comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 7 minutes ago
I hate how stupid you are Devon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You hide it so well
Why do you pretend to be an expert on everything?
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
I'm no civil or structural engineer but looking at bridges built in recent times I don't see any difference in any key bridge pier structure. Long spans are considered essential meaning structural vulnerability. Safety risks are managed by extra checks prior to passing these structures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In which case the vulnerable supports would be far more heavily protected to deflect or minimise impact force.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Produce your workings or evidence Mr civil / structural engineer...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't need an engineering degree, just a ounce of commonsense.
https://twitter.com/FloridadadD/status/1772598815742194030?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
flaw alert....flaw alert...
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
Also...how big was the biggest boat in existence going into Baltimore in the 70's...?
I suspect it would have brought the bridge down then too
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
So do we think there were exposives used on other parts of the bridge, meaning this was more than an accident?
comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Why do you pretend to be an expert on everything?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well my friend, you comment on here but know little about football so i would suggest being an expert is not a requirement to comment on this site
But since you ask, I have an A-level in economics and did a degree in Land economy which centred on property investment and valuation. As a day job i am involved in property developments, acquisitions and disposals so i have a pretty decent grounding and general interest in the financial/economic side of things. Hence my interest in the business side of football.
Property also brings me in contact with architects, engineers, developers and I have a lot of friends and other contacts in these areas and we all pick each others brain. So while i would never put myself forward as an expert i have a basic grounding in quite a few areas and take an active interest in them.
One might say that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but so long as the only danger is getting you frothing at the mouth then I am happy to risk sharing my little knowledge on here
You don't understand basic structural engineering if you don't understand why most of the structure fell from losing one critical component. Its like saying the twin tower planes only flew into 3 of the stories.
I am 100% sure that a significant risk mitigation that will come up is the non-use of tugs until clear of major obstructions. And there was still another bridge to negotiate further down the Chesapeake. I'll bet it transpires that it is one of the few ports not using tugs for risk mitigation. Also wouldn't be surprised if the enquiry deems they were going too fast as well though its double edged that one because ships that size need speed to make their rudders effective. Else you use tugs!
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok...so does a ship one third the size (30+ thousand tons) hit that bridge & it doesn't come down...?
or for that matter something built much stronger
I'll wait
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 20 minutes ago
So do we think there were exposives used on other parts of the bridge, meaning this was more than an accident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you do....nobody else has mentioned it
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok...so does a ship one third the size (30+ thousand tons) hit that bridge & it doesn't come down...?
or for that matter something built much stronger
I'll wait
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno. Do you?
I'll wait
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Why do you pretend to be an expert on everything?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well my friend, you comment on here but know little about football so i would suggest being an expert is not a requirement to comment on this site
But since you ask, I have an A-level in economics and did a degree in Land economy which centred on property investment and valuation. As a day job i am involved in property developments, acquisitions and disposals so i have a pretty decent grounding and general interest in the financial/economic side of things. Hence my interest in the business side of football.
Property also brings me in contact with architects, engineers, developers and I have a lot of friends and other contacts in these areas and we all pick each others brain. So while i would never put myself forward as an expert i have a basic grounding in quite a few areas and take an active interest in them.
One might say that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but so long as the only danger is getting you frothing at the mouth then I am happy to risk sharing my little knowledge on here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TL;DR - I pretend like I’m an expert and am literally talking out my a*se
I like to think the government watches JA606 like a hawk for ideas given we have authorities on every single global event among us.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok...so does a ship one third the size (30+ thousand tons) hit that bridge & it doesn't come down...?
or for that matter something built much stronger
I'll wait
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno. Do you?
I'll wait
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go:
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge, referenced earlier, was hit in the 80s and had 'dolphins' built around the base of columns to protect them from impact when it was rebuilt.
The following link, which i cannot verify but looks pretty nerdy enough to be accurate, states that the dolphins were built to withstand the impact of an 87000 ton ship
And that was 35-40 years ago
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/sunshine_skyway.html
That is the most hilarious link I’ve seen. Are you going to source from CBeebies next?
