|
|
| Re: The Manhattan Bridge (812580) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (813740) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Mon Jul 27 20:59:43 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 12:38:25 2009. The side spans of the Bear Mountain Bridge are not suspended. |
|
|
| (813788) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 27 22:57:31 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jul 27 08:21:30 2009. If you can find it, please post it.Was some time ago that I saw it. It was in a documentary on one of that cable channels. Don't recall if the subject of documentary was trains or bridges. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (813794) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Jon Bell on Mon Jul 27 23:09:40 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. This video turned up on the NBC Nightly News tonight. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (813821) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jul 28 00:30:55 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Here's another flex for you.Go from 1639 to 1709. 15 minutes. ABD the 1659 (J) Parsons for no train. |
|
|
| (813840) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge*Nightly News Report* |
|
|
Posted by JBar387 on Tue Jul 28 03:35:43 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. From NBC Nightly News.Click Here I'll link the two threads! |
|
|
| (813857) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:21:41 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 11:53:49 2009. It was never designed to flex. Chris, that is false. It totally was designed to flex. All good suspension bridges flex. Take Pride,
|
|
|
| (813858) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:22:02 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 14:14:46 2009. It was never designed to flex. Chris, that is false. It totally was designed to flex. All good suspension bridges flex. Take Pride,
|
|
|
| (813860) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:25:11 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 13:12:36 2009. You're nervous about this perfectly safe bridge, but you're not nervous about getting into trouble poking around Track 61 or whatever at GCT? |
|
|
| (813861) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:26:43 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:50:55 2009. A great idea? |
|
|
| (813865) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 06:59:21 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:25:11 2009. First off, I said I would still use the Manhattan Bridge but am nervous about the flexing of the bridge it seems too extreme to me. Also, if this bridge is supposedly *safe* why are they rebuilding or modifying it so often? Did you watch the video that was posted of it on the nightly news? Even there they said it was poorly designed, and yes you cannot believe everything you hear in the media but I think all the other facts supports the authors claim. Poking around that track, yard tracks is a no no. I work for MNR and have no business being around those parts. Yeah, if I get caught most likely would get a pass from the MTAPD after showing my ID but if the officer realizes I am not where I should be, well guess what? I lose my job and sorry I am unwilling to take that lightly. I am nervous about being around/on any track that is not regularly open to the public (on plats not tracks). |
|
|
| (813868) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 07:08:44 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 06:59:21 2009. First off, I said I would still use the Manhattan Bridge but am nervous about the flexing of the bridge it seems too extreme to me.How in the world does it seem too extreme? That was a TIME LAPSE VIDEO! And these bridges are supposed to flex! And you have no training on bridges! So where are you getting this idea from??? Also, if this bridge is supposedly *safe* why are they rebuilding or modifying it so often? Um, to keep it safe... Did you watch the video that was posted of it on the nightly news? I watched the YouTube, not the NBC commentary. |
|
|
| (813869) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Tue Jul 28 07:22:32 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 07:08:44 2009. Do you have training on bridges? |
|
|
| (813880) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jul 28 08:07:30 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:54:44 2009. They should have built a clone of Hell Gate Bridge. OTOH where would the approaches go? |
|
|
| (813882) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 08:17:21 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 07:08:44 2009. Actually, I used to work for an engineering firm, and yes I am not an engineer, but have seen many blueprints, drawings and calculations while working on the SF Bay Bridge East Span Replacement Project and can tell you that yes they are supposed to flex, but not that vivdly. Yes, I know it is a time-lapse video but it is obvious that the greatest flexing goes on when the train goes over it. Yes, they need to do rebuilding to keep it safe, but not as many times as it has been. I also worked on the last rebuild for the Golden Gate Bridge, and that bridge is way sturdier than the MB. If you watched the NBC commentary you would have heard the authors quote that the bridge was badly designed.Also you do not know me so do not assume that I know nothing about bridges when I had worked on them. Just because I currently work for MNR does not mean I never worked elsewhere. So before you shoot your mouth off learn the facts! |
|
|
| (813883) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 08:18:46 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Ken S. on Tue Jul 28 07:22:32 2009. Probably not, but I do and have worked on 4 of them. I am not an expert but do know a thing or two as I worked on drawings, bluepriints and calculations. But he is being him so do not pay him much mind. He hates to not have flamewars on here. |
|
|
| (813884) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 28 08:26:41 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 16:12:14 2009. I was talking about the East River Bridges, but yes, the Goethels and Outerbridge are also cantilever.Also here's some trivia on the Outerbridge Crossing. Few people realize that this bridge is named for Eugenius Outerbridge, the first chairman of the Port Authority, and a resident of Staten Island rather than for it's location. Luckily, they called it a crossing rather than a bridge, as the Outerbridge Bridge would have sounded almost ridiculous. |
