Speaking of U-boots, if that old U-boot ace Reinhard Hardegan was faced with a down bridge blocking his path HE'D know what to do!
Ever see him on one of the History Channel's U-boot shows? Man, the guy's amazing, 100 years old and he STILL looks like he's ready to take a boat out and kick butt!
Seems more likely they continue to be called boats because the early ones, beginning with the Turtle in 1775, were small, submersible boats. When Germany started constructing them, naturally enough they officially called the first an Unterseeboot (submarine boat) U-boot for short.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The reason subs are callled "boats" goes back to the beginning of the sub service, well over 100 years ago now.
The first subs flew boat flags and commissioning pennants, as they were too small to have a "ship" classification. Boat flags had 13 stars on them as opposed to the national flag of the time which had 46. Boat pennants had seven stars, not 13 like ship's pennants of the time.
So, if you're rummaging through the attic of an old house and come across a flag with 13 stars don't get excited, Betsy Ross probably didn't make that one. Some old Navy vet lived there once!
CSSHEGEWISCH: Since you brought up ore boats I feel qualified to make a comment, as I was a deckhand on one (Str. Reiss Brothers) during the summer of 1967:
You are exactly right. Bulk ore carriers on the Great Lakes have always been termed ore boats. But I think this is because over the years so many crewmen came from midwestern farms; nautical terms were not a part of our traditions here. For example, the wire railings that kept us from falling into the water are termed, "fences." No one really uses the term stern; instead it's "the ass end." Ore boats had (the old ones, anyway) screen doors on the entrances to the various deck compartments (no jokes about screen doors on subs, please). The list goes on.
Curiously, salt water vessels on the Great Lakes are termed ships, not boats, by everyone in the know. Hence, "zebra mussels were introduced to the Great Lakes via foreign ships carrying...." Rarely, they are called "salties" by crews on the ore boats.
Phoebe: I see your Navy years were well spent imbibing US Navy traditions; your answer about subs being boats, and why, is dead-on.
Sadly, I think your term, "Vietnam fiasco," is also correct and well-said.
As a deckhand that summer I marveled at the relationship of railroads to the ore boats. Wherever one sees ore boats or ships tied up on the Lakes, there one will find fascinating railroad operations at work. No one who has seen a Hulett unloader at work will ever forget it, nor those amazing ore-loading docks at Marquette, Michigan, for example.
NKP:
I was in the Navy during the Viet Nam fiasco. What I learned was that the Navy is completely addicted to tradition. Subs are called boats, as are anything small enough to be carried on a ship. Most of the rest are ships. Glass devices for looking outside are called port holes, even on cinder block buildings. The same goes for decks, overheads, bulkheads, and the flap on the back of the uniform is an imitation of the thing that sailors on the wooden ships wore to keep the pine tar they used on their long hair off their uniform. Even the pants have 13 buttons in honor of the original states.
Incidentally, I never went to sea. I worked on 3 different shore installations, the longest time at NSA.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
As long as I can remember, ore carriers (including 1000-footers) and other vessels on the Great Lakes are boats.
Phoebe, your funny point about any boat being able to submerge reminds me of something my dad, a Pearl Harbor Survivor (USS Pennsylvania) told me once when I asked him, "We're you ever afraid of drowning when you were out there in the middle of the Pacific?" "Nah,' he said, "the nearest land was always no more than five miles away." When I looked (naively) puzzled, he added, "straight down." Nautical humor, I guess.
Did you know submarines are considered boats and not ships per se? Do you, or does anyone else here know why, or what the difference is? It's an interesting point.
Paul Milenkovic Submarines? Did I hear you say submarines? Aren't those things able to submerge?
Submarines? Did I hear you say submarines?
Aren't those things able to submerge?
Actually, any boat can submerge. What makes submarines unique is that they can come back up on their own.
erikemWith a big enough boom, the bridge parts will be well removed from the channel and you may have a much deeper and wider channel to boot. It probably would violate a few treaties in the process...
