|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 20, 2012 and June 20, 2014.|
- max length 310m, width 42m, draught 7m. Don't know about height. I found these at  page 42. --HJV 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Those are just the lock sizes. For actual passage I read that max allowed length is only 235 metres, draught 9.5 and width 32.5. Max height is 40 metres since the bridges are all 42 metres (since they were constructed to be just a bit higher than the largest navy warships right before WW1). --Springspinne (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this to put into the article, but then decided that there wasn't enough text to balance yet another picture. If you disagree or the situation changes, feel free to add it.
June 20 or June 21, 1895 ?
- Official homepage (only external link listed in this article) says 21, so I changed it. 184.108.40.206 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Busiest Man-Made Waterway?
- I've amended the article to refer to the canal's own web-site, which makes this claim. The most recent comparable figures I have found in a short search are for 2003: Kiel 39,797; Suez 17,224; Panama 13,154. I actually passed through the Kiel canal on 13 June in a cruise ship; it didn't seem that busy - no queues at the locks - but I couldn't swear the figures are wrong. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt a lot depends on how one defines "busiest", which could be, for example, greatest number of vessels, tonnage, passengers, etc. This could be expanded a bit.
- Indeed. The Kiel Canal is considered the busiest man-made waterway by number of vessels (~30k in 2009, ~33k in 2008, 43k in 2006, excluding sport boats etc; you can find the figures on the canal's website wsv.de), but far behind suez or panama canal if you go by cargo tonnage (only about 70 mio tons compared to ~200 mio. for panama and ~550 for suez canal in 2009), since most traders in the kiel canal are feeder ships which carry considerably less than for example a panamax container ship would, obviously (average payload only ~2000 compared to ~15k for panama and ~32k for suez canal in 2009). --Springspinne (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The presence of locks (see picture) suggests that the canal is not a sea-level canal. Can anyone elaborate on this? It seems that a new article section on the canal's technical aspects would be a good addition. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- There are locks only at the two ends. The difference of height is only a few feet - more at the North Sea end because the tides are greater than in the Baltic. That's personal observation - I don't have a reliable source to add it to the article. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is because of the earth rotation. In the case of Panama Canal, Pacific Ocean is 20 Centimeter higher than Atlantic Ocean.
Here is some information about this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-kaiserliche-marine-kaiser-wilhelm-canal.htm 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. A map of this canal should show its location with regard to national borders, and even more geographic features. Bry9000 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There should probably be a note on the main bridges over the canal, which often appear in German naval photographs. Levensau, Grünenthal, Rendsberg and Holtenau in particular. Drutt (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Citatians Someone has requested citatians for many paragraphs such as the normal practice of separate regulation for pleasure craft which for instance this Canal operator website clearly gives, and we list that website. Is the use of such citatians good practice or should we simply cross refer to Keil Canal website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Saves 250 miles?
The article says it saves 250 miles of going around Jutland. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jutland Peninsula is 40,000 sq. km, which, in scientific terms, is DAMN BIG. There is no way going around such a huge land mass is 250 miles. I see this on the canal's website as well. Could it be that they made a mistake and the author of this masterpiece just mindlessly copied it. Or was it the other way round? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC) As a sailor i am investigating using the canal. It saves about 107 miles going from North Sea to say Copenhagen, but going from one end to the other from North Sea to Kiel save 368miles, so 250 miles is average saving — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be useful if the canals original depth and width were given plus its current vital statistics, as thats why I came to page to start with — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Number of workers, "Over 9000" joke?
The linked reference[http://www.kiel-canal.de/kiel-canal/history/index.htm] for the section mentions "up to 8900 workers", but the wiki text says "over 9000 workers", which sounds very close to a popular Internet meme. Are there any other sources actually confirming the number being over nine thousand, or was that a hidden joke edit that went unnoticed?