Sunshine Skyway Bridge - Clearance for Cruise Ships

[Scott M. Kozel]

I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/6961069.htm
Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2003
Sunshine Skyway too small for cruise ship
Associated Press

TAMPA, Fla. - For once, the towering Sunshine Skyway Bridge is being
described as too small.

Carnival Cruise Lines learned this week that a 952-foot long,
3,700-passenger ship it was considering assigning to Tampa in 2005 is
too tall for the Sunshine Skyway by 30 to 50 feet, said Robert
Dickinson, Carnival's president and chief executive.

Other cruise lines soon will face a similar problem with the height of
new ships, he said.

"Very soon, Tampa will be relegated to a secondary or tertiary cruise
port as the cruise industry builds bigger and taller ships," Dickinson
said Tuesday.

George Williamson, chief executive officer of the Tampa Port Authority,
acknowledged the port is limited on which cruise ships can come to
Tampa. He said not much can be done about the height of the Skyway to
allow taller ships to fit under the bridge.

"Sure, we've got some issues, but we've always had these issues,"
Williamson said. "I want the Queen Mary to come in here, too, but it's
too tall."

The 5 1/2-mile long Sunshine Skyway opened in 1987 to replace a span
whose midsection was demolished when a freighter struck the bridge in a
May 9, 1980, thunderstorm, killing 35 people. The Sunshine Skyway
offers a 1,200-wide passage for ships. Architects allowed 182.5 feet
between the water and the bottom of the bridge.

Dickinson said Carnival trimmed 5 feet off the mast of a ship in 1998 to
get it under the Skyway.

"In fairness, no one anticipated ships this large when the bridge was
built," Dickinson said.

Carnival, the busiest cruise line at the Port of Tampa, announced in May
it plans to berth a new ship in Tampa. The $375 million, 960- long
Miracle, with 1,062 rooms, will sail to the Caribbean in November 2004.

[end of article]

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Thomas Smith]

Have you seen how big cruise ships are? Drive along the Macarthur Causeway
in Miami on any given weekend, especially on Saturdays during the winter
months, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and look along the south side of the
highway. Most modern cruise ships are at least as tall as 12 story
buildings, and that is before you factor in the ship's funnel.

In 1996, Carnival Cruise Line launched the first ever ship over 100,000
Gross Registered Tons (1 GRT = 100 cubic feet of revenue generating enclosed
space). Carnival now has five ships over 100,000 GRT with two under
construction. Costa Cruises, based in Italy, just launched their first ship
over 100,000 GRT. Princess has three ships over 100,000 GRT with two under
construction, and Royal Caribbean has five ships in its fleet at about
138,000 GRT. Cunard is about to launch the Queen Mary 2, which will be near
150,000 GRT. Carnival and Royal Caribbean are both planning ships even
larger than that.

Carnival wanted to home port one of the new ships under construction at
Xcaret, Mexico near Cancun. However, local authorities refused to release
the necessary permits. Therefore Carnival then thought about positioning
one of the new ships in Tampa, but the Sunshine Skyway bridge is too short
by about 50 feet. I haven't heard where they are thinking of next.
Possibilities include Miami, Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, San Juan,
and Galveston, TX. They could also be thinking about other ports, but no
decision has been made yet.

