"ascends more than 2km (1,500ft)"
I think the maths may have gone a bit awry here
The world's highest railway is the Xining-Golmud-Lhasa railway at 5,068m (16,627ft) above sea level and running 815km (506 miles). As much a political piece as a transport corridor, the line was designed to fuse China with Tibet – the country the People's Republic invaded and annexed in 1950. Britain's highest railway is …
That's barely off the ground. The Mount Washington cog railway in New Hampshire climbs from 2000 ft ASL almost to 6280 feet. The weather on Mount Washington is pretty fierce, too. The highest non-cyclonic wind speed measured on Earth, 231 mph, occurred at its summit. Winter temps can go into the minus 40s, Celsius and Fahrenheit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_(New_Hampshire)
"highest point in Texas"
Some would argue (mostly from Arkansas) That the highest point in Texas is the sign that says, "You are now leaving Texas".
FWIW, I've been to Texas, and still can't understand how someplace so far south can get so freakin' cold in the winter!
The first time I ever visited Texas, it was Houston in January and I hadn't brought a jacket. Because Texas is warm, right?
Nobody had told me about the Blue Northers: winds that start up around the Arctic Circle and blow due south down the prairies of Canada and the USA. They keep most of their strength because, as the Texans say, there's nothing to slow them down along their route except a couple of barbed-wire fences.
FWIW, I've been to Texas, and still can't understand how someplace so far south can get so freakin' cold in the winter!
Depends where in Texas. I think this winter in San Antonio maybe it got below freezing twice.
And that's because I live in the far northwest corner where it's colder than the rest of the city.
Texas
Highest elevation in Texas: 8,751 feet (2,667 m). As John Denver noted, to get really high you have to go to Colorado. Or elsewhere in the West. Driving the back roads around the western U.S., it's not unusual to cross passes at elevations exceeding 9000 feet (~3000 m). The roads are well maintained, but rock falls and avalanches are unpredictable.
Maybe, but this is a UK website.
You could go up to the Jungfraujoch on a train if you want steep cog railways, to a height of 3454m, but we aren't in Switzerland either.
The weather in the Cairngorms is Oceanic rather than Continental, so the temperatures are slightly less extreme than in the US. I suspect there are actually more days of terrible weather in the Cairngorms than on Mount Washington, and they are spread throughout the year.
I don't think a few mph of windspeed either way makes much difference if you are out in it (although the anemometer on the railway actually measured 194mph in 2009).
Two climbers died on Cairngorm at a height of only 2400ft or so on a main path because they were unable to make the last few hundred yards to the car park into a wind-storm. Due to the oceanic nature of the environment, snow is often thawed and then refrozen into ice, which makes finding shelter extremely difficult.
Anyway, the expensive train set on Cairngorm is a bit of a white elephant, but an amusing one. I would normally walk up, though.
"You could go up to the Jungfraujoch on a train if you want steep cog railways, to a height of 3454m, but we aren't in Switzerland either."
There is another underground station at a similar height, above the resort of Saas Fee. It is at the top of the underground funicular Metro Alpin. The Mittelallalin station claims to be 3,456m and also featured a London Transport Underground station name sign when I was there decades ago.
"The weather in the Cairngorms is Oceanic rather than Continental, so the temperatures are slightly less extreme than in the US. I suspect there are actually more days of terrible weather in the Cairngorms than on Mount Washington, and they are spread throughout the year."
It depends exactly what you mean by "terrible", but I wouldn't bet on it. Mount Washington has hurricane force winds on nearly 1/3 of days throughout the year as well as having snow fall year-round, and being much taller obviously temperatures tend to be a lot lower. Scotland can have some fairly miserable weather at times, but it nowhere in Britain is in the same league as places that get the really extreme stuff.
Since American's have seen fit to belittle our mountain, I'd just like the bring up the subject of their utterly shit President.
So, to all American's who like to weigh in and proclaim everything you have is bigger and better, just remember, you've got a orange haired fuck witted cuntbubble for a President.
And we don't.
Since American's have seen fit to belittle our mountain, I'd just like the bring up the subject of their utterly shit President.So, to all American's who like to weigh in and proclaim everything you have is bigger and better, just remember, you've got a orange haired fuck witted cuntbubble for a President.
