Baltimore Bridge Collision and Collapse

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I went and read the general average story since I realized that it was probably different from the regular limitation of liability that I'd heard of before. Had no idea that existed. It also points to how old maritime law is--that concept dates back to Byzantine times.
 
But they never even guess at what "quickly" might mean.
Let's look at the examples he gives in the article:

Mario Cuomo Bridge, NY: Design selected 2011, Construction begins 2013, First span opens 2017, Second span opens 2018
Total time: 7 years

Gordie Howe Bridge, MI-ON: Design-build contractor selected 2018, construction expected to be finished 2025
Total time: 7 years

Kosciuszko Bridge, NY: 2014: Contract awarded (not clear if it was construction only or design-build) 2014, first span opened 2017, second span opened 2019
Total time: 5 years

There seems to be a trend...

[The article listed some other bridges, but I couldn't find start dates. Those are much harder to find that ribbon-cutting dates for some reason...]
 
Panels and breakers, no. Large (say >500 hp) electric motors and VFDs sometimes get water cooling, though it depends on the boat. Must be nice to have all the space that a big ship offers. In most of the littler boats we work on, the switchboard and half the panels are all jammed into the engine room and run at 100-120F ambient. We're packing 8 pounds of [stuff] into a 1-pound bag on those. The diesel-electric one I discussed above has separate control rooms for the VFD though.
Yeah, there's more room, but stuff still fills the available space. And everything is bigger. I'm 6'-3", so I never worked on anything small. I just wouldn't fit!😂. I never worked a DE boat, but was on one and got a glimpse into the squirrel cage. One big honkn' rotor! Don't recall exactly, but it must have been in the neighborhood of 20,000hp. I suppose there might have been some water cooling going on there. It was a tanker, and I am a deckie, so I was more interested in the cargo control room. I was used to having hands on valves, so that remote control stuff was unnerving to me.😂😂 That was back in the late 90's. It's all routine now.
 
Came across this guy on Youtube (@jeffostroff) and he has some pretty interesting videos on the bridge removal effort. I don't know how accurate his narrative is but the video and pictures are pretty good.

What struck me was how narrow the actual channel really is. He has several graphics that demonstrate what the planning is to open the channels and the dimensions of said channels. Not only are they narrow, they aren't that deep relative to what I was thinking. He showed how once the Dali got out of the channel, it had little to no room to maneuver and likely grounded itself pretty well before hitting the bridge. We all know what happened, but what's interesting to me is how they may have to go about getting it moved once the bridge is removed from the ship.

I don't normally post links but I found this interesting and basic enough...

 
Checkout the Hanford Waste Treatment plant.....22 years and still not finished (started in 2002).
Ain't that the truth. Our company designed the waste glass melters for the facility. Been out there helping them start the melters up. Both melter finally have glass in them, but they are still a long way from actually processing waste. I think the plan is sometime next year to start feeding actual waste to the facility. Don't get me started on how much money they have spent on this already!
 
You wanna talk about over time and over budget? Just look at California's train from San Fran to LA. Reports are that it's about 100 BILLION over-budget(initially set in the high $33B, sources vary, but supposedly currently spent nearly $130B with many more BILLIONS needed), and likely to be decades past it's initial 'in service' date (approved in 2008! Supposed to be complete by 2020) by the time it gets done. Google it, too many references to list! Take your pic, left or right, BOTH pretty much agree it's the .gov boondoggle of the century.

IF it ever gets done, it'll be a miracle.

The replacement bridge, by comparison, shouldn't be nearly as insanely delayed nor over budget.
 
You wanna talk about over time and over budget? Just look at California's train from San Fran to LA. Reports are that it's about 100 BILLION over-budget(initially set in the high $33B, sources vary, but supposedly currently spent nearly $130B with many more BILLIONS needed), and likely to be decades past it's initial 'in service' date (approved in 2008! Supposed to be complete by 2020) by the time it gets done. Google it, too many references to list! Take your pic, left or right, BOTH pretty much agree it's the .gov boondoggle of the century.

IF it ever gets done, it'll be a miracle.

The replacement bridge, by comparison, shouldn't be nearly as insanely delayed nor over budget.
The operative word in describing the problem here is not "train" or "high speed rail" or even (surprisingly) "government." The problem is "California."
 
The operative word in describing the problem here is not "train" or "high speed rail" or even (surprisingly) "government." The problem is "California."
Also buying land in some of the most expensive zip codes in the nation. Regardless, the new bridge doesn’t need to buy land, nor is it developing new technology, so it should go much faster than either high speed rail or Hanford.
 
Also buying land in some of the most expensive zip codes in the nation. Regardless, the new bridge doesn’t need to buy land, nor is it developing new technology, so it should go much faster than either high speed rail or Hanford.
Normally I'd say; "Don't forget the so-called 'Jobs' program for local inhabitants", but I'm not sure that would be accurate. If they actually put people to work like the TVA did in the 30s (and still today to some extent), it may have been an improvement over the current situation...and less costly. Most of those "New Deal" programs were disasters and only lasted a short time.

No, the high speed rail story should be a college course in failed economics based on political pressures. The engineers said it would never succeed, the accountants said it would never succeed but the politicians said, "sure, why not?"
 
