|
|
| The Manhattan Bridge (812580) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
|
| (812580) | |
The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009 Just watch...flex in action. |
|
|
| (812582) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Jul 25 01:51:55 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Wowzers! |
|
|
| (812583) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Jul 25 02:07:56 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. heh, time lapse ftw. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (812585) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by irt1958 on Sat Jul 25 02:23:55 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Metal fatigue in action. When a train rolls past you can actually see how much worse it gets. |
|
|
| (812586) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jul 25 02:38:21 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Very cool video and thanks for posting it. Must be nice to have all day to video a bridge like that ;O.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (812597) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Jul 25 06:21:31 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by irt1958 on Sat Jul 25 02:23:55 2009. That's not metal fatigue. The bridge is designed to flex. |
|
|
| (812607) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Sat Jul 25 07:57:00 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. o_0!Imagine how much it must of have flexed before the rehab! Ironically it was designed by Leon Moisseiff the same guy behind the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Thanks for posting Hank Eisenstein. |
|
|
| (812608) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jul 25 07:57:14 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Hmm. Is it time for another thread about how the Manhattan Bridge repairs of a few years ago won't last, and before you know it the bridge will be closed to trains again? :) |
|
|
| (812610) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Fulton Frank on Sat Jul 25 08:05:02 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. eeee gads.Would be great to see the flex with a meet of all four trains/directions. And this harkens to previous threads.... could the Brooklyn Bridge sustain such flex at its age? |
|
|
| (812613) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by JFK DEPOT on Sat Jul 25 08:33:50 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by AlM on Sat Jul 25 07:57:14 2009. YUP I have a feeling about that toolooks like the Broadway side too that is extremely scary honestly speaking those trains going across are gonna be the death of the bridge at the rate that its going |
|
|
| (812615) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Jul 25 08:37:48 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Fulton Frank on Sat Jul 25 08:05:02 2009. And this harkens to previous threads.... could the Brooklyn Bridge sustain such flex at its age?The Brooklyn Bridge has stay cables on it. Not likely that it would flex very much. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (812618) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Jul 25 08:53:30 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by JFK DEPOT on Sat Jul 25 08:33:50 2009. All suspension bridges are designed to flex under loads. They are also designed to flex under wind loads.I recall seeing a similar video clip of a Shinkansen (Japanese Bullet Train) crossing one the suspension bridges on that railroad. The movement of Manhattan Bridge paled in comparison. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (812619) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 08:55:01 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. I agree with the wowzers comment but this was how it was designed. Though some of those flexes does not seem normal to me but I am not a bridge expert so it very well may be normal. Although, hearing that the Manhattan Bridge was designed by the same guy who designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge scares me a bit with the way it ended up in the water. |
|
|
| (812620) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 25 08:56:03 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Think twice on Sat Jul 25 07:57:00 2009. I wonder how much it flexed when a Triplex train crossed it.Oh my aching deck! |
|
|
| (812643) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 11:53:49 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Dave on Sat Jul 25 06:21:31 2009. It was never designed to flex. That's why it was in such atrocious condition by the early 1980's and why it needed a 20+ year rebuilding project. This rebuild basically stiffened the bridge so that it could withstand the stresses better. However, if maintenance ever gets deferred, like it did after WWII, the problems will resurface. The subway should have been placed in tunnels under the river. It would have been an expensive propisition for sure, but it would have solved the problems one and for all, all while adding 4 lanes for auto traffic. |
|
|
| (812644) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 11:57:03 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 11:53:49 2009. Hmmm, I wonder if they could still put the trains in tunnels. They can prefab them and then sink them similar to the 63rd st line. Just a thought. |
|
|