And we don't.
And yet. And yet. Such luminaries as W.H. Auden, Cary Grant, Alfred Hitchcock, and more recently Christopher Hitchens and John Oliver have chosen to emigrate here. Yes, Kevin Spacey has gone the other way. I've been to the UK. It's a nice place to visit.
you've got a orange haired fuck witted cuntbubble for a President.
I'd ask you not to remind us, but he's hard to ignore.
He doesn't bother me so much as the realization that roughly half of my fellow voters thought (and I use the term extremely loosely) that electing him President would be a good idea.
It is high for the UK. Yes we know that everything is bigger , better, badder and kicks more ass in the USofA but this is rather closer to home and us Brits don't have to endure the TSA and HSA to get to it which given the current uncertainty about travel with anything more than your money and passport is a huge bonus.
I know the Mt Washington railway and have been to the top as I spent two years living in Manchester (N.H.)
The Mount Washington cog railway in New Hampshire climbs from 2000 ft ASL almost to 6280 feet
There's a Cog Railway up Pikes peak: 14,115 ft (4302m)
An 875bhp Peugeot 208 would be a little more exciting
To bring this thread back onto a computing topic:
Due to the changes in gradient on the route up the mountain, the angle of the floor of the funicular seemed barely ever to be level when I went up it. Also, the queues were huge, because it's the only major lift up the mountain from the base, and the tows from the bottom were closed due to there only being a thin covering of snow when I was there.
The impact on the mountain of the ski resort is almost certainly less than that of any of the major ski resorts I've been to in europe. Apart from the funicular, it's all T-bars and button tows and no chair lifts or cable cars, so the amount of construction on the mountain is a lot less. As for wildlife, it's the only place I've seen a Ptarmigan (the bird, not the top station), but that might be because I probably make less noise skiing down a mountain than when I'm walking. It also seems to be closed due to bad weather more often than the european resorts...
Saying that, I had a great time spending 3 days skiing there, and my kids skied without complaining in winds only just below the threshold of the level at which they close the resort. (I've never spent so much time skiing in goggles rather than sunglasses.) My recommendation would be to stay at the Cairgorm Lodge Youth Hostel, which is out of town, (book a taxi from the station, because there aren't many in town) but on the route for the buses to and from the resort. I went there a couple of years ago, they were friendly and the food was pretty good.
"visitors to the top station are not allowed to venture out on to the mountainside unless accompanied by a ranger on a guided walk. You can book tours via the railway's main site. Scotland's access laws do give visitors the legal right to walk up the mountain and explore it on their own accord, however, so those hoping to see the environment up close and personal can give their legs a good stretch if they're feeling fit!"
A better one would have been not to put a ski resort in there in the first place, mind. The combined impact from those is huge. It's not just the slopes, but the transport network needed to accommodate visitors and suppliers getting there and the inherent impact of large concentrations of people staying at the same place at the same time.
I'm not particularly a fan of ski resorts, but the impact of Cairngorm ski area is fairly limited in comparison to the entire mountain range. Without tourism, Speyside would struggle.
You won't meet many people on Beinn a' Bhuird, for instance, even in the summer.
> Pfft! Have you been there? Network.. (giggles to self)
Yeah fair point, it was more of a general comment on the nature of ski resorts and I was thinking of the monstrosities one finds in the Alps. I have never been to this place--actually, I didn't even know it existed!
And yes, I do use ski resorts occasionally for skiing (the rest of the time I go up the same way I come back down: on skis, bicycle or trainers).
A better one would have been not to put a ski resort in there in the first place, mind.
Great idea!
Keep the proles in nice high density cities, and leave the rest of the country to nature. Presumably we'll be banning overseas skiing holidays (and indeed holidays in general) to continue saving the planet.
"Keep the proles in nice high density cities, and leave the rest of the country to nature. Presumably we'll be banning overseas skiing holidays (and indeed holidays in general) to continue saving the planet."
I do wonder sometimes if we go a bit OTT at times on preservation in the UK. I mean, taking photos so individual rocks and stones can be put back in place? Likewise the numbers of listed buildings, some of which really, really just need to be pulled down. Don't get me wrong, I'm a lifetime member of the National Trust, but really, some conservationists seem to have a dream of banning all human development of any kind, possibly humans in general, so that nature and heritage can be preserved at any cost.
