Talk:Suez Canal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Length[edit]

Are you sure the length of the canal is 164 km? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica it's 101 miles (163 km ) [1]67.67.230.161 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC claims that it is 192 km long: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5195068.stm . Can anyone explain this discrepancy? -Pgan002 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at [2]. It seems that various improvements (by-passing Port Said and increasing the radius of bends, etc.) have increased the length of the canal over time. The link has a table of lengths at different dates. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Originally, the length of the canal across the isthmus is said to have been 162.25 km (where exactly did their measurements start and finish?). Over those 145 years, its depth of originally 8 m has been increased to 24 m. Therefore, access channels had to be dredged extending the canal into the sea. The 193.3 km are the distance between the entrances to the access channels as defined by the Suez Canal Authority. The various improvements (increasing the radius of bends, bypassing Lake Timsah) have, of course, shortened the length by some meters or so, but it appears that this has never been reported to the public. --AHert (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Take sea-level difference out[edit]

The texts says that the Suez Canals has no locks because there are no hills to climb (that's the right argumentation) and because there is no sea-level difference (wrong reasoning!). Since when is the sea-level at the other side of a continent, island, etc. lower or higher? So the Panama Canal has locks because there is a sea-level difference? Of course not, the Atlantic Ocean is not lower or higher than the Pacific Ocean, or vice versa. The same is valid for the Suez Canal the Red Sea can't be lower or higher than the Mediterraenean Sea. Water-level difference is only possible in inland waters. Janno 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Water-level difference is only possible in inland waters. Not true -- this is from the Wikipedia article on sea level: Mean sea level does not remain constant over the surface of the entire earth. For instance, mean sea level at the Pacific end of the Panama Canal stands 20 cm higher than at the Atlantic end. unfutz 05:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You can theoretically have different seal levels at different ends of the canal, if the high tides are at different times. This is precisely what happens in the English Channel. High tides arriving from the west are at different times to those arriving via the North Sea, resulting in a tidal race.

The Mediterranean has virtually no tides, it is “nearly” a land-locked lake, the only outlet is the straits of Gibraltar and they are relatively narrow.
The Red Sea is long and thin, and so probably has minimal tides.

Can anybody comment on how big the tides are at either end, and whether there is a flow? It may be so low that it is overwhelmed by the currents caused by passing ships. TiffaF 16:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "sea level" (at least, the general, common one) should not be used when speaking about water flow over geographical distances. That is: a sea level of 0 at location A and a sea level of 1 (meters, say) at location B does NOT mean that a straight pipe connecting them will have water flowing from B to A. If you don't understand that, then you need to think more like a sailor (or oceanographer) and less like a gardener (or child in a bathtub). See article on Geoid and links there.216.96.76.37 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency[edit]

"... traffic was below expectations in the first two years ... "
"The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on world trade."

These two statements do not seem very compatible. 109.152.146.134 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem was that the canal could only really be exploited by steamships and those ships needed to be built before the traffic in the canal could get to its full potential. In 1871, 45 steamers were built in Clyde shipyards alone for Far Eastern trade - others would have been built in similar numbers in shipbuilding areas like Sunderland. In 1870, tea clippers in China were getting reduced freights (the price paid to transport a cargo) compared to the steamships that were available - and the steamships went through the Suez canal (which the sailing ships, in practical terms, could not do.).
This section probably needs a bit of polishing, but the basic facts are correct - as demonstrated by the desperate race by shipowners to add steamships to their fleet as soon as the canal had been opened. Something on the simple maths of a quicker passage could be included - a steamship could make more than one trip to China in a year. The only thing that is missing is a good explanation of how the opening of the canal coincided with a quantum leap in steamship efficiency - largely due to the Board of Trade allowing higher boiler pressures from about 1865, so making compound engines worthwhile.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ballah by-pass / By-pass / Bypass / El Ballah[edit]

This article uses "Ballah by-pass", "Ballah By-pass", "Ballah Bypass", and "El Ballah" interchangeably. Which one should it be? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual Challenge.[edit]

The lede claims the width of the canal is 205 meters. This is wrong. The width of the canal varies. Obviously. I looked on Google Maps and find typical widths of 180 - 190 meters. My opinion is that the minimum width is the only applicable one. (A large average width doesn't do a ship any good if at some point the width is zero, for instance.) Also, a lot of the references, especially the ones to the 1911 Encycl. Britanica, are broken. (Not to mention citing the EB for anything other than historical interest).216.96.76.37 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Minimum width is indeed 205, mostly at least 225 but sometimes much more. Measured at 11 m depth. For the details see http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/Files/Circular/Suez%20Canal%20Cross%20Section.pdf . But is not it obvious that "minimum" or "at worst" is meant when summarizing the parameters? 137.205.1.60 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

New Canal claims vs facts[edit]

So on 6 August 2015 the New Suez Canal was "opened". Let me say: Wikipedia must keep split the PR-humbug from the facts. To me, it reads like an advertising campaign (Egypt actually bought the cover of The Economist last week).