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Here you go:
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge, referenced earlier, was hit in the 80s and had 'dolphins' built around the base of columns to protect them from impact when it was rebuilt.
The following link, which i cannot verify but looks pretty nerdy enough to be accurate, states that the dolphins were built to withstand the impact of an 87000 ton ship
And that was 35-40 years ago
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/sunshine_skyway.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaningless bollix unless the velocity of said ship if spec'd too.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Here you go:
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge, referenced earlier, was hit in the 80s and had 'dolphins' built around the base of columns to protect them from impact when it was rebuilt.
The following link, which i cannot verify but looks pretty nerdy enough to be accurate, states that the dolphins were built to withstand the impact of an 87000 ton ship
And that was 35-40 years ago
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/sunshine_skyway.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaningless bollix unless the velocity of said ship if spec'd too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No no no you are wrong. Things only withstand WEIGHT and not velocity. He thought about someone designing an extension!!!!
In the 70's Shell Tankers (UK) had their "N" class of 100,000 DWT, "M" class of 200,000+ DWT and "L" class of 300,000+ DWT tankers. French Shell had 2 of 500,000+ DWT.
Others such as Esso, Chevron, Mobil and several other nations had similar VLCCs and ULCCs.
So these were around when the bridge was built.
But if a lorry crashed into the front of my house I wouldn't expect it to bring the whole terrace down.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 20 minutes ago
So do we think there were exposives used on other parts of the bridge, meaning this was more than an accident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you do....nobody else has mentioned it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing should be ruled out at this point.
comment by goadocwatson (U1016)
posted 2 minutes ago
In the 70's Shell Tankers (UK) had their "N" class of 100,000 DWT, "M" class of 200,000+ DWT and "L" class of 300,000+ DWT tankers. French Shell had 2 of 500,000+ DWT.
Others such as Esso, Chevron, Mobil and several other nations had similar VLCCs and ULCCs.
So these were around when the bridge was built.
But if a lorry crashed into the front of my house I wouldn't expect it to bring the whole terrace down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t realise your house was built to help move cars from one point to another over a body of water. Fair play
I'll help Devon here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jQalaH47UC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=specification+of+sunshine+skyway+dolphins&source=bl&ots=_qv_dMLXwi&sig=ACfU3U0cChbRDWd-8FgG9yPiV99WK3jBog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_kp3B5JSFAxWeW0EAHYNFD90Q6AF6BAg0EAM#v=onepage&q=specification%20of%20sunshine%20skyway%20dolphins&f=false
The Skyway's dolphins are spec'd at 10knots but crucially for an EMPTY 87,000 DWt ship. Load it up and the spec drops to c.25,000DWt. So, talking bollix.
Page 120 if you are really interested.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'll help Devon here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jQalaH47UC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=specification+of+sunshine+skyway+dolphins&source=bl&ots=_qv_dMLXwi&sig=ACfU3U0cChbRDWd-8FgG9yPiV99WK3jBog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_kp3B5JSFAxWeW0EAHYNFD90Q6AF6BAg0EAM#v=onepage&q=specification%20of%20sunshine%20skyway%20dolphins&f=false
The Skyway's dolphins are spec'd at 10knots but crucially for an EMPTY 87,000 DWt ship. Load it up and the spec drops to c.25,000DWt. So, talking bollix.
Page 120 if you are really interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Largely doesn’t help that the figure in Devon’s hilarious link is considerably less than the 117k tons that have been reported for the vessel
If that ship hits the Forth bridge I reckon it damages it very badly....probably buckles it out of shape & breaks off the nearest steel road stantion at best...at worst it brings half of it down...& that's substantially stronger than that meccano kit shat in Baltimore
comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'll help Devon here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jQalaH47UC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=specification+of+sunshine+skyway+dolphins&source=bl&ots=_qv_dMLXwi&sig=ACfU3U0cChbRDWd-8FgG9yPiV99WK3jBog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_kp3B5JSFAxWeW0EAHYNFD90Q6AF6BAg0EAM#v=onepage&q=specification%20of%20sunshine%20skyway%20dolphins&f=false
The Skyway's dolphins are spec'd at 10knots but crucially for an EMPTY 87,000 DWt ship. Load it up and the spec drops to c.25,000DWt. So, talking bollix.