|
|
| (813898) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 08:46:58 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:53:48 2009. Shame they couldn't widen the roads especially the inner sections.That would require moving the piers, which isn't possible. |
|
|
| (813899) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 08:48:01 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:54:44 2009. I dunno which would've been more expensive: rebuild the bridge or build a new one and blowup/tear down the old one.Building a new one, which is why the old one was rebuilt. |
|
|
| (813900) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge*Nightly News Report* |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 08:50:01 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge*Nightly News Report*, posted by JBar387 on Tue Jul 28 03:35:43 2009. We really have become the land of the stupid. |
|
|
| (813907) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Tue Jul 28 09:15:42 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:21:41 2009. Heh, seems like he's changed his mind . . . |
|
|
| (813913) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:26:39 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 08:48:01 2009. LOL!!!!! |
|
|
| (813918) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:35:05 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 08:17:21 2009. Actually, I used to work for an engineering firm, and yes I am not an engineer, but have seen many blueprints, drawings and calculations while working on the SF Bay Bridge East Span Replacement Project and can tell you that yes they are supposed to flex...Also you do not know me so do not assume that I know nothing about bridges when I had worked on them. Just because I currently work for MNR does not mean I never worked elsewhere. So before you shoot your mouth off learn the facts!You wrote: "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." So don't you dare tell me I shoot my mouth off before posting. I was referring to that quote from you. If you now change your story and claim you have all this experience with bridges, then that's great, but that's AFTER THE FACT. Don't get all pissy because you worded your post wrong and now want to change your story. but not that vivdly. So which is it? Are you not an expert and thus the flexing "very well may be normal" or do you have a lot of experience working on bridge project and know that bridges should not flex "that vividly"? |
|
|
| (813919) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:37:33 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Subterranean Railway on Tue Jul 28 09:15:42 2009. Heh, yeah, saw that right before I left. Anyone who trusts anything that guy says... |
|
|
| (813921) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 09:38:54 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:35:05 2009. No I am not a bridge expert as I am not an engineer so yes I apologize because I did not word my thoughts well on that post, but am not changing my story because it can be normal but I do not think that kind of flexing in the MB case is normal. I will look at it again when I get home from work with my book. But, again I do apologize I did not word my post correctly on that so I apologize for dthe shooting your mouth off comment in this case it was uncalled for and it was me in this case who shot his mouth off. |
|
|
| (813926) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:44:38 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 09:38:54 2009. Thanks. No problem. In my opinion, while the flexing looks "vivid," that may only be because it is time lapse / sped up, and I think that the amount of flex must be within normal or acceptable parameters or otherwise the bridge would not be open for use. |
|
|
| (813927) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Tue Jul 28 09:46:31 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:44:38 2009. Indeed. Maybe I'll play with my intervalometer and make a few time lapses of other bridges when I get a chance.Of course, the footage would probably make it to all the major news networks and induce panic . . . |
|
|
| (813933) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:55:40 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:44:38 2009. I should add that while the amount of flex must be within normal or acceptable parameters in terms of not causing an immediate catastrophic failure, it could be enough that additional routine maintenance is needed, and/or additional rehabs would be needed down the road due to damage over time to various structural elements. |
|
|
| (813934) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jul 28 10:03:36 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 08:48:01 2009. Well, knowing today's society, it might have well been cheaper to build a new one, but the historical entities would have bitched about it. Look at Tappan-Zee and the Kosciuszko (BQE) bridges.There NYS/NYCDOT wants to replace both bridges, while there are historical entities who don't want them torn down/replaced. |
|
|
| (813935) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 10:08:33 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 09:44:38 2009. No, I agree with that too but to my eyes it seems to flex too much but the structure is seeming to support it. Also, it flexes mostly when the train is over it. IMHO the bridge should be replaced. It can be done in similar fashion to the way CA is replacing that East span of the Bay Bridge. Build the new one next to the old one, then when done tie it in. NYCT then can either go on the new bridg e or do a tunnel but cheaper way cheaper to use the new bridge. |
|
|
| (813936) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 10:09:12 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Subterranean Railway on Tue Jul 28 09:46:31 2009. Maybe but it would be interesting to see nonetheless |
|
|
| (813938) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jul 28 10:10:25 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 10:08:33 2009. Imagine when 4 trains are on it simultaneously |
|
|
| (813945) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 10:22:13 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jul 28 10:03:36 2009. No, building a new one would have been exponentially more expensive. Digging new foundations for towers, building said towers, acquiring the land needed next to the old bridge on either side, making it conform to a modern construction code....massively more expensive than repairing the old bridge. |