Tom Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/6961069.htm
Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2003
Sunshine Skyway too small for cruise ship
Associated Press
TAMPA, Fla. - For once, the towering Sunshine Skyway Bridge is being
described as too small.
Carnival Cruise Lines learned this week that a 952-foot long,
3,700-passenger ship it was considering assigning to Tampa in 2005 is
too tall for the Sunshine Skyway by 30 to 50 feet, said Robert
Dickinson, Carnival's president and chief executive.
Other cruise lines soon will face a similar problem with the height of
new ships, he said.
"Very soon, Tampa will be relegated to a secondary or tertiary cruise
port as the cruise industry builds bigger and taller ships," Dickinson
said Tuesday.
George Williamson, chief executive officer of the Tampa Port Authority,
acknowledged the port is limited on which cruise ships can come to
Tampa. He said not much can be done about the height of the Skyway to
allow taller ships to fit under the bridge.
"Sure, we've got some issues, but we've always had these issues,"
Williamson said. "I want the Queen Mary to come in here, too, but it's
too tall."
The 5 1/2-mile long Sunshine Skyway opened in 1987 to replace a span
whose midsection was demolished when a freighter struck the bridge in a
May 9, 1980, thunderstorm, killing 35 people. The Sunshine Skyway
offers a 1,200-wide passage for ships. Architects allowed 182.5 feet
between the water and the bottom of the bridge.
Dickinson said Carnival trimmed 5 feet off the mast of a ship in 1998 to
get it under the Skyway.
"In fairness, no one anticipated ships this large when the bridge was
built," Dickinson said.
Carnival, the busiest cruise line at the Port of Tampa, announced in May
it plans to berth a new ship in Tampa. The $375 million, 960- long
Miracle, with 1,062 rooms, will sail to the Caribbean in November 2004.
[end of article]
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Thomas Smith
Carnival wanted to home port one of the new ships under construction at
Xcaret, Mexico near Cancun. However, local authorities refused to release
the necessary permits. Therefore Carnival then thought about positioning
one of the new ships in Tampa, but the Sunshine Skyway bridge is too short
by about 50 feet. I haven't heard where they are thinking of next.
Possibilities include Miami, Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, San Juan,
and Galveston, TX. They could also be thinking about other ports, but no
decision has been made yet.

The usual maximum vertical navigational clearance for a bridge over a
major shipping channel, worldwide, is around 180 feet. There are a few
that are up to 20 feet more than that.

There is also the issue of having adequate draft, that being the water
depth below the waterline. If these cruise ships are up to 100,000 tons
displacement nowadays like you said, then their drafts are probably
getting near the channel limits.

There aren't any Navy ships that are having these clearance problems.

I still maintain that companies are without excuse when they
deliberately build a ship that is over 180 feet tall, and then expect
the world's highest bridges to accommodate them.

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Thomas Smith]

They are not having problems with drafts of these new behemoths, believe it
or not. Most have drafts between 25 and 30 feet. They are built
exclusively for cruising in the North Atlantic Ocean, especially the
Caribbean basin and the Mediterranean Sea. You do bring up a valid point
that the larger cruise ships are having a harder and harder time finding
ports that can accommodate them. In some places, the ship anchors at sea
and shuttles passengers to the port through tenders. However, the cruise
lines still think they are profitable (thanks to the wonderful concept of
economies of scale) to build them.

Tom Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
Carnival wanted to home port one of the new ships under construction at
Xcaret, Mexico near Cancun. However, local authorities refused to release
the necessary permits. Therefore Carnival then thought about positioning
one of the new ships in Tampa, but the Sunshine Skyway bridge is too short
by about 50 feet. I haven't heard where they are thinking of next.
Possibilities include Miami, Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, San Juan,
and Galveston, TX. They could also be thinking about other ports, but no
decision has been made yet.

The usual maximum vertical navigational clearance for a bridge over a
major shipping channel, worldwide, is around 180 feet. There are a few
that are up to 20 feet more than that.
There is also the issue of having adequate draft, that being the water
depth below the waterline. If these cruise ships are up to 100,000 tons
displacement nowadays like you said, then their drafts are probably
getting near the channel limits.
There aren't any Navy ships that are having these clearance problems.
I still maintain that companies are without excuse when they
deliberately build a ship that is over 180 feet tall, and then expect
the world's highest bridges to accommodate them.

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[t***@tampabay.rr.com]

There are only two ports in Florida large enough to handle the cruise ships
that are being used today. Neither have bridges in their right of way.

Port of Miami
Port Canaveral

However, both are now having growth issues they have to deal with. Tampa,
as much as it can be, really doesn't want to become as huge as Miami is for
cruises. The port handles plenty of passenger traffic and is actually more
geared towards cargo and heavy shipping. Besides...why do we want all these
tourists from Europe in Tampa? All they're gonna do is go to MacDill and
protest!