| (812645) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 25 12:01:37 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 08:55:01 2009. The video in the original post was a time lapse.The scenes in this video of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse were shot in real time. |
|
|
| (812648) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 12:18:15 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 25 12:01:37 2009. Amazing but sad video. I am glad the Manhattan Bridge hasn't suffered this, but am nervous now that I know what I know |
|
|
| (812649) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 12:22:35 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. I assume that the right question to ask is whether such a flex is within design parameters or not. I would tend to think - and pray! - that it is. |
|
|
| (812650) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 12:25:30 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 12:18:15 2009. I'm no bridge engineer, but as I understand the issue, it's not one that could affect the Manhattan Bridge, unless you're talking about winds that could level most of the skyline too.The bridge in our area that was modified following the Tacoma Narrows disaster was the Whitestone, which had bulky modifications put in soon after the disaster out west, which were recently replaced with a much more lightweight wind fluting design designed to more efficiently achieve the same result while not shortening cable life. |
|
|
| (812656) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sat Jul 25 13:04:11 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 12:22:35 2009. The Manhattan Bridge has had repair upon repair since 1983. What if one day in the next 20 years it's deemed unsafe for the trains.It might have been better to replace it with tunnels back in the 1980s. But we know that would have been a political impossibility because of all the properties in Brooklyn and Manhattan that would have to have been taken over for such a huge project. Years of court battles, etc. Same for the Williamsbugh Bridge replacement idea that went nowhere in the mid 1980s. |
|
|
| (812657) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 13:12:36 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 12:25:30 2009. No, I know but still am nervous but I will still take the trains over the bridge I won't let it stop me in what I do |
|
|
| (812665) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 13:24:37 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Dan on Sat Jul 25 13:04:11 2009. But we know that would have been a political impossibility because of all the properties in Brooklyn and Manhattan that would have to have been taken over for such a huge project.Actually, if getting rid of the bridge is part of the deal, then that opens up a lot of avenues. I'm not saying that it would be a cakewalk, but it offers much more possibility. Technically, tunnel work wouldn't be necessary - just run all trains via Montague St. Grand St altered to become a terminal for B/D trains if both sides of the bridge were out, or allowed to proceed per current route if not. In event of the former, Brooklyn B route replaced by service or extended J service, and Brooklyn D route replaced by extended W route. |
|
|
| (812666) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 13:25:54 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Dan on Sat Jul 25 13:04:11 2009. But we know that would have been a political impossibility because of all the properties in Brooklyn and Manhattan that would have to have been taken over for such a huge project.Actually, if getting rid of the bridge is part of the deal, then that opens up a lot of avenues. I'm not saying that it would be a cakewalk, but it offers much more possibility. Technically, tunnel work wouldn't be necessary - just run all trains via Montague St. Grand St altered to become a terminal for B/D trains if both sides of the bridge were out, or allowed to proceed per current route if not. In event of the former, Brooklyn B route replaced by diamond Q service or extended J service, and Brooklyn D route replaced by extended W route. N.b., html coding by screwed up by angled bracket use previously. |
|
|
| (812669) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jul 25 13:40:33 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 11:53:49 2009. Most bridges are designed to flex but the flexion is unnoticeable unless it observed in a time lapse photo sequence. The problem with the Manny B is that the tracks should have been put in the middle like the Willy B or the Bkln Br and the problem wouldn't have been so severe. When the bridge was designed, the then bridge commissioner (I don't recall his name at the moment) commented that the bridge could not support the weight of the trains it was designed to carry and he was immediately fired. The principal reason that the Manny B suffered from the type of stress that it did was due to the majority of BMT bridge service Sea Beach West End and Brighton) for many years using the present A/B tracks while the H tracks saw mostly rush hour Culver and banker special service service. The Chrystie merger of 1967 corrected that problem to a small degree but the twisting of the bridge from many years of mostly one sided operation ultimately resulted in the bridge having to be shut down the way it was to repair the conditions. |
|
|