|
|
| (813952) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 10:30:49 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:22:02 2009. I never said "it wasn't designed to flex". I said it was not designed to endure the flexing the placement of the subway trains causes, and that's the truth. All suspension bridges flex, but not in the twisting manner we see in this movie. The designer never considered such flexing because he never designed the bridge with heavy rail on the outside. That was a later change. The repair job strengthened the structure to withstand it. |
|
|
| (813956) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 10:35:33 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jul 28 10:03:36 2009. Well, knowing today's society, it might have well been cheaper to build a new one, but the historical entities would have bitched about it. Look at Tappan-Zee and the Kosciuszko (BQE) bridges.The replacement estimate in 1988 was $700 million, which certainly would have escalated to more than the $1 billion repair cost by the time it was completed. |
|
|
| (813981) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 28 11:21:19 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:22:02 2009. In the case of the Manhattan Bridge however, it was definitely a design flaw to put the trains on the outside. That fact makes the bridge "flex" more than a suspension bridge is really designed to. |
|
|
| (813982) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 28 11:22:09 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 06:26:43 2009. It's a great idea, so long as there is a tunnel that replaced the 4 tracks on the bridge.... |
|
|
| (814018) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jul 28 12:02:53 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Jul 25 17:03:24 2009. The Standard consist got a push, yes, and made it under power to Brighton Beach and pooped out.  your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (814023) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge*Nightly News Report* |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 12:05:25 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge*Nightly News Report*, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 28 08:50:01 2009. Media inaccuracy isn't limited to bridges and trains. |
|
|
| (814040) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Jul 28 12:30:36 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Jul 28 10:03:36 2009. Neither of the Tappan-Zee or Kosciuszko have any historic significance. The current plan for the Kosciuszko is replacement with a lowered structure. Tappan-Zee, IIRC, is still in the "what do we do?" stage. |
|
|
| (814063) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Jul 28 12:54:27 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Jon Bell on Mon Jul 27 23:09:40 2009. Were they trying to scare people? |
|
|
| (814065) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Jul 28 12:55:41 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jul 28 00:30:55 2009. English, please? |
|
|
| (814066) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge*Nightly News Report* |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Jul 28 12:58:41 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge*Nightly News Report*, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 12:05:25 2009. They didn't portray it inaccurately; they did, of course, try to put a little scare into people. |
|
|
| (814073) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:05:35 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 10:08:33 2009. But if the bridge is operating within acceptable parameters, and only requires a maintenance and rehab program schedule that is cheaper than a new bridge, then why should a new bridge be built? |
|
|
| (814078) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Tue Jul 28 13:11:38 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Absolutely beautiful! The bridge has its give which is intended, and that's NOTHING! You want to see a bridge that sways and sags? Go watch the Whitestone Bridge during the rush hours, if you view the middle of the span during those times instead of being a curve, its just flat and u can see a slight sway. |
|
|
| (814080) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 13:12:58 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:05:35 2009. No, I see your point and I think it is a very doable and valid point. Howeber, IMHO a new bridge might be better because it might not need as much maintenance as an older bridge may over time. Just my opinion your idea of keeping the old one is just as good. |
|
|
| (814082) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 13:14:40 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by ClearAspect on Tue Jul 28 13:11:38 2009. The Whitestone was dangerously underbuilt. It was designed in the same manner as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (which collapsed in a 40 MPH breeze) and had to be modified after it opened. |
|
|
| (814084) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Tue Jul 28 13:15:20 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Jul 28 12:30:36 2009. There is serious opposition on the new Tappan-Zee (which would be built to the north alongside the existing and when completed, the existing would be torn down)from those who do not want rail to be put on the bridge.Still along way to go as to what they will finally do as mentioned. While the Manhattan had its problems, most of the discussion regarding replacing a bridge was on the WillyB. |
|
|
| (814093) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:25:25 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jul 28 00:30:55 2009. heh |
|
|
| (814095) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 28 13:26:35 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 28 13:12:58 2009. It's an analysis that surely has been done. You could ask NYCDOT about it. But at face value it seems they disagree with your plan. |
|
|
| (814098) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Tue Jul 28 13:27:46 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 28 13:14:40 2009. Othmar Ammann Chief Engineer and Designer, felt that studies performed after the Tacoma failure showed the BWB was safe but was overuled by Robert Moses ("Doesn't make a damned bit of difference if drivers won't use it.")who ordered the first retrofits, most of which have been replaced recently with more modern elements. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