Post by Thomas Smith
They are not having problems with drafts of these new behemoths, believe it
or not. Most have drafts between 25 and 30 feet. They are built
exclusively for cruising in the North Atlantic Ocean, especially the
Caribbean basin and the Mediterranean Sea. You do bring up a valid point
that the larger cruise ships are having a harder and harder time finding
ports that can accommodate them. In some places, the ship anchors at sea
and shuttles passengers to the port through tenders. However, the cruise
lines still think they are profitable (thanks to the wonderful concept of
economies of scale) to build them.
Tom Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
Carnival wanted to home port one of the new ships under construction at
Xcaret, Mexico near Cancun. However, local authorities refused to

release

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
the necessary permits. Therefore Carnival then thought about

positioning

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
one of the new ships in Tampa, but the Sunshine Skyway bridge is too

short

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
by about 50 feet. I haven't heard where they are thinking of next.
Possibilities include Miami, Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, San

Juan,

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
and Galveston, TX. They could also be thinking about other ports, but

no

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
decision has been made yet.

The usual maximum vertical navigational clearance for a bridge over a
major shipping channel, worldwide, is around 180 feet. There are a few
that are up to 20 feet more than that.
There is also the issue of having adequate draft, that being the water
depth below the waterline. If these cruise ships are up to 100,000 tons
displacement nowadays like you said, then their drafts are probably
getting near the channel limits.
There aren't any Navy ships that are having these clearance problems.
I still maintain that companies are without excuse when they
deliberately build a ship that is over 180 feet tall, and then expect
the world's highest bridges to accommodate them.

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the

Sunshine

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of

vertical

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Governor George Liquor]

Post by t***@tampabay.rr.com
However, both are now having growth issues they have to deal with. Tampa,
as much as it can be, really doesn't want to become as huge as Miami is for
cruises. The port handles plenty of passenger traffic and is actually more
geared towards cargo and heavy shipping.

Are the passenger buildings in Tampa anywhere near large enough to handle
the passenger volume from these ships? They looked about 1/20th the size of
the Miami terminal. Access is also poor, as the terminals are something
like 3 to 4 miles from the nearest interstate. The parking is also pitiful,
and if I remember correctly, is shared with the (also pitiful) Channelside
entertainment/shopping complex and the Florida Aquarium. There's also the
stupid TECO Streetcar that interferes with traffic entering the port
buildings. There's not much land around the existing, fairly new buildings
to expand all that much. Seeing is believing: http://tinyurl.com/x89w

[Thomas Smith]

There are four major ports in Florida, the Port of Miami, Port Everglades in
Fort Lauderdale, Port Canaveral near Titusville, and the Port of Tampa. The
only port with a restricting bridge is the Port of Tampa. There is a bridge
at Port Everglades, but it is a drawbridge, so the only issue is width.

Another poster asked about other ports. Carnival uses Miami, Port
Canaveral, and Tampa year round. They began using Port Everglades during
the winter months last year. They will also begin using Jacksonville early
next year. They also use New Orleans, Galveston, TX and Long Beach, CA year
round, too.

Another poster mentioned Norfolk. They do use Norfolk seasonally, as well
as New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, SC, Ensenada, Mexico, San
Diego, Honolulu, Vancouver, BC, Canada and Seward, AK. The problem with
Norfolk is the limited air service. The airports there would be overwhelmed
by three or four ships dropping off their passengers all at once. If you
want to see a hairy airport experience, try flying out of Miami
International or even Fort Lauderdale International on any given weekend
during mid-day hours. You will see first hand what happens when ten ships
carrying 2,500 to 3,500 passengers each will do to an airport.

Tom Smith

Post by t***@tampabay.rr.com
There are only two ports in Florida large enough to handle the cruise ships
that are being used today. Neither have bridges in their right of way.
Port of Miami
Port Canaveral
However, both are now having growth issues they have to deal with. Tampa,
as much as it can be, really doesn't want to become as huge as Miami is for
cruises. The port handles plenty of passenger traffic and is actually more
geared towards cargo and heavy shipping. Besides...why do we want all these
tourists from Europe in Tampa? All they're gonna do is go to MacDill and
protest!

Post by Thomas Smith
They are not having problems with drafts of these new behemoths, believe

it

Post by Thomas Smith
or not. Most have drafts between 25 and 30 feet. They are built
exclusively for cruising in the North Atlantic Ocean, especially the
Caribbean basin and the Mediterranean Sea. You do bring up a valid point
that the larger cruise ships are having a harder and harder time finding
ports that can accommodate them. In some places, the ship anchors at sea
and shuttles passengers to the port through tenders. However, the cruise
lines still think they are profitable (thanks to the wonderful concept of
economies of scale) to build them.
Tom Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
Carnival wanted to home port one of the new ships under construction

at

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
Xcaret, Mexico near Cancun. However, local authorities refused to

release

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
the necessary permits. Therefore Carnival then thought about

positioning

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
one of the new ships in Tampa, but the Sunshine Skyway bridge is too

short

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
by about 50 feet. I haven't heard where they are thinking of next.
Possibilities include Miami, Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, San

Juan,

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
and Galveston, TX. They could also be thinking about other ports, but

no

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
decision has been made yet.