Problem is that the 'big enough boom' is going to be acting on all those girders. First it will either have to separate the bridge into pieces, then reliably lift those pieces clear of the channel (and neither drop them into it, or allow any to fall back in). Reaction effect between the explosion shockwaves and gases and those steel members is not, imho, going to be reliable enough to lift and steer them all. This relatively separate from the effects tending to enlarge the channel (presumably coupling through the water in the channel to accomplish that job). Interesting to speculate on the form of the physical charge, and the types of explosive suitable for it. (I suspect also that a thermonuclear device small enough to leave New London there would not be fully effective at removing the necessary amount of bridge structure for the required mission!)
What I would expect, in a case of emergency, would be a real quick call to CDI or a similar contractor, who would put shaped charges every few feet, and fire the charges so as to collapse the truss and then chop into sections as it falls. But then you have the problem with at least one jagged edge in the wrong place to contact a hull... get the divers ready?
Overmod Problem is that anything that brings the bridge or its supports DOWN is going to obstruct, not clear, the channel. Or is there a weapon that can flatten the bridge girders as well as drop or twist them? I don't know of one.
Problem is that anything that brings the bridge or its supports DOWN is going to obstruct, not clear, the channel. Or is there a weapon that can flatten the bridge girders as well as drop or twist them? I don't know of one.
With a big enough boom, the bridge parts will be well removed from the channel and you may have a much deeper and wider channel to boot. It probably would violate a few treaties in the process...
- Erik
Or they could use a couple of these:
http://www.flexifloat.com/(S(c4bt4h45hrpi4ky3nndgc3ix))/cranebarges.aspx?PageID=applications
Firelock76 Nein, nein, Herr CCC! Torpedo los! Seriously, I suspect it's not a big deal for the Navy at this time, but trust me, if a sub has to get out, that bridge is going to be opened, one way or another.
Nein, nein, Herr CCC! Torpedo los!
Seriously, I suspect it's not a big deal for the Navy at this time, but trust me, if a sub has to get out, that bridge is going to be opened, one way or another.
I'm sure there are operational procedures for removing the bridge expediently if damaged in time of war, as an act of sabotage, etc. I remember Russ Train expressing that damaging or inactivating that bridge was a major defense concern at one point in the '80s. My guess would be a barge with scaffolding arranged to be moved under the span, and explosive charges to cut the 'corners' and drop it down.
ccc oltmanndmore entertaining bridge removal devices on board. Such as what, might i ask? Are you suggesting that they Nuke the bridge?!
oltmanndmore entertaining bridge removal devices on board.
Such as what, might i ask? Are you suggesting that they Nuke the bridge?!
WWCND?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
...although closing the bridge again might be problematic...
I, for one, don't wan't my tax money used replacing the Submarine base at Groton and nearby Electric Boat sub -building shipyard after the nuke is deployed. I imagine the State of Connecticut also might want to be reimbursed by the Federal government for the loss of the Southwestern portion of the state..
I also insist that this be done on a day when I don't need to cross the nearby Rt. 95 highway bridge (which I did twice yesterday)...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
MidlandMikeI don't know if ant of the Navy's submarines were trapped by this situation, but if they were, I would imagine they would already be looking for a crane to remove the offending span.
Crane? That's no fun. I suspect submarines have more entertaining bridge removal devices on board.
IIRC they use large barge mounted cranes to lift and position bridge spans.
"...If you can't raise the bridge, lower the river..."
Because it would take months to put a contract like that in place vs the weeks it will take to repair the wiring. In the meantime the subs at sea will get temporarily reassigned to new bases or stay at sea a bit longer and the subs already in base behind the drawbridge will get extra shore duties until this is fixed.
BTW speaking of navy jokes here is very very old navy limerick from the dawn of time (for submarines) about the extreme lack of facilities on the earliest submarines in service
Submarines had no latrines
So the old salts told
How they'd hang their tails, o'er the rails
And sing out, Lord! that water's cold!
Have fun with your trains
A far out desperate solution would be to pay Amtrak to bring in 2 (4) RR wreck cranes to temporary lift span from both ends. Have every boat desiring passage to line up and pass under temporary lifted span. Commercial cranes are probably not built to work on bridge rails as the RR wreck cranes are built to operate on bridges.
