Posted on 03/26/2024 8:59:16 PM PDT by jfd1776
Well stated. Makes a great deal of sense.
Numerous people here have said that ‘bumper’ barriers surrounding the piers could have avoided this. I don’t know if they protect against every eventuality, but bridges like this shouldn’t be built without something like that.
How about a tunnel to replace it, and set the bureaucrats to work building it?
There are a number of good approaches that would help, in theory.
Some ports require tugboats with pilots who know the harbor and its currents to pull the vessel in... but American tugboats aren’t strong enough, and in fact even European tugs, which are ten times stronger than ours, would have trouble keeping control of a massive modern containership.
Similarly, many ports put concrete dolphins around these kinds of ports - the bumper/barriers to which you refer. And again, this does help in most cases.
But would it help against a modern post-panamax containership?
The problem we face here is that today’s containerships are enormous. The one that hit the bridge last night was only a quarter the size of the biggest standard on the market today, and even bigger ones are on their way.
I believe that both concrete barriers and tugboats would be a great improvement... but they still couldn’t be counted on to prevent an accident like this, because modern ships are just too big. By comparison, the tugboat next to a containership looks like a little ladybug next to a buffalo.
I just don’t believe you can protect against this kind of accident adequately enough for a billion dollar bridge. It can be better, but it can’t be near certain. The risk will still be there as long as there’s a bridge that containerships sail under.
When they were moving the USS New Jersey [BB-62] last week, I noticed that a couple of the moored container ships were
bigger than the battleship.
Class and type Iowa-class battleship [USS New Jersey BB-62]
Displacement
49,657 long tons (50,454 t) standard (1943)
58,132 long tons (59,065 t) full load (1943)[4]
60,000 long tons (61,000 t) full load (1968)[5]
Length 887 ft 7 in (270.54 m)
Beam 108 ft 1.375 in (32.95333 m)
Class and type Neopanamax container ship [MV Dali]
Tonnage
95,128 GT
52,150 NT
116,851 DWT
Length 984 ft 0 in (299.92 m)
Beam 158 ft 2 in (48.2 m)
Are there graphics that document the comparison dimensions?
My dad professionally restored high end cars for many years. I saw several Benz’s come through his shop growing up. There was a couple of 300 SL Benz gullwing coupes in town. My dad was the only guy who could actually work on one without messing them up. I remember them as a very fast and beautiful car that required a lot of maintenance.
Let BiXiden ship peeps through Baltimore on Amtrak.
Freight on NS.
The New Jersey is two-thirds the width of the Dali, and a hundred feet shorter.
The Dali doesn't have as many 16-inch rifles.
“The Dali doesn’t have as many 16-inch rifles.”
Much less an analog fire control computer......
That’s all we need is more underwater tunnels that can be hit by drug smuggling submarines.
The piers had those types of barriers. But when it comes to stopping something with the mass and momentum of a container ship, good luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer
We never covered this stuff in HS Math Class.
excellent link!
Found this.
Surprising that I never saw one at the Henry Ford Museum.
Can you imagine the training time on one of those babies?
It apparently took a trained team of human brains doing inputs to get accurate output results.
Pretty high tech at the time.
[Not that my paris would buy me one of those or an IBM 360 to have in my bedroom for training/edumacation....]
They could have gotten either - but they couldn’t afford the floor supports...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.