The usual maximum vertical navigational clearance for a bridge over a
major shipping channel, worldwide, is around 180 feet. There are a few
that are up to 20 feet more than that.
There is also the issue of having adequate draft, that being the water
depth below the waterline. If these cruise ships are up to 100,000 tons
displacement nowadays like you said, then their drafts are probably
getting near the channel limits.
There aren't any Navy ships that are having these clearance problems.
I still maintain that companies are without excuse when they
deliberately build a ship that is over 180 feet tall, and then expect
the world's highest bridges to accommodate them.

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the

Sunshine

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of

vertical

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Thomas Smith
They are not having problems with drafts of these new behemoths, believe it
or not. Most have drafts between 25 and 30 feet.

What if these ship designs keep growing larger? An additional 30% in
tonnage, and they may draw 35 to 40 feet. I think that they are not
very far from "hitting bottom", so to speak.

Post by Thomas Smith
They are built
exclusively for cruising in the North Atlantic Ocean, especially the
Caribbean basin and the Mediterranean Sea. You do bring up a valid point
that the larger cruise ships are having a harder and harder time finding
ports that can accommodate them.

There are at least several places where they could be docked in the Port
of Hampton Roads. The ruling channel depth to the ocean is 45 feet, and
there is unlimited vertical clearance, since all the downstream
crossings are in tunnel.

However, I would surmise that the Port of Hampton Roads is too far north
to easily serve the more tropical places that the Florida ports serve.

Post by Thomas Smith
In some places, the ship anchors at sea
and shuttles passengers to the port through tenders.

That may be the solution. That is what was done with the 200,000+ ton
supertankers, build an off-shore port in deep water. If these cruise
lines are as financially flush as some say, then they ought to do that.

Post by Thomas Smith
However, the cruise
lines still think they are profitable (thanks to the wonderful concept of
economies of scale) to build them.

I don't dispute that economies of scale makes it more profitable to
build them larger. I'm sure that they are engineering marvels, but if
they are built too large then it will be more difficult to find ports
that can accommodate them.

A 100,000 ton ship is enormous. That is the size of a Nimitz class
aircraft carrier.

Post by Thomas Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The usual maximum vertical navigational clearance for a bridge over a
major shipping channel, worldwide, is around 180 feet. There are a few
that are up to 20 feet more than that.
There is also the issue of having adequate draft, that being the water
depth below the waterline. If these cruise ships are up to 100,000 tons
displacement nowadays like you said, then their drafts are probably
getting near the channel limits.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Chris Aseltine]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
They are not having problems with drafts of these new behemoths, believe
it or not. Most have drafts between 25 and 30 feet.

What if these ship designs keep growing larger? An additional 30% in
tonnage, and they may draw 35 to 40 feet. I think that they are not
very far from "hitting bottom", so to speak.

Kind of like your life?

[James Robinson]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Thomas Smith
They are not having problems with drafts of these new behemoths, believe it
or not. Most have drafts between 25 and 30 feet.

What if these ship designs keep growing larger? An additional 30% in
tonnage, and they may draw 35 to 40 feet. I think that they are not
very far from "hitting bottom", so to speak.

The largest passenger ship in the world, the QM2, at over 150,000
register tons, has a draft of just under 33 feet. This is actually less
than the famous transatlantic liners of the first part of the 1900's,
which drew about 40 feet, and which were about 1/2 the size of the QM2.
It's all about the length to beam ratio.

Post by Scott M. Kozel
A 100,000 ton ship is enormous. That is the size of a Nimitz class
aircraft carrier.

Note that cruise ships are measured using register tons, which are
volumes, and have nothing to do with the weight of the ship. Naval
vessels, on the other hand, are measured using displacement tonnage,
which is the weight. Therefore, be careful you aren't comparing apples
and oranges. With current designs, I believe the displacement tonnage
of a cruise ship is about 1/2 it's register tonnage.