Where to find heavy duty cranes will leave that to others to find operable units?. Know N&W SOU had some at one time in Radford, Va.
So, instead, why not drive interlocking steel pilings into the bottom along both edges of the channel and dredge it to 100 foot depth.
If you can't raise the bridge, lower the river...
Chuck (Long, long ago Cadet-Midshipman)
BaltACD schlimm Paul Milenkovic BaltACD Paul Milenkovic Submarines? Did I hear you say submarines? Aren't those things able to submerge? Only when the water is deep enough! I have my doubts that any navigable river channel is deep enough to permit a sub to submerge. Deep harbor channels for ocean vessels are from 39 to 50 feet deep. Folks are so earnest that a person cannot tell a joke around here . . . Ever hear of playing along with a gag? Considering the number of Navy vessels that have had marine accidents in recent years - there isn't much to joke about. Diving to pass under the bridge and getting stuck in the mud would hardly be a 'career enhancing move'.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic BaltACD Paul Milenkovic Submarines? Did I hear you say submarines? Aren't those things able to submerge? Only when the water is deep enough! I have my doubts that any navigable river channel is deep enough to permit a sub to submerge. Deep harbor channels for ocean vessels are from 39 to 50 feet deep. Folks are so earnest that a person cannot tell a joke around here . . . Ever hear of playing along with a gag?
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD Paul Milenkovic Submarines? Did I hear you say submarines? Aren't those things able to submerge? Only when the water is deep enough! I have my doubts that any navigable river channel is deep enough to permit a sub to submerge. Deep harbor channels for ocean vessels are from 39 to 50 feet deep. Folks are so earnest that a person cannot tell a joke around here . . .
BaltACD Paul Milenkovic Submarines? Did I hear you say submarines? Aren't those things able to submerge? Only when the water is deep enough! I have my doubts that any navigable river channel is deep enough to permit a sub to submerge. Deep harbor channels for ocean vessels are from 39 to 50 feet deep.
Only when the water is deep enough! I have my doubts that any navigable river channel is deep enough to permit a sub to submerge. Deep harbor channels for ocean vessels are from 39 to 50 feet deep.
Folks are so earnest that a person cannot tell a joke around here . . .
Ever hear of playing along with a gag?
Considering the number of Navy vessels that have had marine accidents in recent years - there isn't much to joke about. Diving to pass under the bridge and getting stuck in the mud would hardly be a 'career enhancing move'.
Nothing to joke about. If I made jokes about grade crossings, maybe that would induce people to do dangerous things and their harm would be on my conscience.
No snark. I am certain, am beyond certain that no sub commander or XO in the United States Navy is reading this, getting a "wrong idea" from my jokes, telling his crew, "I think we can do this, I think we can "run this bridge" in the Connecticut Thames river partially submerged.
So a Captain or Commander in the US Navy not only gets a nuclear sub stuck in the mud, he also gets the whole suite of sensors in the "sail" (the part of the sub that sticks up) all smashed thinking they could just duck under the bridge.
Men and women in the Armed Forces get into trouble for all kinds of things, but mainly it is for old fashioned stuff like falling to temptation on long deployments and cheating on their spouses.
Will there be a Navy Board of Inquiry about the Nuclear Sub stuck in the mud, and the defense attorney from the JAG will call this "Paul Milenkovic guy to testify about his blog post where he offered a theory that a sub could adjust its dive ballast to scoot under the stuck bridge?" No, I don't think so, it is never going to happen.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Tis linked article appears to indicate this problem is very low profile. Happened 2/17 -- paper did not report it until 2/21.
http://www.theday.com/article/20140220/NWS04/140229957/0/SEARCH
Apparently this is not the first time it happened. The linked article from 2005 says that the bridge is raised about 15 times per month for submarines:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=20050120&id=Dv8gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QHQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5520,3903249
Maybe what Amtrak needs is a couple of FM Trainmasters.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.