Which dam are you referring to?
The dam that the TVA built and was supposed to provide power to the community but was actually for oak ridge, I don’t remember it’s name I was there on vacation and read about it in some nuclear books (they don’t tell you at the place)
 
Normally I'd say; "Don't forget the so-called 'Jobs' program for local inhabitants", but I'm not sure that would be accurate. If they actually put people to work like the TVA did in the 30s (and still today to some extent), it may have been an improvement over the current situation...and less costly. Most of those "New Deal" programs were disasters and only lasted a short time.
The WPA and/or CCC built an enormous amount of infrastructure in national and state parks. I’m not sure if the TVA and Bonneville Power Administration dams were parts of the New Deal, but they were definitely adjacent.
 
If you’re talking about the dam that was a cover for the oak ridge plant power supply. I don’t know if they did anything else.
Not sure that is accurate. Oak Ridge was selected because there was already a damn on the Clinch river (Norris Dam). So if anything, the plant was built after the dam not the dam being built for the plant.
 
Last edited:
The WPA and/or CCC built an enormous amount of infrastructure in national and state parks. I’m not sure if the TVA and Bonneville Power Administration dams were parts of the New Deal, but they were definitely adjacent.
True, they did build a lot of stuff but were more costly than advertised. One could argue that was needed during and after the depression years to keep the country on some sort of footing until WWII came along.

I'm not a fan of the New Deal's history but there was something they did do right. Those government programs all had "sunset" clauses or a limited existence built into the laws. Today, we count on each congress to "vote down" funding as a way to terminate a fed gov program. We all know how that works out so it would be better to have mandatory sunset clauses in all spending legislation except military ( and who can really define "general welfare"?)
 
Not sure that is accurate. Oak Ridge was selected because there was already a damn on the Clinch river. So if anything, the plant was built after the dam not the dam being built for the plant.
I don’t know, if that is the order it has the same effect, oak ridge gets all the power.

Ps yup that is the same dam.
 
Last edited:
If by 'same effect' you mean it's the exact opposite of what you stated as a fact (again), then perhaps.
????

I don’t know what you think I said, I was just commenting on some interesting history. Namely that oak ridge took the power from the people TVA was for (although if they had been told they probably would have supported it).
 
????

I don’t know what you think I said, I was just commenting on some interesting history. Namely that oak ridge took the power from the people TVA was for (although if they had been told they probably would have supported it).
????

This post:
If you’re talking about the dam that was a cover for the oak ridge plant power supply. I don’t know if they did anything else.

The dam explicitly wasn't built 'as a cover' for anything. It was already there.
 
No, the high speed rail story should be a college course in failed economics

Yes
based on political pressures. The engineers said it would never succeed, the accountants said it would never succeed but the politicians said, "sure, why not?"
Wrong. You don't live here so you are not expected to know anything about it, but you could look it up

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_1A

Passed 52% to 48%. The people spoke, a plurality wanted something. Nothing to do with "politicians".

Many people voted against it, 48%. For a lot of reasons. The plan was not concrete, it was notional. I'm not writing blank checks for an unlimited project.

Among the other factors:

NIMBYs (looking at you Silicon Valley and Peninsula towns)

Geography: best would be a long the coast, flattest grades. You're not putting any rail over Tehachapis or Grapevine (hwy 5).

But no coastal communities need or want to get to SF or LA. Ok, so go north south on the east side of the central valley. Noone there wants to go to SF or LA. no one in LA or SF wants to ride that (hour plus) detour to the east.

So now we have track between Merced and Fresno and Bakersfield. But how do you run from Modesto to San Jose? Not across Patterson Pass. Not through Altamond. Ok, how about Pacheco and Gilroy? Nope, too tall, unstable.

Geology: multiple unknown major faults through San Luis and Tehachapis.

Would be the longest tunnel in the world, thousands of feet under and through unstable rocks.


Quick note, nowhere in the world do high speed rail projects pay for themselves directly, but once it's done people wonder how they'd do without it. So we all pay for it, but it's cheaper than the alternatives. In this case, flying and driving.
 
Yes

Wrong. You don't live here so you are not expected to know anything about it, but you could look it up

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_1A

Passed 52% to 48%. The people spoke, a plurality wanted something. Nothing to do with "politicians".

Many people voted against it, 48%. For a lot of reasons. The plan was not concrete, it was notional. I'm not writing blank checks for an unlimited project.

Among the other factors:

NIMBYs (looking at you Silicon Valley and Peninsula towns)

Geography: best would be a long the coast, flattest grades. You're not putting any rail over Tehachapis or Grapevine (hwy 5).

But no coastal communities need or want to get to SF or LA. Ok, so go north south on the east side of the central valley. Noone there wants to go to SF or LA. no one in LA or SF wants to ride that (hour plus) detour to the east.

So now we have track between Merced and Fresno and Bakersfield. But how do you run from Modesto to San Jose? Not across Patterson Pass. Not through Altamond. Ok, how about Pacheco and Gilroy? Nope, too tall, unstable.

Geology: multiple unknown major faults through San Luis and Tehachapis.

Would be the longest tunnel in the world, thousands of feet under and through unstable rocks.


Quick note, nowhere in the world do high speed rail projects pay for themselves directly, but once it's done people wonder how they'd do without it. So we all pay for it, but it's cheaper than the alternatives. In this case, flying and driving.
The CEO of Southwest said he would price match the high speed rail prices from Burbank to San Francisco. No track has been laid so far and the costs are skyrocketing. It needs a dirt nap asap. We, the people are being fleeced.
 
The dam explicitly wasn't built 'as a cover' for anything. It was already there.
Ok I see, what I meant was that they said that it was to power the local area, but was actually built for the manhattan project. I got the order of events confused, it was built before but when choosing a site for oak ridge Groves chose it because of the dam not the other way around.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top