The Queen Mary 2 is about the same overall dimensions as a Nimitz class,
(Length, beam at the water line, and height) The major difference being
that the Nimitz overhangs on each side much more.

They have nothing on the largest supertanker, which is half again as
long, 100 feet wider beam at the waterline, and has a draft of 100 feet.

As far as the subject of this thread, a Nimitz class carrier and the QM2
both rise a little over 200 feet above the waterline with full supplies.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by James Robinson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
What if these ship designs keep growing larger? An additional 30% in
tonnage, and they may draw 35 to 40 feet. I think that they are not
very far from "hitting bottom", so to speak.

The largest passenger ship in the world, the QM2, at over 150,000
register tons, has a draft of just under 33 feet. This is actually less
than the famous transatlantic liners of the first part of the 1900's,
which drew about 40 feet, and which were about 1/2 the size of the QM2.
It's all about the length to beam ratio.

The Queen Mary 2 is not to be confused with the historic Queen Mary, as
QM2 is a new ship and is scheduled to take its maiden voyage in January
2004.

It's also designed to fit under the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

Port of Registry: Southampton, England
Length: 1,131 feet, 3 inches - 345.03 metres
Beam: 131 feet - 40 metres
Beam at Bridge wings: 147 feet 6 inches - 45 metres
Draft: 32 feet, 6 inches - 9.95 metres
Height from keel to funnel: 236 feet 2 inches - 72 metres
The overall height of the vessel is limited by an ability to pass
under New York's Verazano Narrows Bridge, which has a clearance
of 215 feet (66 metres).
Estimated Gross Registered Tonnage: ± 150,000 tons.

http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/qm2/

Post by James Robinson

Post by Scott M. Kozel
A 100,000 ton ship is enormous. That is the size of a Nimitz class
aircraft carrier.

Note that cruise ships are measured using register tons, which are
volumes, and have nothing to do with the weight of the ship.

So what is "register tons" if it is not the weight of the ship? Is
someone trying to confuse us?

Post by James Robinson
Naval vessels, on the other hand, are measured using displacement tonnage,
which is the weight. Therefore, be careful you aren't comparing apples
and oranges. With current designs, I believe the displacement tonnage
of a cruise ship is about 1/2 it's register tonnage.
The Queen Mary 2 is about the same overall dimensions as a Nimitz class,
(Length, beam at the water line, and height)

The figures above bear that out.

Post by James Robinson
The major difference being that the Nimitz overhangs on each side much more.

Nimitz also has armor plating on much of the hull, which the cruise ship
wouldn't.

Post by James Robinson
They have nothing on the largest supertanker, which is half again as
long, 100 feet wider beam at the waterline, and has a draft of 100 feet.
As far as the subject of this thread, a Nimitz class carrier and the QM2
both rise a little over 200 feet above the waterline with full supplies.

I don't hear the Navy asking for 180-foot vertical navigational
clearance bridges to be replaced with higher bridges, though.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[James Robinson]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by James Robinson
Note that cruise ships are measured using register tons, which are
volumes, and have nothing to do with the weight of the ship.

So what is "register tons" if it is not the weight of the ship? Is
someone trying to confuse us?

A register ton is 100 cubic feet, and is a measure of the
revenue-earning capability of the ship. It is based on the average
density of wine flasks (tuns) used in ancient Mediterranean trade, where
a ton (weight) of flasks was about 100 cubic feet. Ships were taxed
simply based on their volume below deck, and therefore their ability to
move the flasks.

In the case of a passenger carrying ship, the rules for tonnage
measurement vary depending on where the ship is registered, but it is
essentially the total volume of the ship below a designated tonnage
deck, less the space occupied by machinery, fuel tanks, and chain
lockers. The tonnage deck is typically the one where the navigation
bridge and officer's quarters are, since it historically was the highest
deck on the ship, and was non-revenue. It gets more complicated when
there are passenger decks above that deck, like on many of the newer
ships, but you get the idea.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by James Robinson

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by James Robinson
Note that cruise ships are measured using register tons, which are
volumes, and have nothing to do with the weight of the ship.

So what is "register tons" if it is not the weight of the ship? Is
someone trying to confuse us?

