Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: JNugent on 26 Jan 2010 13:45 Tom Crispin wrote: > 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. And? What is (or would be) the problem with that? The same thing happens at lift and swing bridges (not always for a large or tall vessel and often many more times a day than ten). The same thing happens at countless level crossings - perhaps as many as ten times per rush hour at some places.
From: Tom Crispin on 26 Jan 2010 14:20 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:40:52 +0000, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: >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. Canal tunnels are usually (always?) straight. They rarely have tow paths. It would be considerably harder for a horse to bolt when towing a 50 ton barge loaded with coal than when hauling a carriage. I now have serious doubts about the purpose of the bends in the Blackwall and Rotherhithe Tunnels. Wikipedia says both have bends to reduce the risk of horses bolting or to make it easier to take horses underground, but I can find no second source of that information. Canal tunnels rarely have tow paths, but the Netherton Tunnel has two. But unusually that tunnel was lit. I am unconvinced either way.
From: Tom Crispin on 26 Jan 2010 16:40 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:45:57 +0000, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> 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. > >And? > >What is (or would be) the problem with that? I am not saying there is a problem with it. What I am saying is that I would find a tunnel with lifts preferable. >The same thing happens at lift and swing bridges (not always for a large or >tall vessel and often many more times a day than ten). The same thing happens >at countless level crossings - perhaps as many as ten times per rush hour at >some places. Indeed. However, ten times three is thirty, not ten, although there is a strong possibility that with any one opening of the potential bridge two or more ships may pass.
From: Brimstone on 26 Jan 2010 17:39 "JMS" <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote in message news:3qdul5lmsnjo216ds2od2je3ahbev10b4j(a)4ax.com... > 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. How would a horse bolt when it has a 50 ton boat attached to it? > > It's a nice story - it's an urban myth. Can you provide a source which confirms that it's an urban myth?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 26 Jan 2010 18:42
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:24:29 -0000, "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: <snip> > >That is always a problem when you are a bit thick, you find yourself >surrounded by people who think they are clever. > Do you still hold that you "do not slow down for speed cameras or suddenly change my driving style if I see a police car." or are you ignoring the question. I can see why you would - were you trying to be clever - or just demonstrating that you are thick? |