Francis Scott Key Bridge - Class I Impact

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 8:20 am
Finally, again as I have noted around here, I am Gephyrophobic. As a result, with any bridge the sooner I'm over it, the happier I am. I was really tense last June when I was stuck in a traffic jam on the George Washington (GWB to New York traffic reporters) and it was noticeably shaking. PE's around here can tell me that that's what it is designed to do, but that is not going to alleviate my concerns.

I think redwolf and I are the ones that went across it the most. It was pretty scary going across and looking down at the ships. I have a recollection that at one point there was a proposal for a rail tunnel next to it, when it was originally to be a road tunnel, like the other two crossings. Anyone who was around back then remember?

Mr. Scratchy, while I have no knowledge of the proposed rail tunnel you note, I guess it would have facilitated shipments between Bethlehem and points South. Today, with Bethlehem long gone, and the facility transformed to an ocean port adding six berths to the Port, such a tunnel would have added to Port of Baltimore’s attraction from the maritime companies.

But such a tunnel couldn't have carried the hazmat traffic...

I wouldn't assume that the bridge materials will come by rail. Concrete and steel are well suited for barges.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

I concede regarding your immediate, Mr. Olesen.

But wouldn't be if a provision of the contract to build the new bridge requires the bidder to use rail transportation to the fullest extent possible - again so as to alleviate the lost revenue affecting both roads resulting from this incident.

You think the railroads lost more than the barge operators?....

No contract should ever specify a particular mode of transportation unless it's using the customer's own transportation network....

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 8:01 am I agree, Mr. QB, that the claimants have no legal basis to impound the cargo along with the "sure bet" impoundment of the vessel.

But if you are in any profession that tangentially touches the legal environment of commerce, as was I, you know that Judges can think of themselves as God - and some are mighty liberal feeling they have to stick up for the little guy.

That's where I'm coming from, Mr. Norman, across experience having never indirectly known of or directly seen cargo impoundment absent cause within civil liability litigation, sometimes including the little guy, involving vehicle or vessel accidents, figuring odds strongly favoring normal course of business in handling undamaged delayed and damaged cargp for disposition.

OK, Messrs Olesen and QB; I'll concede to you both, in the interest that we are expected to keep this topic rail related.

Those shippers, whose cargo was loaded into the containers situated forward on the m/v Dali have valid claims against AP Moeller/Maersk - the charterer of the vessel for damage sustained, but that is independent of any claims arising from other parties.

Here endeth this Titular CPA playing lawyer.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 8:20 am This material is not rail related, but it is indeed timely and interesting, and I hope it will be allowed to stand:

https://youtu.be/Wzzt8CD3jvw?si=eic6u3TjMK4hTKro


Of course, any materials needed to build the new bridge will be handled by rail, so Chessie and Topper can look forward to that windfall to offset their losses from the Port's closure.

Justin Rozniak of "Well There's Your Problem Podcast" said in the video I linked before that it's more likely to be cable-stayed, as the previous iteration was already obsolete by the time it was built.

Could it use expansion to 3 lanes in all directions? Yes. Could it carry rail as well? Obviously.

What's the network benefit of having rail at over FSKB2.0?

Seems there's more than enough capacity on the existing tracks in and around the port.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

I think that may have been a reference to the President's statements, about riding over the bridge many times over the years via train.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 9:49 am Could it use expansion to 3 lanes in all directions? Yes. Could it carry rail as well?

Mr. Wolf, possibly somewhere overseas, but where is there a suspension bridge over here which handles rail?

Maybe the Kerch Bridge Russia built to connect the Motherland to Crimea - and that the Ukrainians have "taken out" once or twice.

Depends on how you define "suspension bridge" - for example, the deck of the Hell Gate bridge is suspended via cables from the arch above it....

Mr. Moldover, a Suspension Bridge is a bridge that "shakes, rattles, and rolls"; much as did George when I was sitting atop him in a traffic jam better part of an hour last June - and was just as glad to be on solid ground in New Jersey.

Rail related, Hell Gate is an Arch Bridge and to my knowledge, is designed to be rigid.

Finally, a rail passage over/under the Patapsco River would really only benefit shippers using vessels calling at the six berths at Sparrows Point. I'm not certain to what extent that facility is considered to be part of the Port of Baltimore.

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 9:53 pm What's the network benefit of having rail at over FSKB2.0?

Especially considering that work on the B&P Tunnel replacement project is already under way. Baltimore doesn't need a rail bridge that essentially bypasses Baltimore -- Interstate highway traffic is what needs to bypass Baltimore.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 11:08 am Mr. Wolf, possibly somewhere overseas, but where is there a suspension bridge over here which handles rail?

The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge used to carry trains of Key System, Sacramento Northern, and Interurban Electric; the portion west of Yerba Buena Island consists of two suspension bridges connected end-to-end (is that unique in itself?).

If memory serves, the GWB was designed to have tracks on the lower level but when Moses came down from the mountain the commandment was for motor traffic instead. I think there was some thought of putting tracks on the Verrazano but nothing came of it. I also think that when BART was being planned a study was done to determine whether the Golden Gate Bridge could handle a rail line but it was concluded that it couldn't take more than one train at a time, which would have put impossible constraints on frequency, and when Marin County opted out anyway it became moot.