Page 120 if you are really interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Largely doesn’t help that the figure in Devon’s hilarious link is considerably less than the 117k tons that have been reported for the vessel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that was it's DWt. It was also pretty fully loaded by the looks of it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Baltimore Bridge
Page 4 of 5
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 7 minutes ago
I hate how stupid you are Devon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You hide it so well
posted on 27/3/24
Why do you pretend to be an expert on everything?
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
I'm no civil or structural engineer but looking at bridges built in recent times I don't see any difference in any key bridge pier structure. Long spans are considered essential meaning structural vulnerability. Safety risks are managed by extra checks prior to passing these structures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In which case the vulnerable supports would be far more heavily protected to deflect or minimise impact force.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Produce your workings or evidence Mr civil / structural engineer...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't need an engineering degree, just a ounce of commonsense.
https://twitter.com/FloridadadD/status/1772598815742194030?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
flaw alert....flaw alert...
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
posted on 27/3/24
Also...how big was the biggest boat in existence going into Baltimore in the 70's...?
I suspect it would have brought the bridge down then too
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
posted on 27/3/24
So do we think there were exposives used on other parts of the bridge, meaning this was more than an accident?
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Why do you pretend to be an expert on everything?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well my friend, you comment on here but know little about football so i would suggest being an expert is not a requirement to comment on this site
But since you ask, I have an A-level in economics and did a degree in Land economy which centred on property investment and valuation. As a day job i am involved in property developments, acquisitions and disposals so i have a pretty decent grounding and general interest in the financial/economic side of things. Hence my interest in the business side of football.
Property also brings me in contact with architects, engineers, developers and I have a lot of friends and other contacts in these areas and we all pick each others brain. So while i would never put myself forward as an expert i have a basic grounding in quite a few areas and take an active interest in them.
One might say that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but so long as the only danger is getting you frothing at the mouth then I am happy to risk sharing my little knowledge on here
posted on 27/3/24
You don't understand basic structural engineering if you don't understand why most of the structure fell from losing one critical component. Its like saying the twin tower planes only flew into 3 of the stories.
I am 100% sure that a significant risk mitigation that will come up is the non-use of tugs until clear of major obstructions. And there was still another bridge to negotiate further down the Chesapeake. I'll bet it transpires that it is one of the few ports not using tugs for risk mitigation. Also wouldn't be surprised if the enquiry deems they were going too fast as well though its double edged that one because ships that size need speed to make their rudders effective. Else you use tugs!
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok...so does a ship one third the size (30+ thousand tons) hit that bridge & it doesn't come down...?
or for that matter something built much stronger
I'll wait
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 20 minutes ago
So do we think there were exposives used on other parts of the bridge, meaning this was more than an accident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you do....nobody else has mentioned it
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok...so does a ship one third the size (30+ thousand tons) hit that bridge & it doesn't come down...?
or for that matter something built much stronger
I'll wait
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno. Do you?
I'll wait
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Why do you pretend to be an expert on everything?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well my friend, you comment on here but know little about football so i would suggest being an expert is not a requirement to comment on this site
But since you ask, I have an A-level in economics and did a degree in Land economy which centred on property investment and valuation. As a day job i am involved in property developments, acquisitions and disposals so i have a pretty decent grounding and general interest in the financial/economic side of things. Hence my interest in the business side of football.
Property also brings me in contact with architects, engineers, developers and I have a lot of friends and other contacts in these areas and we all pick each others brain. So while i would never put myself forward as an expert i have a basic grounding in quite a few areas and take an active interest in them.
