Approximately how much travel time was saved by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?
Understanding that there were a few variables involved, approximately how much travel time was saved by no longer having to travel around Africa after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?
trade africa
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Understanding that there were a few variables involved, approximately how much travel time was saved by no longer having to travel around Africa after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?
trade africa
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
It depends on where you're travelling from and to. If you're sailing from one end of the canal to the other, then it's the transit time of the canal (162 km) vs the circumnavigation of Africa (9,654km).
– Steve Bird
19 hours ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
18 hours ago
3
I can't speak for the poster, but if it were me I'd take it as "From the UK to India", as that's what its main purpose ended up being, despite it being a French-led effort (and why the UK eventually felt the need to take it over)
– T.E.D.♦
13 hours ago
Do you mean travel time for a passenger, or ship time? After all, before the canal it would seem obvious for passengers (or time-critical cargo like mail) to disembark at one side of Suez, travel across on land, and get on a different ship on the other side for the remainder of the journey.
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Understanding that there were a few variables involved, approximately how much travel time was saved by no longer having to travel around Africa after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?
trade africa
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Understanding that there were a few variables involved, approximately how much travel time was saved by no longer having to travel around Africa after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?
trade africa
trade africa
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
asked 19 hours ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
8115
8115
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ross Alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
It depends on where you're travelling from and to. If you're sailing from one end of the canal to the other, then it's the transit time of the canal (162 km) vs the circumnavigation of Africa (9,654km).
– Steve Bird
19 hours ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
18 hours ago
3
I can't speak for the poster, but if it were me I'd take it as "From the UK to India", as that's what its main purpose ended up being, despite it being a French-led effort (and why the UK eventually felt the need to take it over)
– T.E.D.♦
13 hours ago
Do you mean travel time for a passenger, or ship time? After all, before the canal it would seem obvious for passengers (or time-critical cargo like mail) to disembark at one side of Suez, travel across on land, and get on a different ship on the other side for the remainder of the journey.
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
add a comment |
3
It depends on where you're travelling from and to. If you're sailing from one end of the canal to the other, then it's the transit time of the canal (162 km) vs the circumnavigation of Africa (9,654km).
– Steve Bird
19 hours ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
18 hours ago
3
I can't speak for the poster, but if it were me I'd take it as "From the UK to India", as that's what its main purpose ended up being, despite it being a French-led effort (and why the UK eventually felt the need to take it over)
– T.E.D.♦
13 hours ago
Do you mean travel time for a passenger, or ship time? After all, before the canal it would seem obvious for passengers (or time-critical cargo like mail) to disembark at one side of Suez, travel across on land, and get on a different ship on the other side for the remainder of the journey.
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
3
3
It depends on where you're travelling from and to. If you're sailing from one end of the canal to the other, then it's the transit time of the canal (162 km) vs the circumnavigation of Africa (9,654km).
– Steve Bird
19 hours ago
It depends on where you're travelling from and to. If you're sailing from one end of the canal to the other, then it's the transit time of the canal (162 km) vs the circumnavigation of Africa (9,654km).
– Steve Bird
19 hours ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
18 hours ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
18 hours ago
3
3
I can't speak for the poster, but if it were me I'd take it as "From the UK to India", as that's what its main purpose ended up being, despite it being a French-led effort (and why the UK eventually felt the need to take it over)
– T.E.D.♦
13 hours ago
I can't speak for the poster, but if it were me I'd take it as "From the UK to India", as that's what its main purpose ended up being, despite it being a French-led effort (and why the UK eventually felt the need to take it over)
– T.E.D.♦
13 hours ago
Do you mean travel time for a passenger, or ship time? After all, before the canal it would seem obvious for passengers (or time-critical cargo like mail) to disembark at one side of Suez, travel across on land, and get on a different ship on the other side for the remainder of the journey.
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
Do you mean travel time for a passenger, or ship time? After all, before the canal it would seem obvious for passengers (or time-critical cargo like mail) to disembark at one side of Suez, travel across on land, and get on a different ship on the other side for the remainder of the journey.
– jamesqf
10 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
That would have depended on the ship and your destination.
To get a sense of the savings (the travel times are from today), consider the presentation that's referenced on the Suez Canal wiki page.
As a point of comparison, London to New York is a bit over 3,300 nautical miles (6,200km) when traveling by sea. So going through Suez when traveling from Hormuz to London is like avoiding a trip and a half across the Atlantic.
This separate question has a few sources where you will likely be able to locate how much savings in days that would have meant.
In passing, crossing through Suez had an additional benefit: not needing to worry about the at times enormous waves near the Cape of Good Hope. (The sea is even more treacherous at Cape Horn.)
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
9 hours ago
1
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
8 hours ago
1
@StevenBurnap: per the answer, these are modern travel times. It seems to have taken 7-10 days to cross the Atlantic in 1890, so you'd be looking at a 10-15 day difference or so by taking Suez Canal then. And the travel times had evolved for the better between then and 1869.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
3
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
8 hours ago
2
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Ross Alexander is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51958%2fapproximately-how-much-travel-time-was-saved-by-the-opening-of-the-suez-canal-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
That would have depended on the ship and your destination.
To get a sense of the savings (the travel times are from today), consider the presentation that's referenced on the Suez Canal wiki page.
