3 ms·
Quick slightly-on-topic questions: I always read local press releases about how a major local rail or road or stormwater tunnel project "has gotten its TBM" an
by glompers 2y ago
Quick slightly-on-topic questions: I always read local press releases about how a major local rail or road or stormwater tunnel project "has gotten its TBM" and is assembling it in a portal dug for the initial staging.
It seems that a lot of projects decide on a diameter and then order a TBM for the expected materials that will have to be ground up [sic]. Would it be any significant savings (if you were in Great Britain for instance) to deliberately engineer your whole infrastructure design, and funding, and timeline, to use the exact same diameter as England's High Speed 2's TBM and then run that TBM after they are done with it? There must be a lot of single-use TBMs but I don't know what their builders reuse from one machine to the next.
- ggm 2y agoI would think so, from every part of the supply chain it would make sense to use the same segment size, grout, rail method, even manufacturing yards if they're on a train network. But I believe a lot of TBM dig themselves into a not so shallow grave and stay underground: it's expensive to remove them. They drill a headway off to one side and stop like a sad loco in the thomas the tank engine books.
- pas 2y agoThey probably would need major refurbishment anyway, right? Anything that is of value is stripped anyway, and.. the cutting shield is lost (but... who knows, maybe not, as that needs a lot of serviceability anyway, maybe the valuable stuff is removed even from that?)
- pas 2y agoAs long as the planning, permitting, and logistics dwarf the unit costs it doesn't really matter how much one can theoretically save on linking up projects. :/