Talk:Thirlmere Aqueduct

message: The aqueduct is almost 96 miles (154 km) long.[1] Its most common form of construction is cut and cover, which consists of a of "D" section concrete covered channel, approximately 7.1 feet (2.2 m) wide and between 7.1 feet (2.2 m) and 7.9 feet (2.4 m) high. There are 3.8 miles (6.1 km) of cut and cover ..
So the most common method of construction is cut and cover, but there are only 3.8 miles out of 96 miles built that way? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found another source (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911), which I have added as a reference, and I think the 3.8 is a typo in the source originally used (the Gates site). I have changed it to 37 miles. It is still not quite logical: my best guess is now 37 cut-and cover (EB1911), 33 of pipes (Gates).  EB1911 says 45 miles of pipes, which I think is wrong: the three numbers add up to exactly 96, so I think they subtracted the tunnels and cut-and-cover from 96 and got 45, and assumed that it was all pipes.  But some of the aqueduct is on bridges, with a concrete channel with concrete roof.  I am going to leave it at that! Charles Wicksteed (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least 37 miles of cut and cover looks a great deal more plausible than 3.8. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting point. These claims do appear to be dubious on the face of it. But perhaps the aqueduct begins at the water treatment plant? --Malleus Fatuarum 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On further investigation I find that there is a 4 mile tunnel under Dunmail Raise, and a treatment works 3 miles south of the reservoir. I think of Dunmail Raise as the summit of the pass between Grasmere and Thirlmere; perhaps the article considers the name to apply to the whole length of the pass. (Places lie on mountains and moorlands, in valleys and passes.) Lavateraguy 23:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This doesn't seem to make sense

message: with the detail given in "Andy Cave's Expedition Underground" repeated on BBC Radio 4 on 27 August 2008.
Of the two sources, I know which I find more credible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.251.136 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is at variance 

message: While the Thirlmere Aqueduct is a magnificent engineering achievement, I question whether it can be called a tunnel throughout its length. Leaving aside the controversy over 'bored' versus 'cut-and-cover' on the List of longest tunnels in the world page, the 5 water pipes are carried on bridges in many places, e.g. the fine bridge over the River Lune upstream of Crook o'Lune (see photo at http://drmikeparker.co.uk/Mikes_Aqueduct_Site/The_Thirlmere_Aqueduct_.html). If the Thirlmere Aqueduct is a tunnel, what about the many thousands of miles of buried gas and oil pipelines around the world? PhilUK (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a tunnel? 

message: Any chance of a map?  Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: This page (and the page for the reservoir called Thirlmere) says this remains the world's longest tunnel and links to a page, but the word Thirlmere is nowhere to be found on that page. Is it a different name? Or no longer in use? ZomgPancakes (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest tunnel in the world? 

message: I'm no expert, but, from what I have read on various pages, there's no way that this can be considered a continuous tunnel, that is, apparently, why it isn't on the 'List of longest tunnels in the world'. I'll leave it for others (more knowledgeable) to edit. Rehrenberg (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 'longest' claim?