As a point of comparison, London to New York is a bit over 3,300 nautical miles (6,200km) when traveling by sea. So going through Suez when traveling from Hormuz to London is like avoiding a trip and a half across the Atlantic.
This separate question has a few sources where you will likely be able to locate how much savings in days that would have meant.
In passing, crossing through Suez had an additional benefit: not needing to worry about the at times enormous waves near the Cape of Good Hope. (The sea is even more treacherous at Cape Horn.)
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
9 hours ago
1
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
8 hours ago
1
@StevenBurnap: per the answer, these are modern travel times. It seems to have taken 7-10 days to cross the Atlantic in 1890, so you'd be looking at a 10-15 day difference or so by taking Suez Canal then. And the travel times had evolved for the better between then and 1869.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
3
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
8 hours ago
2
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
That would have depended on the ship and your destination.
To get a sense of the savings (the travel times are from today), consider the presentation that's referenced on the Suez Canal wiki page.
As a point of comparison, London to New York is a bit over 3,300 nautical miles (6,200km) when traveling by sea. So going through Suez when traveling from Hormuz to London is like avoiding a trip and a half across the Atlantic.
This separate question has a few sources where you will likely be able to locate how much savings in days that would have meant.
In passing, crossing through Suez had an additional benefit: not needing to worry about the at times enormous waves near the Cape of Good Hope. (The sea is even more treacherous at Cape Horn.)
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
9 hours ago
1
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
8 hours ago
1
@StevenBurnap: per the answer, these are modern travel times. It seems to have taken 7-10 days to cross the Atlantic in 1890, so you'd be looking at a 10-15 day difference or so by taking Suez Canal then. And the travel times had evolved for the better between then and 1869.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
3
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
8 hours ago
2
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
That would have depended on the ship and your destination.
To get a sense of the savings (the travel times are from today), consider the presentation that's referenced on the Suez Canal wiki page.
As a point of comparison, London to New York is a bit over 3,300 nautical miles (6,200km) when traveling by sea. So going through Suez when traveling from Hormuz to London is like avoiding a trip and a half across the Atlantic.
This separate question has a few sources where you will likely be able to locate how much savings in days that would have meant.
In passing, crossing through Suez had an additional benefit: not needing to worry about the at times enormous waves near the Cape of Good Hope. (The sea is even more treacherous at Cape Horn.)
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
That would have depended on the ship and your destination.
To get a sense of the savings (the travel times are from today), consider the presentation that's referenced on the Suez Canal wiki page.
As a point of comparison, London to New York is a bit over 3,300 nautical miles (6,200km) when traveling by sea. So going through Suez when traveling from Hormuz to London is like avoiding a trip and a half across the Atlantic.
This separate question has a few sources where you will likely be able to locate how much savings in days that would have meant.
In passing, crossing through Suez had an additional benefit: not needing to worry about the at times enormous waves near the Cape of Good Hope. (The sea is even more treacherous at Cape Horn.)
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
edited 18 hours ago
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
answered 18 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.4k24253
13.4k24253
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
9 hours ago
1
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
8 hours ago
1
@StevenBurnap: per the answer, these are modern travel times. It seems to have taken 7-10 days to cross the Atlantic in 1890, so you'd be looking at a 10-15 day difference or so by taking Suez Canal then. And the travel times had evolved for the better between then and 1869.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
3
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
8 hours ago
2
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
9 hours ago
1
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
8 hours ago
1
@StevenBurnap: per the answer, these are modern travel times. It seems to have taken 7-10 days to cross the Atlantic in 1890, so you'd be looking at a 10-15 day difference or so by taking Suez Canal then. And the travel times had evolved for the better between then and 1869.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
3
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
8 hours ago
2
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
6 hours ago
4
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
9 hours ago
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
9 hours ago
1
1
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
8 hours ago
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
8 hours ago
1
1
@StevenBurnap: per the answer, these are modern travel times. It seems to have taken 7-10 days to cross the Atlantic in 1890, so you'd be looking at a 10-15 day difference or so by taking Suez Canal then. And the travel times had evolved for the better between then and 1869.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
@StevenBurnap: per the answer, these are modern travel times. It seems to have taken 7-10 days to cross the Atlantic in 1890, so you'd be looking at a 10-15 day difference or so by taking Suez Canal then. And the travel times had evolved for the better between then and 1869.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
3
3
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
8 hours ago
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
8 hours ago
2
2
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
6 hours ago
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Ross Alexander is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ross Alexander is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ross Alexander is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ross Alexander is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51958%2fapproximately-how-much-travel-time-was-saved-by-the-opening-of-the-suez-canal-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
It depends on where you're travelling from and to. If you're sailing from one end of the canal to the other, then it's the transit time of the canal (162 km) vs the circumnavigation of Africa (9,654km).
– Steve Bird
19 hours ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
18 hours ago
3
I can't speak for the poster, but if it were me I'd take it as "From the UK to India", as that's what its main purpose ended up being, despite it being a French-led effort (and why the UK eventually felt the need to take it over)
– T.E.D.♦
13 hours ago
Do you mean travel time for a passenger, or ship time? After all, before the canal it would seem obvious for passengers (or time-critical cargo like mail) to disembark at one side of Suez, travel across on land, and get on a different ship on the other side for the remainder of the journey.
– jamesqf
10 hours ago