| (812677) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 14:14:46 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by randyo on Sat Jul 25 13:40:33 2009. With regards to the Manhattan bridge, said flexing was never considered. The design was flawed from the beginning, with the tracks being placed on the outside of the bridge on either side. The massive imbalance in service, where most traffic being on the north side for just about the entire history of subway service across it made the problems worse. |
|
|
| (812678) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 14:15:50 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 11:57:03 2009. Only cost would be an issue, but it'd be a lot cheaper had it been done in the 1980's and the majority of funding used to make the bridge safe for trains been used to fund the tunnels. |
|
|
| (812685) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 14:30:45 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 14:15:50 2009. True very true |
|
|
| (812692) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 15:06:35 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Dan on Sat Jul 25 13:04:11 2009. Man, am I tired of being told how stuff can't be built around here. We've gone from one extreme (Moses) to the other. |
|
|
| (812702) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Jul 25 15:21:35 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Dan on Sat Jul 25 13:04:11 2009. It might have been better to replace it with tunnels back in the 1980sI'd imagine that the bridge would probably remain as is, but a tunnel would be built in lieu of the trains crossing the bridge which wouldn't require as much property acquisition. While the bridge route is scenic, I'd imagine a tunnel would with proper signalling would allow for higher speeds than the current gentle 20 mph crossing right now... |
|
|
| (812704) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Jul 25 15:27:38 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Jul 25 15:21:35 2009. Wouldn't the tunnel still require property aquisition so that ventalation shafts can be built on both ends?Also if the trains no longer ran on the bridge, would those be opened up for vehicular traffic? |
|
|
| (812718) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:28:37 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by randyo on Sat Jul 25 13:40:33 2009. Even after the Chrystie merger, the north side tracks still saw more service than the south side. The B and D trains ran days a week and the QB ran only during rush hours. It wasn't until April 1986 that the south had more service than the north and that was only because the north tracks were shut down then. But then the north tracks reopened in December 1988 and the south tracks were shut down and it stayed that way for 13 years (except for the few months in 1991 when the south side tracks reopened for N service). Then it was back to south-side-only operation in July 2001. I think the most balanced bridge service pattern is the current one, which came in 2004 when both side finally began running trains simultaneously. Because now we have trains from four lines running over the bridge on weekdays from 6 AM to about 11 PM instead of just during rush hours like we did from 1967 to 1986. |
|
|
| (812721) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:38:45 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by JFK DEPOT on Sat Jul 25 08:33:50 2009. Listen, if those Shinkansen bridges that Sand Box John posted are flexing more than what we're seeing in that YouTube video of the Manhattan Bridge, then I don't think we have to fear a return to the bad old days of the 1990s when the Broadway side was closed and the N ran local 24/7 through the Montague Tunnel and the Q was shown in orange and ran via the 6th Avenue express tracks.Don't forget, that two-minute video was sped up over a longer period of time. Didn't you see how fast everything was moving? |
|
|
| (812722) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:46:18 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:38:45 2009. That being said, I hope we don't ever have to resurrect that 1990's service plan again. While it was the only real way to keep all the trains running, it meant no express service on the Broadway line, one original BMT line going from express to local and another running on an IND line and a generation of young New Yorkers and newcomers to the city referring to the Broadway BMT as "the N/R line". I used to cringe at the sound of that and didn't hesitate to correct people who said it, especially from 2001 on, when Q service was restored to the Broadway line and the W train made its debut. |
|
|
| (812724) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:50:09 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 13:12:36 2009. So will I, especially on the N and Q trains, because you get superior views of New York Harbor from the south side of the bridge. I hope the south side tracks never have to be shut down again for long-term rehabilitation. |
|
|
| (812725) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Sat Jul 25 16:50:28 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Think twice on Sat Jul 25 07:57:00 2009. Ralph Modjeski designed and built the Manhattan Bridge with Moisseiff consulting engineer. Modjeski also did the Ben Franklin Bridge with a similar design. |
|
|
| (812728) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Jul 25 17:03:24 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 25 08:56:03 2009. For the 2004 parade of trains on Brighton, was a Triplex [pushed] over the bridge by an R68 D train? |
