Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Falkirk Wheel

scottishcanals.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#71

Post by arethuza »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #70
arethuza wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The A9 is actually pretty scary in parts because it alternates between dual carriageway and single carriageway and people have been known to get that wrong and thing they are on a dual carriageway when it is a single carriageway...

I've done that and I've driven on the A9 hundreds if not thousands of times. What's worse is that the inbuilt mapping in a lot of new cars think bits of it are 70mph dual carriageway when it's still single carriageway, and vice-versa.

Same - driven up and down there countless times, but I still sometimes get alarmed on some of the dual carriageway parts where you can't see the other carriageway and I have a momentary panic of "This is a dual carriageway, isn't it?".

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#72

Post by ErroneousBosh »

tolien wrote: post #58
theoreticalmal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple says Edinburgh to Skye is a 3.5 hour drive, mostly along the A9. My understanding is A roads in the UK are much like USA interstates. What makes the trip terrifying and slower than what Apple says?

Google Maps says between 5 and 6 hours and 227 miles - doing that in 3.5 hours would be averaging 65mph. Good luck with that, especially when the speed limit on the A9 itself is 60 mph for cars! The US interstate is probably more comparable with UK motorways.

I can safely do it in good conditions in six hours and I'd consider myself a very experienced driver for that route, having driven from Skye to Glasgow or Edinburgh and back a couple of times a week for years.

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#73

Post by tolien »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #72
tolien wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Maps says between 5 and 6 hours and 227 miles - doing that in 3.5 hours would be averaging 65mph. Good luck with that, especially when the speed limit on the A9 itself is 60 mph for cars! The US interstate is probably more comparable with UK motorways.

I can safely do it in good conditions in six hours and I'd consider myself a very experienced driver for that route, having driven from Skye to Glasgow or Edinburgh and back a couple of times a week for years.

Absolutely, doing it in half that time would be madness though!

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#74

Post by jimnotgym »

jodrellblank wrote: post #68
jimnotgym wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The British canal system became largely obsolete when the Railways came. Partly because the railway companies bought the canals and closed them to strengthen their monopoly. The canals were restored and reopened by enthusiasts for leisure boating, and in this is still going on. This is strengthened by the tow paths being legal rights of way, and walking them is very popular.

Canal boats had no engines, they were pulled by horses and very slow and dependent on a lot of horse care and feeding. Some of the early static steam engines were used to pump water up the canals to re-use it in locks, and there were lock keepers to employ and dredging to do, so it's not even as if the canals were a sunk cost and had almost no running costs. I'd not be surprised that industrialists would do such a th…

I don't think they were competetive for most goods once the railways came, but I understand they were still working (with engines) right up to the 1960s. I guess not all goods needed to arrive quickly. I believe the canals freezing in winter added to the problems. I just checked Wikipedia and some went on to the 1980s!

Railway companies did buy and close them though. On one local one they made permanent destructive changes to stop them being easily reopened.

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#75

Post by ErroneousBosh »

tolien wrote: post #73
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can safely do it in good conditions in six hours and I'd consider myself a very experienced driver for that route, having driven from Skye to Glasgow or Edinburgh and back a couple of times a week for years.

Absolutely, doing it in half that time would be madness though!

Doing it in half the time would be impossible. To travel 250 miles in three hours you'd need to keep up an average of 83mph-ish for the whole journey.

I shouldn't think there are many places you can reach a peak speed of 83mph for long on the whole road.

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#76

Post by tolien »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #75
tolien wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, doing it in half that time would be madness though!

Doing it in half the time would be impossible. To travel 250 miles in three hours you'd need to keep up an average of 83mph-ish for the whole journey. I shouldn't think there are many places you can reach a peak speed of 83mph for long on the whole road.

Some lunatic will take it as a challenge :-) (and become a statistic)

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#77

Post by naianai »

aserafini wrote: post #42

My Italian grandparents operated a fish, chips and ice cream joint in Falkirk called the York Cafe. It has nothing to do with the article but this is the first time I can remember Falkirk being discussed on HN!

Used to love going there as a child. Also if your username makes reference to your family name, you probably have quite a lot of relations in the area.

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#78

Post by adw »

arethuza wrote: post #30
adw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(The nearest container port is Leith, which is about twenty miles away.)

Grangemouth is the larger container port in Scotland (not very large by global standards) and much closer to Falkirk than Leith?

My mistake, I thought Grangemouth was all LPG and petrochemicals…

Re: The Falkirk Wheel

#79

Post by contrarian1234 »

pmyteh wrote: post #27
contrarian1234 wrote: post #21

Is it just for leisure or commercial traffic? it's a lot smaller than I imagined. I can't picture a river barge fitting in it, but it's hard to tell the scale

British canals are smaller than you imagine, and were even when they were commercial waterways. The standard lock widths are only 7ft or 14ft (2.1m/4.3m) so the boats are narrow, proportionally long, and very small compared to a Rhine barge or something. As with the railways, we built early, to a small gauge, and lived with the consequences of that later.

wow thats absolutely tiny. thanks for the detailed info. very interesting :))
Post reply on HN