One might say that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but so long as the only danger is getting you frothing at the mouth then I am happy to risk sharing my little knowledge on here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TL;DR - I pretend like I’m an expert and am literally talking out my a*se
posted on 27/3/24
I like to think the government watches JA606 like a hawk for ideas given we have authorities on every single global event among us.
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 39 minutes ago
Slight point of order here...there was nothing wrong with the bridge seconds before it got steam-rollered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing wrong with Grenfell tower until it caught fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Untrue...it is/was a delapidated shat tip with highly dangerous cladding - hence it caught fire & burnt out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bridge is suspectable total collapse if it is struck, then there is something wrong with it.
In the same way that if a building turns into an uncontrollable fire ball if it catches fire, there is something wrong with that.
Not all buildings or bridges share the flaws that Grenfell and the Francis Scott Key Bridge did.
Such flaws having been designed out, either originally or retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the strongest bridge in the world and run 100,000 tons ship into it see what it does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baltimores-key-bridge-couldnt-withstand-cargo-ship-crash-rcna145160
It's pretty obvious that this bridge and its protection has been over taken by the size of vessel and thus potential scale of impact it is exposed to.
So probably not flawed at the time of design in the 70s but flawed now.
Bit like saying, an old stone bridge build in the 1800s to take a horse and cart, there was nothing wrong with it until the 20 ton lorry drove over it and destroyed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so..are you saying this answers my query about the strongest bridge in the world...(wherever that is)...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt a question, so i didnt answer it, but nor can you I would suggest, not with any greater certainty than me
But ask yourself this. If an engineer is designing an extension to your house, he wouldnt say, we have designed the roof to withstand strong winds, but not really strong winds. Or that the roof can take normal loading but if we get 2 foot of snow then it may collapse.
Structures are often over engineered, so everyone can sleep at night and no one gets sued. Here i am not saying that the bridge needs to be designed to withstand such an impact, but the protective measures around the supports need to be effective enough to absorb and deflect sufficient impact to prevent such a massive failure. Especially where one failure = failure of the whole thing.
Over time as things advance, things needs upgrading. Like you see with motorway central barriers. All the old metal armco stuff being ripped out and replaced with concrete, reflecting the fact that those old designs are decades old and lorries and cars are more and bigger and faster and accidents more impactful. They didnt sit there saying "well it was fine in the 70s so its fine now!" and ignored it, which is what has occurred with this bridge in a busy shipping lane which has seen 50 years of advancement in ships since it was built.
An expert on the news last night said modern ships like the Dali are three times the size of those prevalent in the 70s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok...so does a ship one third the size (30+ thousand tons) hit that bridge & it doesn't come down...?
or for that matter something built much stronger
I'll wait
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno. Do you?
I'll wait
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go:
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge, referenced earlier, was hit in the 80s and had 'dolphins' built around the base of columns to protect them from impact when it was rebuilt.
The following link, which i cannot verify but looks pretty nerdy enough to be accurate, states that the dolphins were built to withstand the impact of an 87000 ton ship
And that was 35-40 years ago
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/sunshine_skyway.html
posted on 27/3/24
That is the most hilarious link I’ve seen. Are you going to source from CBeebies next?
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Here you go:
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge, referenced earlier, was hit in the 80s and had 'dolphins' built around the base of columns to protect them from impact when it was rebuilt.
The following link, which i cannot verify but looks pretty nerdy enough to be accurate, states that the dolphins were built to withstand the impact of an 87000 ton ship
And that was 35-40 years ago
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/sunshine_skyway.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaningless bollix unless the velocity of said ship if spec'd too.
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Here you go:
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge, referenced earlier, was hit in the 80s and had 'dolphins' built around the base of columns to protect them from impact when it was rebuilt.
