >
> >Baltimore is one of the top ten US ports, ie it's huge.
> >A personal reminiscence: When I worked there, at the GM plant, I
> >would occasionally be in the hotel lift with a few other guys, one
> >of whom was clearly British. One day, he was alone, and I asked him
> >what he was doing there. He replied that he worked for Jaguar, and
> >his job was to drive every one of their cars that came off the docks
> >to confirm that it was ok for sale. That must come under the heading
> >of: 'It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.'
>
> It represents the appalling build standard of cars made in America.
>

How does a British manufacturer exporting vehicles to America, then
confirming that said vehicles are ok before sale, represent the build
quality of American cars?

--
Davey.

On 27/03/2024 07:18 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 03:21:27 +1100, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/03/2024 02:02 pm, HVS wrote:
>>> On 27 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell wrote
>>>> On 27/03/2024 08:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> brian wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> There's a runcible mast
>>>>>
>>>>> What?  I thought that was a nonsense word applied to cats and
>>>>> spoons?
>>>>
>>>> A runcible spoon is a spoon with fork prongs cut in it.
>>>  I think that's also called a "spork".
>>
>> Was it KFC who coined that word, back in the 1970s?
>
> A century before that in fact.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork#History

It says that the term "spork" was coined (and registered for trade
purposes) in the early 1950s.

But thanks for the link.

On 27/03/2024 08:31 pm, Bob Eager wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:06:39 +0000, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> I was _not_ surprised by the Financial Times headline:
>>>
>>> "The Baltimore bridge disaster: what happened and who will pay?"
>>
>> There's more than one way to pay.
>
> Waiting to hear analysis from my friend in shipping insurance.

There may yet be people who will never again be allowed to practice in
their chosen professions, whether that be in engineering or seafaring.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:45:46 +1100, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 07:18 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 03:21:27 +1100, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/03/2024 02:02 pm, HVS wrote:
>>>> On 27 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell wrote
>>>>> On 27/03/2024 08:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>> brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a runcible mast
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What? I thought that was a nonsense word applied to cats and
>>>>>> spoons?
>>>>>
>>>>> A runcible spoon is a spoon with fork prongs cut in it.
>>>> I think that's also called a "spork".
>>>
>>> Was it KFC who coined that word, back in the 1970s?
>> A century before that in fact.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork#History
>
> It says that the term "spork" was coined (and registered for trade
> purposes) in the early 1950s.

Not by KFC

> But thanks for the link.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:48:35 +1100, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 08:31 pm, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:06:39 +0000, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> I was _not_ surprised by the Financial Times headline:
>>>>
>>>> "The Baltimore bridge disaster: what happened and who will pay?"
>>>
>>> There's more than one way to pay.
>> Waiting to hear analysis from my friend in shipping insurance.
>
> There may yet be people who will never again be allowed to practice in
> their chosen professions, whether that be in engineering or seafaring.

Fantasy with engineering.

Unlikely with the captain unless he knew the
engines were flaky and chose to leave anyway.

On 27/03/2024 00:35, Davey wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:08:34 +0000
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Taking things in a different direction for a moment.
>> Is the port of Baltimore out of business for an indefinite period of
>> time?
>
> Baltimore is one of the top ten US ports, ie it's huge.
> A personal reminiscence: When I worked there, at the GM plant, I would
> occasionally be in the hotel lift with a few other guys, one of whom
> was clearly British. One day, he was alone, and I asked him what he was
> doing there. He replied that he worked for Jaguar, and his job was to
> drive every one of their cars that came off the docks to confirm that
> it was ok for sale. That must come under the heading of: 'It's a tough
> job, but somebody has to do it.'
>

Every car that comes off a bulk car carrying ship get an Italian tune up. :)

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <uu0so5$2pi2n$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 26/03/2024 18:45, charles wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>
>> Yes, those are the few big estuaries we have. How many have bridges with
>> piers? You might include the drowned rivers on the south coast like
>> Falmouth and dartmouth, but there are no bridges that I can recall.
>
> Last night's tv programme on the RNLI in the Bristol Channel showed that
> the "Second Severn Crossing" [or whatever it's now called] had support
> towers in the water, Topically the concern was about a barge with no power
> hitting one of them
>

Vessels of container ship size are unlikely to get up that far but one
Severn Bridge was lost in exactly
that way.
<http://www.forgottenrelics.org/bridges/severn-railway-bridge/>

The Barges concerned are visible at low tide to this day.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/rpmarks/5115075403>

A memorial to the casualties is on the shore nearby.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbigwood/6943926282/>

GH

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.

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 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.

>
> 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 28/03/2024 01:49 pm, Colin Bignell 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.

With a known and (presumably) calculable risk of power failure?

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

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.

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