|
|
| (812732) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Sat Jul 25 17:26:28 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Jul 25 15:27:38 2009. With the trains off the bridge, that space would just be unused to reduce weight on the bridge. Maybe a king-sized walkway / bike path. |
|
|
| (812754) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jul 25 19:57:07 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 25 12:25:30 2009. The bridge in our area that was modified following the Tacoma Narrows disaster was the Whitestone, which had bulky modifications put in soon after the disaster out west, which were recently replaced with a much more lightweight wind fluting design designed to more efficiently achieve the same result while not shortening cable life.This is true, in fact I have a copy of the soft cover book "The Bridges of New York" by Sharon Reier. The Bronx-Whitestone bridge did have issues with the roadway bobbing up and down on winding days but not as violently as the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge. In 1946, the pedestrian walkway was sacrificed for the addition of a 14 foot high 'warren truss' that kept the roadway more stable. The "Galloping Gertie" debacle occurred in November 1940. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (812755) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jul 25 19:59:20 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 25 12:01:37 2009. Wowsers is right, and this is the first time I've seen the complete film. Judging by the quality, the film must have been shot on a home movie camera.Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (812759) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Sat Jul 25 20:44:44 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 11:53:49 2009. This rebuild basically stiffened the bridge so that it could withstand the stresses better.IIRC the rebuild did precisely the opposite by replacing faulty expansion joints which hampered the bridge's movement. A stiff suspension bridge won't last long. It was never designed to flex. Vertical oscillations of that magnitude are completely normal for any suspension bridge. Some degree of torsional oscillation is also to be expected, although the original design probably did not account for any torsional oscillations caused by imbalanced train traffic. |
|
|
| (812795) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 25 23:06:52 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jul 25 19:57:07 2009. I still conjure up an image of a newspaper headline such as, "Bridge Diasater in New York," and "Bridge Span Collapses, Subway Train Plunges into East River." Needless to say, I hope that never happens. |
|
|
| (812797) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 25 23:08:01 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jul 25 19:59:20 2009. It was. A local resident was tipped off that the bridge had begun to sway and grabbed his move camera. Talk about being in the right place at the right time. |
|
|
| (812799) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 25 23:09:56 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:28:37 2009. Did the bridge really develop a permanent list because of the much heavier service on the north side tracks? |
|
|
| (812809) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 23:42:21 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 25 23:09:56 2009. I don't know if that's why since I'm no civil engineer, but I can guess since historically, before and after the Chrystie connection, there was more service on the north side of the bridge, that had to cause some sort of imbalance on the bridge's structural system. |
|
|
| (812842) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sun Jul 26 00:42:37 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by randyo on Sat Jul 25 13:40:33 2009. You can also notice it if you stop in the middle of the bridge, line up a horizontal structural member with a row of windows in one of the buildings, and watch the number of floors you can see above that member increase as a train goes by.All of this is properly engineering. If the bridge were too stiff, it would break in mild wind conditions. Too flexible, and you get Tacoma. |
|
|
| (812910) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jul 26 11:04:30 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:46:18 2009. It always was and always will be the BMT Broadway line to me. OK, Ralph, Norton, Wilbur and Queasy would be acceptable, too.:) |
|
|
| (812917) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jul 26 11:11:57 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 25 12:01:37 2009. That clip was featured on You Asked For It as well as Woody Woodpecker. Walter Lantz would comment on a live film clip and Woody would comment. |
|
|
| (813080) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 26 15:39:08 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:28:37 2009. Although the QB only ran during rush hours, initially the N used the H tracks 24/7! |
|
|
| (813082) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 26 15:41:47 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by R42 4787 on Sat Jul 25 16:50:28 2009. Although the Ben Franklin Bridge had a similar design, since unlike the Manny B, both sides of the bridge see an equal amount of train traffic, the stress to both sides of the bridge is evenly distributed. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
