Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: Tom Crispin on 26 Jan 2010 12:34 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:59:09 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >you were in a Dart authourity vehicle with your >cycle in the back/trailer Clever boy!
From: Tom Crispin on 26 Jan 2010 12:46 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:17:43 +0000, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:03:16 +0000, JNugent >> <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> >>>>> But does the bridge *have* to be 65m high? >>>> The Port of London Authority will not allow anything less >>> ...unless it swings or lifts? >> >> I have already said as much in this sub thread. >> >> "A bridge would have to rise or be >> able to be raised to at least 65m" >> >> OK - the wording is not great. I should have subtituted "open" for >> "rise". > >There's no problem with that, is there? > >*If* it's good enough for the Inner London ring road (and it apparently is), >it's good enough for anyone. Few ships moor at the Upper Pool; St Katherine Dock and the Lower Pool are downstream of Tower Bridge. An average of three large ships pass Tower Bridge daily. Probably ten times as many pass Rotherhithe.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 26 Jan 2010 13:32 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:29:29 +0000, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:57:42 +0000, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > >wrote: > >>On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:24:18 +0000, Tom Crispin >><kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:06:11 +0000, JNugent >>><JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Tom Crispin wrote: >>>> >>>>> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The older tunnel wasn't really built for traffic at 30mph. The bends are/were >>>>>> necessary because of the geology of the ground and because of the places >>>>>> where the terminations were needed. >>>> >>>>> No. The bends are there to prevent horses bolting for the light, and >>>>> because of the geography of the Greenwich Penninsular. >>>> >>>>That's an additional - if far-fetched - reason you are proffering. It does >>>>not militate against the two I gave (indeed, you support one of them - >>>>probably both of them). >>>> >>>>> It is ironic that riding a horse through the tunnel is prohibited. >>>> >>>>Not really. The "horse bolting the light" story is highly likely to be an >>>>urban myth (unless you can find an authoritative source for it), and there >>>>would be nothing to stop the horses "bolting for the light" on the not >>>>inconsiderable relatively stretches between the outer bends and the portals. >>> >>>Horses bolting for the light may be an urban myth, but engineers >>>designing bends in tunnels in the hope of preventing horses bolting >>>for the light is not. >> >> >>I assume that you have a source for this - other than Wikipedia? >> >>As others have pointed out elsewhere - why was this technique not used >>in other tunnels from Roman times onwards. > >What tunnels are you thinking about. Any transport tunnels built form Roman times until the Thames tunnel which "accommodated" horses. >>What about canal tunnels? > >All the longer canal tunnels had a portage way above ground for >horses, while the barge was taken through the tunnel by the crew >'legging' it. > >Indeed, there are examples of shorter 'horse tunnels' being built >above canal tunnels. >www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5117 >www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1172572 And did they put bends in those "horse-tunnels" to stop them bolting? I think not. > >>No - I am sorry - just an Urban Myth. I find it odd that if it was a design feature - I can find no reference to it. Have you found one?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 26 Jan 2010 13:40 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:46 -0000, "Dave Larrington" <news(a)legslarry.org.uk> wrote: >In news:4qbsl51elk55p4da4evtudtub75b4qqkal(a)4ax.com, >JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us: > >> What about canal tunnels? > >What about them? I know of none which had tow paths having to have curves so that the horses did not bolt. Do you? -- The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children. The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 26 Jan 2010 13:45
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:22:14 -0000, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> >> What about canal tunnels? >> >> No - I am sorry - just an Urban Myth. >> >The fact that very few canal tunnels had/have towpaths the lack of "bolting >for the light" coupled with the inertia of the load in the few that did/do. > Many canal tunnels had tow paths - Many did not. Feel free to provide a single reference to a canal tunnel with a tow path having to have a curve in it in order to stop horses bolting. It's a nice story - it's an urban myth. |