Talk:Caen Hill Locks

UK Waterways High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Waterways 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.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Water saving pounds"[edit]

I have removed the link to water saving pounds, as the side pounds at Caen Hill Locks do not save water. The pounds at Caen Hill Locks originate not from the lock chambers themselves but from the pounds between locks. Moggyland (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to gallery[edit]

During my edit, I moved the images to float along the right side of the page. I removed the image sizes as they already had "thumb" in the image tag. As people have different preferences for the image size of "thumb", I felt that it would be best to edit a gallery in such a way that these images did not interfere with it.

If the thumbnail images were 200px or larger, they would start to affect the gallery, which is four images across. Cutting it down to just 3 images in width would prevent any such interference. - Erebus555 12:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floating right at user-defined thumbnail size is good. You can't please everybody though: by forcing the gallery to enter a new line of images after three-across there's now an awkward gap to the right. Would it be possible just to let the images float, as before? I assume that if the window were narrow they'd re-flow into three-across of their own accord—is this right? --Old Moonraker 12:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a try. It worked, but I can see how it might not with other thumbnail sizes. Withdraw my suggestion. --Old Moonraker 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steepest gradient[edit]

I just added a request for a citation showing that this is the steepest flight in the world. I also question the arithmetic on the gradient as I make it 1:44. Maybe 1:30 is the main flight, in which case the text needs clarifying. If I were trying to prove a record, I would look at the main flight of 16 locks (not 17, exclude the odd one at the bottom by the road bridge, which doesn't have the extended side pond). On a similar note, I don't recall coming across all 29 locks being referred to as caen hill locks; I thought that was just the main flight? Derek Andrews 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even at 1:30, it wouldn't be the steepest. Marple Locks, which has no ambiguity as to which locks are part of the flight has a rise of 209 ft in 1 mile (distance checked on Google Earth), a gradient of 1:25.

The whole question of steepest throws up many anomalies. How many locks are needed to constitute a flight? I can think of many short flights of 3 locks that will exceed 1:25, and we can easily find steeper flights depending on how we slice flights into sub-flights (Lapworth thick, Upper Marple). Clearly the intent is to exclude staircases, but what about flights that include staircases (Grindley Brook or even Foxton). If we exclude staircases completely, the the steepest flight must surely be the Bratch, with a 1:8 gradient (or do we exclude that for being "odd"). Mayalld 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering only the 16 locks... The distance on the ground is 48 chains (0.6 miles) = 3168'. The fall is 130'8" [1], which gives a fall of 1:24. The locks are closer together than at Marple, but the average fall per lock is less (8'2" as opposed to 13'½"). I don't know the fall of Lapworth thick (2-14) for comparison. Mayalld 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the pounds for?[edit]

I am curious about the series of L-shaped extensions seen in the third photo. I assume by the posts above these are the pounds, which it appears are not for holding water. So what are they for? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]