on October 27 2009 12:05:04
Hehe yeah. Wonder why they don't take Øresund instead though... |
on October 27 2009 16:48:54
Øresund is lower, only 57m.
What I dont understand is why they cannot use ballast tanks/ballast to lower the ship? no mention of that. |
on October 27 2009 17:13:41
I'm sure Norlander meant sailing through the Drogden channel, over the Øresundtunnel and not under the bridge. But ships may not draw deeper than 7.7 m to cross this channel, and Oasis of the Seas draws 9.1 m. |
on October 27 2009 18:41:11
Only 7.7m? Damn they need to dredge that channel deeper One of the reasons for making the damn tunnel before the bridge was to give extremely tall ships a way into the Baltic, but if it's only 7.7 meters deep... |
on October 27 2009 19:56:34
The draft limit of The Flint (channel under the bridge) is 7.0 m, so not that much of a difference, but I guess the number of ships that go beyond these limits is not very big. Of those, the number that go beyond the limit of the Storebæltbridge seem to be close to 1 
They obviously can't dredge the Drogden channel any deeper; but I suspect that's what you were punning at. |
on October 27 2009 20:29:53
Of course they can dredge it deeper, it's just a matter of cost. The Suez Canal is dredged to 22 meters.
There are several ships that are unable to sail into the Baltic, and several ships that are taller than 65 meters, for instance all Nimitz class carriers, which are 74.4 m from keel to mast top. |
on October 27 2009 22:00:49
They can't dredge it deeper because there's a tunnel in the way... |
on October 27 2009 23:21:47
Fair point, but is the tunnel that close to the bottom? |
on October 27 2009 23:37:49
It is not a drilled tunnel, it is made of submerged pre-made elements.
The pre-made elements lie in a ditch on the sea-bed, and a 1½ m layer of rocks lie on top of the elements to prevent anchors from damaging the tunnel roof. |
fun