A register ton is 100 cubic feet, and is a measure of the
revenue-earning capability of the ship. It is based on the average
density of wine flasks (tuns) used in ancient Mediterranean trade, where
a ton (weight) of flasks was about 100 cubic feet. Ships were taxed
simply based on their volume below deck, and therefore their ability to
move the flasks.
In the case of a passenger carrying ship, the rules for tonnage
measurement vary depending on where the ship is registered, but it is
essentially the total volume of the ship below a designated tonnage
deck, less the space occupied by machinery, fuel tanks, and chain
lockers. The tonnage deck is typically the one where the navigation
bridge and officer's quarters are, since it historically was the highest
deck on the ship, and was non-revenue. It gets more complicated when
there are passenger decks above that deck, like on many of the newer
ships, but you get the idea.

Ok... so even though "ton" is the term used for both measures, "register
tons" has nothing to do with the 2,000 pound English ton.

I went back and I see that I originally missed Thomas Smith's comment in
his first post in this thread --

Gross Registered Tons (1 GRT = 100 cubic feet of revenue generating
enclosed space).

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Thomas Smith]

Now you see what you learn when you hang out in rec.travel.cruises way too
long. ;-)

Tom Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Ok... so even though "ton" is the term used for both measures, "register
tons" has nothing to do with the 2,000 pound English ton.
I went back and I see that I originally missed Thomas Smith's comment in
his first post in this thread --
Gross Registered Tons (1 GRT = 100 cubic feet of revenue generating
enclosed space).
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Froggie]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by James Robinson
The major difference being that the Nimitz overhangs on each side much more.

Nimitz also has armor plating on much of the hull, which the cruise ship
wouldn't.

Armor plating is not the reason for the overhang.....the flight deck is.

Beam is similar, if you discount the bridge wings on QM2....131 ft for QM2
(147.5 feet at the bridge wings), and about 134-135 feet or so for a Nimitz...

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I don't hear the Navy asking for 180-foot vertical navigational
clearance bridges to be replaced with higher bridges, though.

Could be because the Navy has no need to take a carrier into such ports...

Froggie | Virginia Beach, VA | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Froggie

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by James Robinson
The major difference being that the Nimitz overhangs on each side much more.

Nimitz also has armor plating on much of the hull, which the cruise ship
wouldn't.

Armor plating is not the reason for the overhang.....the flight deck is.

I didn't say that it was... the main discussion (the context that you
snipped) was about the weight of the ships, about why the QE2 had
similar dimensions (length, beam at the water line, and height) to the
Nimitz class, yet the QE2 weighs about half as much. The weight
difference is what my comment about armor plating was meant to address.

Post by Froggie
Beam is similar, if you discount the bridge wings on QM2....131 ft for QM2
(147.5 feet at the bridge wings), and about 134-135 feet or so for a Nimitz...

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I don't hear the Navy asking for 180-foot vertical navigational
clearance bridges to be replaced with higher bridges, though.

Could be because the Navy has no need to take a carrier into such ports...

Does the Navy still at times take a carrier into New York Harbor and
into San Francisco Bay?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Thomas Smith]

Yes. The Verazano Narrows bridge and the Golden Gate bridge both have
enough clearance to let the ships pass under without difficulty.

Tom Smith

Post by Scott M. Kozel
Does the Navy still at times take a carrier into New York Harbor and
into San Francisco Bay?
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Froggie]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Froggie
Armor plating is not the reason for the overhang.....the flight deck is.

I didn't say that it was... the main discussion (the context that you
snipped) was about the weight of the ships, about why the QE2 had
similar dimensions (length, beam at the water line, and height) to the
Nimitz class, yet the QE2 weighs about half as much. The weight
difference is what my comment about armor plating was meant to address.

The specific comment you replied to earlier was James referring to the overhang.
The weight difference was already discussed. But, since you bring it up, the
armor plating is only a small part of the reason why a carrier weighs more.
There is *A LOT* of heavy equipment installed (the catapults and arresting gear
engines specifically coming to mind, since I worked on them in my earlier Navy
days)...not to mention that a nuclear reactor isn't exactly lightweight...

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Froggie
Could be because the Navy has no need to take a carrier into such ports...

Does the Navy still at times take a carrier into New York Harbor and
into San Francisco Bay?