The countryside used to be littered with stone built windmills so now the remaining ones must be preserved. But try to put a modern windmill in place and those same conservationists are putting on their objectors hats in droves.
> I mean, taking photos so individual rocks and stones can be put back in place?
I do not know the specifics of this place, but for locals certain landscape features may have huge significance. At the very least, there is an emotional attachment.
I remember on such case in southern Europe. Some maintenance was being done on a minor road and they moved a small rock, the size of a washing machine¹, a few metres away to make space for sand or whatnot. Turned out that the rock in question was a pilgrimage point for one of the local villages. Questions were asked in Parliament and resignations demanded.
¹ Or perhaps of a dishwasher? It's been a while. Could have been tumble drier sized, even.
"No, I don't think the UK goes overboard. I've been to a restored castle in Spain which had brickwork, parquet, and air conditioning."
I was thinking more along the lines of listed 60's concrete tower blocks rather than medieval castles :-)
One or two, as reference for later generations on what not to do, but not many more than that.
It is. I've been up there 2 times. First before there was the railway. We walked from Aviemore up and back.
Second time 3 years ago with both kids "just" from the parking place.On the top station after toilet break and something to eat our wee lass (then 9) went back through the forbidden door outside (they held it open for her). Some student tourist group from the railway wanted to go too, and were stopped.
When they complained they were told: "You either pay a ranger or you pay with sweat. She earned the right to go there the hard way and walked up" Then they were shown the entry book with her name in and got some pointed remarks about suitable footwear and clothing. I was sitting at the side trying not to choke from laughing.
The ranger tour requirement protects the typical sandal tourist from themselves aside from the environment.
> You either pay a ranger or you pay with sweat
Yeah I quite liked that part. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you make it excessively easy to go to nature, people start losing appreciation for it (or rather, you get *that* sort of tourist). Sweating and panting your way up is three quarters of the fun. Also, the approach shouldn't be too easy either, and the more treacherous the road that leads there (if there is one) the better. It goes without saying, but to complete the picture hostile locals are most welcome.
Thankfully there are still some places in Europe where you have to walk with all your gear for eight-ten hours just to get to the start of a climbing route. Sadly this is becoming increasingly uncommon.
> you get *that* sort of tourist
My wife once worked at the local visitor centre here in the North West Highlands. Most of the land is community owned here, and loch fishing costs just £5 a day, at any loch over an area of nearly 200 sq.km, literally hundreds of lochs. Some bloke fully kitted in tweeds came in in the morning to but a day ticket, and returned that evening demanding his money back. He claimed he was diddled because he could not fish any of the lochs from his car. So yes, *that* type of tourist.
Pity no blue 26, 27 or 37 anymore
I should be embarrased as the last time I travelled by train in Scotland it was push pull 47s and I went to Kings Cross behind The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers.
Currently planning a trip up there starting from Glasgow going to Inverness but it is around 700 miles.
The guided walks initially feel like a brazen way to fleece tourists, but having been on one I'd heartily recommend them. The guides really know their stuff, point out lots of things you'd otherwise miss, explain about the fragility of the local environment, and tell some good stories!
Second that re the Highland Wildlife Park. Feeding time for the tigers involves hanging hunks of meat from the trees, well worth seeing. Once when we were there we had to lock ourselves in our cars because a wolf had escaped from its enclosure, which was awesome. And the snow monkeys are soooo adorable.
He was lucky to be born when he was. If he'd tried a single engineering project in the 21st century he'd never have got started what with raging ecomentalists wanting to protect the Vicious Murdering Sandfly (there are only two places in the whole of the UK where they nest and suck human blood, you know) and Elven Safety Committees demanding everybody wear three safety vests and insurance companies wanting a waiver every time somebody bites in to an apple.
"If he'd tried a single engineering project in the 21st century he'd never have got started what with raging ecomentalists wanting to protect the Vicious Murdering Sandfly"
Well, first of all there was a lot of difficulty getting early railways approved because landowners were worried about trains setting fire to fields - not that unrealistic in the early days with burning lumps of coal frequently being omitted by engines - and then there was Dr. Dionysius Lardner being paid by the coaching firms to tell people speeds in excess of 30mph would be fatal.
