Contents

Talk:Kiel Canal

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Transport This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

There is Panamax, Suezmax and Seawaymax. What is the Kielmax? -- Geo Swan 06:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

max length 310m, width 42m, draught 7m. Don't know about height. I found these at [1] page 42. --HJV 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can't find one but a map surely would be essential to this article 4.142.90.78 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)eric[reply]

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.

dewiki and enwiki disagree about the opening date. Anybody have a reliable source? Kusma (討論) 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official homepage (only external link listed in this article) says 21, so I changed it. 195.49.2.166 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims the Kiel Canal "is the world's busiest man-made waterway" - any reference for this? 86.160.190.194 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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.

Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Even by number of Vessels, the Amsterdam-Rhine canal in the Netherlands is busier with 100.000 vessels annually. https://twitter.com/rws_mn/status/1398197853751762945

Given that the canal is neither biggest in tonnage moved nor number of vessels I'm going to change the line. AngryZinogre (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim on the Canal's own website is that it is the world's busiest "Seeschifffahrtsstrasse", that is "maritime waterway": a waterway/canal used by sea going ships. The Amsterdam-Rhine canal is classified as an inland waterway (only used by river going ships). One distinction is that the Amsterdam-Rhine waterway only has a clearance of 9m (as opposed to 42m on the Kiel canal). So the claim "world's busiest articifial/man-made *maritime* waterway" seems to be correct.2A0A:EF40:290:A301:A0D2:5344:C958:9375 (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 85.70.117.103 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map we have now is pretty crude. I've requested a better one - preferably something that shows the actual route, and a few cities it visits on the way. --JaGa^talk 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 216.31.202.145 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 86.137.105.31 (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 86.137.105.31 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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? ^[1]

What were the dimensions of the first version of the canal. And there needs to be an more detailed explanation of why it was rebuilt.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the max boat length is 235m and max beam is 32.5m.

However on the Bismark page, it talks about that ship going through the canal and having a length of 241m at the waterline and 251m overall and a beam of 36m.

So have the specs changed since WW2, or was the Bismark sent through it even though it was bigger than recommended?

Ganpati23 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]