Not lately, though it's a moot point for the reasons Thomas mentioned...

Froggie | Did the carrier thing for 3 of my 9 Navy years... |
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/

[w***@gmail.com]

182.5 feet at low or high tide?

[h***@gmail.com]

What about the Ida Mufferbids Bridge?

[Governor George Liquor]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

Why take the expense on yourself when you can have taxpayers foot the bill?

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Governor George Liquor

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

Why take the expense on yourself when you can have taxpayers foot the bill?

In this case, I think that John Q. Taxpayer ought to put his foot down! :-)

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Governor George Liquor]

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by Governor George Liquor

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

Why take the expense on yourself when you can have taxpayers foot the bill?

In this case, I think that John Q. Taxpayer ought to put his foot down!

:-)

Feh. This is Florida. I'm surprised Jeb hasn't privatized everyone's feet
and sold them back at a premium.

[Oscar S.]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?

The issue of cruise ship clearance appears to have killed the proposed
Galveston-Bolivar bridge in Texas.

The design study called for a 220-foot vertical clearance, which would
place it among the world's highest. (The Verrazano Narrows is 229 ft
and the Suez bridge in Egypt is 230 feet).

I heard from a reporter that the Galveston-Bolivar bridge had been
increased to a 238 foot vertical clearance, but that still was not
enough to satisfy the Port of Houston, who wanted a minimum of 250
feet and said it would oppose anything under 300 ft!

The Port is building a cruise ship terminal on the inland side of the
bridge. The bridge would not block the Galveston Channel, which would
still be free of any navigation hazards (and can even take the tallest
jack-up oil rigs).

The Port used its political muscle to stop the toll road authority's
plans to proceed with the bridge.

Still, I wouldn't call the bridge permanently dead. It is still wanted
by many, and it may come back to life.

[Governor George Liquor]

Post by Oscar S.
The issue of cruise ship clearance appears to have killed the proposed
Galveston-Bolivar bridge in Texas.
The design study called for a 220-foot vertical clearance, which would
place it among the world's highest. (The Verrazano Narrows is 229 ft
and the Suez bridge in Egypt is 230 feet).
I heard from a reporter that the Galveston-Bolivar bridge had been
increased to a 238 foot vertical clearance, but that still was not
enough to satisfy the Port of Houston, who wanted a minimum of 250
feet and said it would oppose anything under 300 ft!

At some point, doesn't an immersed-tube tunnel become more practical? Is
the channel bottom that unstable that it can't support the tunnel structure?
That didn't scuttle the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. Is high or storm tide
flooding the concern?

[Alan Hamilton]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:58:28 GMT, "Governor George Liquor"

Post by Governor George Liquor

Post by Oscar S.
The issue of cruise ship clearance appears to have killed the proposed
Galveston-Bolivar bridge in Texas.
The design study called for a 220-foot vertical clearance, which would
place it among the world's highest. (The Verrazano Narrows is 229 ft
and the Suez bridge in Egypt is 230 feet).
I heard from a reporter that the Galveston-Bolivar bridge had been
increased to a 238 foot vertical clearance, but that still was not
enough to satisfy the Port of Houston, who wanted a minimum of 250
feet and said it would oppose anything under 300 ft!

At some point, doesn't an immersed-tube tunnel become more practical? Is
the channel bottom that unstable that it can't support the tunnel structure?
That didn't scuttle the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. Is high or storm tide
flooding the concern?

Wouldn't a drawbridge be a more practical solution? Make it high
enough for most traffic, without having to handle the very highest
ships.

With that in mind... What's the highest bridge with a draw span?

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Alan Hamilton

Post by Governor George Liquor
At some point, doesn't an immersed-tube tunnel become more practical? Is
the channel bottom that unstable that it can't support the tunnel structure?
That didn't scuttle the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. Is high or storm tide
flooding the concern?

Wouldn't a drawbridge be a more practical solution? Make it high
enough for most traffic, without having to handle the very highest
ships.
With that in mind... What's the highest bridge with a draw span?

The George P. Coleman Bridge is a 3,750-foot-long double-swing-span
bridge located in Yorktown, Virginia, and the bridge crosses the York
River. The Coleman Bridge was built as a 2-lane facility in 1952, and
it connects the counties of York and Gloucester. The bridge carries
Route US-17, a 4-lane arterial highway through eastern Virginia.