But what helped railways was that even in the early years they were much, much safer than horse transport. And cheaper. The problem with a lot of modern projects, like HS2, is that the benefits are not nearly as compelling as those of the original railways. That isn't because of H&S costs but because more of the country is built over, meaning more expensive stuff has to be destroyed, and the speed gain isn't of the order of 10 to 1 over the previous form of transport (canals around 3mph; coaches were faster but also very expensive indeed and couldn't carry much.)
Great but I didn't see how much it weighs or how much power it used - you have to be a specialist train geek but missing content for concrete construction geek, or the power consumption geek or even the rare latin named plant geekery left to another guide.
There could be a whole series without even finding somewhere else to go!
:)
"Great but I didn't see how much it weighs or how much power it used [...]"
Article says: "A pair of 500kW motors (housed in the top station) drive the 15-tonne carriages that are held aloft by 93 support columns. A diesel generator provides back-up in the case of a power failure and the railway can comfortably function on a single motor should one fail."
There is a funicular railway in downtown Athens - the Mount Lycabettus Funicular Railway with the cars at exceptional angles.
Another is located further west, near Patras, that connects to one of the best known monasteries in the Northern Peloponnese is the Moni Megalou Spileou (Monastery of the Great Cavern). It is reached by a 3 km hike from Zahlorou, the mid point on the Diakofto-Kalavrita railway.
This funicular terminates at Kalavrita (Greek: Καλάβρυτα) Elevation: (883m / 2897feet) where, tourists will observe, a church with two clocks, one giving the real time and the other the time when there was a massacre of all the males on 1943 December 08. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Kalavryta)
VietNam had a funicular railway from Da Lat down to Phan Rang/Thap Cham on the coast, Unfortunately, when times were tight after defeating the Americans, the rolling stock and engines were sold off for hard currency.
But we have a new funicular in Ba Na Hills, Vietnam, also well known for its Ba Na Hills cable car. Cable cars are the latest fad in VietNam with almost any mountain tempting cable car builders.
Thank you for the kind words and at least one offer of a pint. I did have to end up leaving out a few other things and local sights from the article but the very nature of this region is that you can list interesting places to visit almost ad infinitum - certainly if you start counting natural places!
"Of crucial importance from a safety perspective there are three distinct braking mechanisms in place to stop a runaway scenario."
I can attest to the sturdiness of the brakes on this thing. During the descent while standing at the front window admiring the view, there was cause for the system to stop. To say my face greeted the window with a resounding *THWACK* would be an understatement.
Great holiday though.
Let's face it, "mine is bigger than yours" is a hollow victory when the Himalayas and Andes are not heard from. Here in British Columbia, we have Waddington as our most dire mountain, though in global comparison its 4,019 m (13,186 ft) is wimpy. But it does make up for its short stature in other ways. I doubt that, on this date in 2117, anybody will be writing about a funicular, whether real or planned, on this monster. More flavour here. Thanks to EL REG for allowing us to enjoy technologies recreationally.
> Let's face it, "mine is bigger than yours" is a hollow victory when the Himalayas and Andes are not heard from.
I suppose it puts things in perspective when Kilian Jornet ran up the Everest twice in the same week, and here we are the rest of us taking a funicular for a couple thousand feet. :'-(
Always work with Doppelmayr, single Mayr just doesn't cut it.
Seriously, these guys are the gold standard when it comes to stuff like that. I guess if you'd really want to, they'd build you that rocket-powered cable car mentioned above.
There may very well be 27 counties with elevations over 1000m in Texas (I can't be arsed to count) ... HOWEVER, the high plains hardly count as mountains, now do they? Unless, of course, you consider stepping out of your house in Amarillo (1,099m) "mountain climbing".
There are some 64 actual peaks over 1,000m in Texas. They are all trans-Pecos, and most folks consider that part of the world to be part of New Mexico, not Texas.
You can walk up along the rails and on to the summit - no problem.
But that same person making half way up by the train can't :-/
Also, that rule doesn't allow paragliders and hanggliders use the train to get up and take off from the top station. And these guys won't even touch the nature after they take off.