The following link, which i cannot verify but looks pretty nerdy enough to be accurate, states that the dolphins were built to withstand the impact of an 87000 ton ship
And that was 35-40 years ago
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/sunshine_skyway.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaningless bollix unless the velocity of said ship if spec'd too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No no no you are wrong. Things only withstand WEIGHT and not velocity. He thought about someone designing an extension!!!!
posted on 27/3/24
In the 70's Shell Tankers (UK) had their "N" class of 100,000 DWT, "M" class of 200,000+ DWT and "L" class of 300,000+ DWT tankers. French Shell had 2 of 500,000+ DWT.
Others such as Esso, Chevron, Mobil and several other nations had similar VLCCs and ULCCs.
So these were around when the bridge was built.
But if a lorry crashed into the front of my house I wouldn't expect it to bring the whole terrace down.
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 20 minutes ago
So do we think there were exposives used on other parts of the bridge, meaning this was more than an accident?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you do....nobody else has mentioned it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing should be ruled out at this point.
posted on 27/3/24
comment by goadocwatson (U1016)
posted 2 minutes ago
In the 70's Shell Tankers (UK) had their "N" class of 100,000 DWT, "M" class of 200,000+ DWT and "L" class of 300,000+ DWT tankers. French Shell had 2 of 500,000+ DWT.
Others such as Esso, Chevron, Mobil and several other nations had similar VLCCs and ULCCs.
So these were around when the bridge was built.
But if a lorry crashed into the front of my house I wouldn't expect it to bring the whole terrace down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t realise your house was built to help move cars from one point to another over a body of water. Fair play
posted on 27/3/24
I'll help Devon here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jQalaH47UC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=specification+of+sunshine+skyway+dolphins&source=bl&ots=_qv_dMLXwi&sig=ACfU3U0cChbRDWd-8FgG9yPiV99WK3jBog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_kp3B5JSFAxWeW0EAHYNFD90Q6AF6BAg0EAM#v=onepage&q=specification%20of%20sunshine%20skyway%20dolphins&f=false
The Skyway's dolphins are spec'd at 10knots but crucially for an EMPTY 87,000 DWt ship. Load it up and the spec drops to c.25,000DWt. So, talking bollix.
Page 120 if you are really interested.
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'll help Devon here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jQalaH47UC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=specification+of+sunshine+skyway+dolphins&source=bl&ots=_qv_dMLXwi&sig=ACfU3U0cChbRDWd-8FgG9yPiV99WK3jBog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_kp3B5JSFAxWeW0EAHYNFD90Q6AF6BAg0EAM#v=onepage&q=specification%20of%20sunshine%20skyway%20dolphins&f=false
The Skyway's dolphins are spec'd at 10knots but crucially for an EMPTY 87,000 DWt ship. Load it up and the spec drops to c.25,000DWt. So, talking bollix.
Page 120 if you are really interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Largely doesn’t help that the figure in Devon’s hilarious link is considerably less than the 117k tons that have been reported for the vessel
posted on 27/3/24
If that ship hits the Forth bridge I reckon it damages it very badly....probably buckles it out of shape & breaks off the nearest steel road stantion at best...at worst it brings half of it down...& that's substantially stronger than that meccano kit shat in Baltimore
posted on 27/3/24
comment by Edinspur - Plan B FC (U1109)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'll help Devon here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jQalaH47UC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=specification+of+sunshine+skyway+dolphins&source=bl&ots=_qv_dMLXwi&sig=ACfU3U0cChbRDWd-8FgG9yPiV99WK3jBog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_kp3B5JSFAxWeW0EAHYNFD90Q6AF6BAg0EAM#v=onepage&q=specification%20of%20sunshine%20skyway%20dolphins&f=false
The Skyway's dolphins are spec'd at 10knots but crucially for an EMPTY 87,000 DWt ship. Load it up and the spec drops to c.25,000DWt. So, talking bollix.
Page 120 if you are really interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Largely doesn’t help that the figure in Devon’s hilarious link is considerably less than the 117k tons that have been reported for the vessel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that was it's DWt. It was also pretty fully loaded by the looks of it.
Page 4 of 5