The Coleman Bridge main span has 450 feet of horizontal navigational
clearance, and 60 feet of vertical navigational clearance when the
movable spans are closed. When the movable spans are opened, there is
unlimited vertical navigational clearance. The York River has a natural
depth of over 60 feet where the bridge's movable spans are. The movable
span is needed to allow ship access to several military installations
that are upstream of the bridge. The roadways are almost 90 feet above
the river at the highest point of the bridge.

This somewhat unique bridge design resulted from 1) U.S. Navy require-
ments for a 450-foot-wide channel and at least 135 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, 2) the desire to avoid building an expensive
tunnel, and 3) many historical organizations opposed any bridge which
could be visible from the Yorktown battlefields. With these
constraints, including a budget, the only logical decision was a double
swing-span bridge. The bridge was reconstructed and widened to 4 lanes
in 1996, and many of the original design considerations had to be kept
for the new bridge.

"George P. Coleman Bridge" -
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Coleman_Bridge.html

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Oscar S.]

As a follow-up to the previous message about the Galveston-Bolivar
bridge, the design study estimated a 4-lane tunnel to cost between
$1.1 and $1.3 billion. I'm not sure what the technical issues were,
but the tunnel was quite long. The cost rendered the tunnel option
infeasible. The bridge option, estimated around $250 million, was just
barely financially feasible.

I don't remember any serious consideration of a draw bridge. I would
guess this was because of horizontal clearance issues. The channel has
heavy traffic (ocean vessel, barge, service ships), and I assume there
was a need to maintain continuous operation in both shipping
directions.

The crossing has low traffic volume, with the ferry serving an average
of about 10,000 vehicles per day. With a bridge, traffic is expected
to grow to about 20,000 vehicles per day. That kind of traffic volume
just can't justify a big investment.

[SJC]

Post by Scott M. Kozel
I found this article about the cruise lines who think that the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge doesn't have enough clearance. With 182 feet of vertical
navigational clearance, why can't the cruise ship lines design ships
that can fit under that very high clearance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/6961069.htm
Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2003
Sunshine Skyway too small for cruise ship
Associated Press
TAMPA, Fla. - For once, the towering Sunshine Skyway Bridge is being
described as too small.
Carnival Cruise Lines learned this week that a 952-foot long,
3,700-passenger ship it was considering assigning to Tampa in 2005 is
too tall for the Sunshine Skyway by 30 to 50 feet, said Robert
Dickinson, Carnival's president and chief executive.
Other cruise lines soon will face a similar problem with the height of
new ships, he said.
"Very soon, Tampa will be relegated to a secondary or tertiary cruise
port as the cruise industry builds bigger and taller ships," Dickinson
said Tuesday.
George Williamson, chief executive officer of the Tampa Port Authority,
acknowledged the port is limited on which cruise ships can come to
Tampa. He said not much can be done about the height of the Skyway to
allow taller ships to fit under the bridge.
"Sure, we've got some issues, but we've always had these issues,"
Williamson said. "I want the Queen Mary to come in here, too, but it's
too tall."
The 5 1/2-mile long Sunshine Skyway opened in 1987 to replace a span
whose midsection was demolished when a freighter struck the bridge in a
May 9, 1980, thunderstorm, killing 35 people. The Sunshine Skyway
offers a 1,200-wide passage for ships. Architects allowed 182.5 feet
between the water and the bottom of the bridge.
Dickinson said Carnival trimmed 5 feet off the mast of a ship in 1998 to
get it under the Skyway.
"In fairness, no one anticipated ships this large when the bridge was
built," Dickinson said.
Carnival, the busiest cruise line at the Port of Tampa, announced in May
it plans to berth a new ship in Tampa. The $375 million, 960- long
Miracle, with 1,062 rooms, will sail to the Caribbean in November 2004.
[end of article]
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

I LOV E the way the Geo.P.Coleman bridge is built! It's a unique, pioneering, double swing pan, to let tjust one middle channel! As for cruise ships, just over five years after the replies were posted above in 2003, I started going on the big cruise ships like the Princess..I have only been under one major high bridge, and that was in 2012 in the Golden Gate bridge (though I was watching the Princess Cruise stage show at the time..:-))