Talk:London River Services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Albert Memorial" - the London Portal's current "Showcase Picture" This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.



London Transport
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on London's transport system. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or visit the Portal.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as High-importance within the London Transport WikiProject.
River Taskforce
 This article comes under the scope of the River services task force.

[edit] 30 metres?

The article contained the following statement:

The River Thames is generally no more than 30m wide as it runs through central London, ...

Now I know the Thames isn't a hugely wide river, and I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the sentence containing this statement, which is making the point that the river is easily bridgeable. But 30 metres is only the length of three London buses parked nose to tail, and I'm sure you could park many more than that across (say) London Bridge. Also Thames Clippers latest boats are 38 metres long (http://www.thamesclippers.com/fleet/view/193) and would have serious problems turning in a river only 30 metres wide.

I'm therefore going to remove the 30m claim. If you can see a flaw in my reasoning, and can cite a decent reference, please feel free to reinstate. -- Chris j wood (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, using Google maps I now suspect that this was a typo. Throughout central London, the river width seems to vary from around 250m to just under 300m, suggesting that 300m was the intended 'generally no more than' width. I shall reinstate, with amendment. -- Chris j wood (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)