Diving around Ireland

"Steve Jones" <steve.jones@wda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f5cd929753dde53a1ccc0ceece4a4cf9.125781@mygat e.mailgate.org...
> "Cliff Coggin" <clifford@ccoggin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d3cc4k$q32$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
> >
> > It sits upright at less than 35 metres and deserves
> > several dives as it is 1000 yards long.
> > Cliff.
>
>
> Cliff
> I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> 294 metres in length.
>
> Steve

My apologies Steve. I was lost in reveries of diving the forrard chain
locker. I did of course mean 1000 feet.

Cliff.

"Steve Jones" <steve.jones@wda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f5cd929753dde53a1ccc0ceece4a4cf9.125781@mygat e.mailgate.org...
> "Cliff Coggin" <clifford@ccoggin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d3cc4k$q32$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
> >
> > It sits upright at less than 35 metres and deserves
> > several dives as it is 1000 yards long.
> > Cliff.
>
>
> Cliff
> I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> 294 metres in length.
>
> Steve

My apologies Steve. I was lost in reveries of diving the forrard chain
locker. I did of course mean 1000 feet.

Cliff.

"Steve Jones" <steve.jones@wda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f5cd929753dde53a1ccc0ceece4a4cf9.125781@mygat e.mailgate.org...
> "Cliff Coggin" <clifford@ccoggin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d3cc4k$q32$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
> >
> > It sits upright at less than 35 metres and deserves
> > several dives as it is 1000 yards long.
> > Cliff.
>
>
> Cliff
> I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> 294 metres in length.
>
> Steve

My apologies Steve. I was lost in reveries of diving the forrard chain
locker. I did of course mean 1000 feet.

Cliff.

"Steve Jones" <steve.jones@wda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f5cd929753dde53a1ccc0ceece4a4cf9.125781@mygat e.mailgate.org...
> "Cliff Coggin" <clifford@ccoggin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d3cc4k$q32$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
> >
> > It sits upright at less than 35 metres and deserves
> > several dives as it is 1000 yards long.
> > Cliff.
>
>
> Cliff
> I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> 294 metres in length.
>
> Steve

My apologies Steve. I was lost in reveries of diving the forrard chain
locker. I did of course mean 1000 feet.

Cliff.

"Steve Jones" <steve.jones@wda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f5cd929753dde53a1ccc0ceece4a4cf9.125781@mygat e.mailgate.org...
> "Cliff Coggin" <clifford@ccoggin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d3cc4k$q32$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
> >
> > It sits upright at less than 35 metres and deserves
> > several dives as it is 1000 yards long.
> > Cliff.
>
>
> Cliff
> I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> 294 metres in length.
>
> Steve

My apologies Steve. I was lost in reveries of diving the forrard chain
locker. I did of course mean 1000 feet.

Cliff.

"Steve Jones" <steve.jones@wda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f5cd929753dde53a1ccc0ceece4a4cf9.125781@mygat e.mailgate.org...
> "Cliff Coggin" <clifford@ccoggin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d3cc4k$q32$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
> >
> > It sits upright at less than 35 metres and deserves
> > several dives as it is 1000 yards long.
> > Cliff.
>
>
> Cliff
> I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> 294 metres in length.
>
> Steve

My apologies Steve. I was lost in reveries of diving the forrard chain
locker. I did of course mean 1000 feet.

Cliff.

"Ben Panter" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3c28q1F6khfraU1@individual.net...
> Steve Jones wrote:
>
> > I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> > According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> > 294 metres in length.
>
> This led me to ask myself (well, google) what the largest ship in the
> world was. Apparently in 2004 it was the Jahre Viking - a 485.46 metre
> long monster. The page I found goes on to say that with a draught of 25m
> she can't get through the channel when full...
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...hre-viking.htm
>
> Ben

The east-west shipping lanes should be no problem, though it would be a bit
tight in places at lowest astronomical tide. Getting onto port would be
another matter entirely.

Cliff.

"Ben Panter" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3c28q1F6khfraU1@individual.net...
> Steve Jones wrote:
>
> > I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> > According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> > 294 metres in length.
>
> This led me to ask myself (well, google) what the largest ship in the
> world was. Apparently in 2004 it was the Jahre Viking - a 485.46 metre
> long monster. The page I found goes on to say that with a draught of 25m
> she can't get through the channel when full...
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...hre-viking.htm
>
> Ben

The east-west shipping lanes should be no problem, though it would be a bit
tight in places at lowest astronomical tide. Getting onto port would be
another matter entirely.

Cliff.

"Ben Panter" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3c28q1F6khfraU1@individual.net...
> Steve Jones wrote:
>
> > I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> > According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> > 294 metres in length.
>
> This led me to ask myself (well, google) what the largest ship in the
> world was. Apparently in 2004 it was the Jahre Viking - a 485.46 metre
> long monster. The page I found goes on to say that with a draught of 25m
> she can't get through the channel when full...
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...hre-viking.htm
>
> Ben

The east-west shipping lanes should be no problem, though it would be a bit
tight in places at lowest astronomical tide. Getting onto port would be
another matter entirely.

Cliff.

"Ben Panter" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3c28q1F6khfraU1@individual.net...
> Steve Jones wrote:
>
> > I think you are getting your imperial and metric measurements mixed up.
> > According to my "research" (ok it was a google check). It is listed at
> > 294 metres in length.
>
> This led me to ask myself (well, google) what the largest ship in the
> world was. Apparently in 2004 it was the Jahre Viking - a 485.46 metre
> long monster. The page I found goes on to say that with a draught of 25m
> she can't get through the channel when full...
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...hre-viking.htm
>
> Ben

The east-west shipping lanes should be no problem, though it would be a bit
tight in places at lowest astronomical tide. Getting onto port would be
another matter entirely.

Cliff.