Transport Tycoon Forums

Maybye you haven't seen Born_Acorn's post above, but the canal bridges had been drawn before.

This maybe getting a little off topic, but this looks cool!
A raised canal and lift mechanism.

sure why not...

Holycamoly! Can they do that?
Magnificent piece of technology.

WLT - What website is that from? I'd like to learn about that

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/f ... kirkwheel/
http://www.falkirk-wheel.com/

Excuse me, but isn't that already possible?

Ben_Robbins_ wrote:http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/f ... kirkwheel/
http://www.falkirk-wheel.com/

What I love about the Falkirk Wheel is how little energy it takes to turn it. Its something ridiculous like the power of an electric kettle (2-3kW).

jnmbk wrote:Excuse me, but isn't that already possible?

somehow yes, but the wheel is more stylish
I dont get how crazy people can be and have such ideas

MeusH wrote:Maybye you haven't seen Born_Acorn's post above, but the canal bridges had been drawn before.

I said TUNNELS in plain english, what part of that did you not understand?

well, i say we should introduce tunnels, i also said bridges would be awsome. maybe you can use that lift for a bridgehead?

bobingabout wrote:well, i say we should introduce tunnels, i also said bridges would be awsome. maybe you can use that lift for a bridgehead?

or maybe you can limit the canal bridges so they can only have straight bridgeheads and so the lift wouldn't be needed

richk67 wrote:What I love about the Falkirk Wheel is how little energy it takes to turn it. Its something ridiculous like the power of an electric kettle (2-3kW).

¿even if the weight of the boat going up is different from the one going down?

lepkka wrote:

richk67 wrote:What I love about the Falkirk Wheel is how little energy it takes to turn it. Its something ridiculous like the power of an electric kettle (2-3kW).

¿even if the weight of the boat going up is different from the one going down?

Doesn't matter. A boat displaces exactly the same mass of water as its own mass. You can turn that lift with a concrete barge on one side and an empty canoe on the other, no problem.

The more massive the ship, the less water the lift has to carry. in every case, the mass of the vessel and the water it floats in is a constant.

lepkka wrote:

richk67 wrote:What I love about the Falkirk Wheel is how little energy it takes to turn it. Its something ridiculous like the power of an electric kettle (2-3kW).

¿even if the weight of the boat going up is different from the one going down?

I cant remember where I read it - I think its on the official visitors leaflet that we picked up on our last holiday in Scotland. I was pretty amazed.

The weight is completely adjustable. The boats in the lower part displace water equal to their weight, and I guess a valve can be opened to let out enough other water down a sluice to reduce the weight in the lower part until the top is heavier... then a little push and it should turn. That's my guess anyway.

Edit: Brianetta's point about constant mass too...

I live not to far away from the falkirk wheel, not been on it, but from what I hear it feels very precarious. It's like a vertical drop with no railings, so if your on an open top barge it's quite scary.

It could be used to climb heights of more than 1 unit in height, since it was orriginally used to replace the 11 locks (~35m) between the Forth and Clyde canal and the Union Canal, however it does take about an hour to rotate!

P.S
I Know I am no artist and this aint no actual attempt at a graphic (so please no critisism), just had nothing else to do.

Brianetta wrote:The more massive the ship, the less water the lift has to carry. in every case, the mass of the vessel and the water it floats in is a constant.

true!! such a great idea!. 2Kw/h is nearly what my christmas tree is consuming!

The same principle has interesting applications to aqueducts. Once you have designed and rated the bridge to carry the mass of water in the channel, it's automatically rated to carry any vessel that can remain buoyant in the channel without touching the sides or the bottom. Even the most massive ship, as long as it actually floats, displaces enough water that the bridge's load never changes.

Wow! I like this.

The tunnels should be limited to smaller ships, I reckon. Which if tankers and such are 2x4 squares or something would be good.

I'm all for evening things out for all transport types. If a rail bridge can be built with corners and signals, The same should be with road bridges and canal bridges. Similarly the tunnels should be the same. Though any canal (be it bridge, ground-level or tunnel) should not have a "rise" or "fall" as it does now. that's dodgy. Cool, but dodgy. A loch would be nifty.


I can just see a city that has raised canals running over the top of roads instead of trains! Fast, small hovercraft zipping around. 'twould be nifteh.

Following on from this, Wikipedia has this on their front page today!



Hi-Res Image: http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2514 ... mcclea.jpg

Wikipedia Article: >>Here<<

Details on how it works, with pictures of it in action.