First of all, it is not a "new" canal. It's just that 13 of the Suez Canal now has a second lane. Distrust any outlet that says "new" in lowercase. "New" is the name, not the description.

Second, yes we can assume the 2nd lane is a waterway, by now. It is wet. However, it is not navigable. The Suez Canal Authority does not allow commercial (toll paying) shipping.

Third, the Egypt captain is Sisi. That is a dictator, and so WP should be sensitive to note dictatorial handling of the project.

Fourth. The story about being financed "by Egypt investors" to the sum of US$ 8.000.000.000,00 requires more critical sources (for example, which Egypt investors have that amount?). Why not looked for foreign banks? (Where is Goldman Sacks?) How is that a smart financing setup at all?

In general, this "New Suez Canal" should be treated as a PR stunt, except for details critically sourced. -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not very optimistic, too, but internet-wise, there is new traffic system that "shall takes effect as of 06/08/2015" (sic), see http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/showNc.aspx?id=105. Why do you think that "2nd lane [...] is not navigable [...and...] does not allow commercial (toll paying) shipping?" Any source? Today they say they have 56 ships meaning they were able to squeeze in more then 49 which was the old capacity according to wiki (and 49.5, the June average). Maybe they got small ships today, maybe they could use new canal some other way (park ships for bypass waiting) but it looks to me they are serious about using it. 137.205.1.60 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I did not find plans and rules for the new lane in (the internet version of the (inserted by myself137.205.1.60 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)) ) "Rules of Navigation". 137.205.1.60 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
So we agree. No toll-paying ships use the new lane today. It is not in use. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree. Still I see no document sayng it is not in use. And it is in use just now, four ships northbound are going in the new lane. [3] (Since google maps are outdated, the ships seems to go on dry.). Perhaps you can try any day about this time, it is 10:15 of London DST time, which I think is 9:15 GMT. 137.205.1.158 (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
And I see no document sayng it even existsa. Only by govt bragging. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It is well documented in [4] (where from one can see its width, length and depth) which is attachment to the Circular No 5. There exists also a video of Danish ship going through. And I have seen ships going through on marinetraffic.com (see above). Since you have no documents saying it would not be functional, I suppose it is, and I do not need to continue the discussion. Thank you. 137.205.1.60 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That's reversing the source-it base. But I admit, I found circulaire 5/2015 that defines the navigation rules so it is formal. I have adjusted the scheme (map). -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Suez Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Tunnels[edit]

@NottNott: Added the paragraph of the tunnels under section "Canal crossings" with a sub-section called "Future Projects" as I've noted you before.... --elbarck (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel[edit]

On the same day Nasser seized the canal he also closed it to all Israeli ships. This must be mentioned otherwise it doesn't make sense that Israel was involved in the Suez Crisis. (92.4.11.203 (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

1. Source it
2. "Otherwise it doesn't make sense" is OR. And: Israel might have other reasons to start a war.
3. The BBC statement you keep referring to is not about the Suez Canal and is geographically wrong. Useless. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The articles on the Suez Crisis and Nasser himself mention it and use that source among others. Israel had other reasons to attack, but Egypt closing the canal was the main one by far. (92.4.11.203 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

Cheap Oil vs Suez Canal Fees[edit]

Because of cheap oil, some ships are bypassing the Suez Canal because Canal fees are more expensive than the oil costs to travel an extra 11 days around southern tip of Africa. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160303-cheap-oil-is-taking-shipping-routes-back-to-the-1800sSbmeirowTalk • 02:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Somehow, I think such a point should be in the article. After all, *this* is what the ships owner is trading off. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

One sentence[edit]

Only one sentence about ships sunken during existence of canal. At least 21 ship sunk during Suez crisis. Domjanovich (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

True, although the Suez crisis article itself doesn't go deeply into this topic either. Do you have some usable sources that discuss this? For example, it would be interesting to know if the sunken vessels were military or civilian, and if the crews were warned or if there were any casualties. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. First of all I have to apologize for my poor English. Several of them is listed in List of shipwrecks in 1956 month October 31st and unknown date. Most of informations I came across is related to Croatian Wikipedia article Plovna dizalica Veli Jože and this reference http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/177842 at the end of page 80 and beginning of page 81. I was hoping to find some more info on this or the crisis page but I didn't. Most of unrelated and unconfirmed so called sources mention 40 or 32 ships that were sunken in time of Suez crisis just as Egyptian response for closing the canal using them as some kind of obstacles. Nevertheless that is just for that period. I haven't searched for any other sources due to my other interest but I found it would be smart to mention it on talk page for someone eager enough to put some time in it. Regards Domjanovich (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Suez Canal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)