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
New contributor
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
New contributor
8
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
2 days ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
2 days ago
4
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.♦
2 days ago
2
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
2 days ago
1
Did anyone else see this question in the HNQ and think it was asking about how much time travel was involved?
– Obie 2.0
15 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
New contributor
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
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Ross AlexanderRoss Alexander
9915
9915
New contributor
New contributor
8
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
2 days ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
2 days ago
4
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.♦
2 days ago
2
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
2 days ago
1
Did anyone else see this question in the HNQ and think it was asking about how much time travel was involved?
– Obie 2.0
15 hours ago
add a comment |
8
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
2 days ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
2 days ago
4
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.♦
2 days ago
2
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
2 days ago
1
Did anyone else see this question in the HNQ and think it was asking about how much time travel was involved?
– Obie 2.0
15 hours ago
8
8
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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
2 days ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
2 days ago
4
4
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.♦
2 days 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.♦
2 days ago
2
2
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
2 days 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
2 days ago
1
1
Did anyone else see this question in the HNQ and think it was asking about how much time travel was involved?
– Obie 2.0
15 hours ago
Did anyone else see this question in the HNQ and think it was asking about how much time travel was involved?
– Obie 2.0
15 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
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.)
1
The most extreme is probably shipping between Persia and Turkey if for some reason it couldn't go by land.
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
7
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
2 days ago
8
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
11
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
2 days ago
|
show 7 more comments
Three steam ships of the Blue Funnel Line used both routes (round the Cape of Good Hope and via the Suez Canal) between Europe and Asia from 1866 to 1870. Upon switching from round the Cape to through the Suez Canal, these same ships saved between 10 and 12 days.
Arthur Holt's Blue Funnel Line sister ships Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles all sailed on their first trips from London to Singapore via the Cape of Good Hope in 1866. Agamemnon, the first to sail (in April), took 59 days. Achilles, the last to sail (in August), was the fastest at 57 days.
Cargo steamer SS 'Agamemnon'. After several years sailing round the Cape, this was one of the first cargo ships to pass through the Suez Canal. Image source: magnolia box
The three ships continued to ply this route (they also went on to various Chinese ports) until the Suez Canal opened. Between 1866 and 1869, they averaged 58 days from London to Singapore. By June 1870, these same three ships had all switched to the Suez Canal route, saving 10 to 12 days, but they were not the fastest in that year: the steamship Shantung set a new record when it made the trip form Glasgow to Singapore in 42 days.
Even without the Suez Canal, the Blue Funnel Line ships had already cut the sailing time between Europe and the Far East, being much faster than sailing ships such the Eileen Radford which set the best (non-steamship) London - Singapore time in 1867 at 116 days (see also the Great Tea Race of 1866 - 3 ships took 99 days from Foochow, though they were all beaten by the auxilliary steamship Erl King which took 77 days). Equally important for the shipping company was that the steamers carried far more tonnage than the sailing ships.
Main source:
Macolm Falkus, The Blue Funnel Legend: A History of the Ocean Steam Ship Company, 1865-1973
add a comment |
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
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.)
1
The most extreme is probably shipping between Persia and Turkey if for some reason it couldn't go by land.
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
7
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
2 days ago
8
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
11
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
2 days ago
|
show 7 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.)
1
The most extreme is probably shipping between Persia and Turkey if for some reason it couldn't go by land.
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
7
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
2 days ago
8
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
11
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
2 days ago
|
show 7 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.)
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.)
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.6k24353
13.6k24353
1
The most extreme is probably shipping between Persia and Turkey if for some reason it couldn't go by land.
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
7
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
2 days ago
8
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
11
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
2 days ago
|
show 7 more comments
1
The most extreme is probably shipping between Persia and Turkey if for some reason it couldn't go by land.
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
7
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
2 days ago
8
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
11
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
2 days ago
1
1
The most extreme is probably shipping between Persia and Turkey if for some reason it couldn't go by land.
– Joshua
2 days ago
The most extreme is probably shipping between Persia and Turkey if for some reason it couldn't go by land.
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
4
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
@whatsisname Why?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
7
7
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
2 days ago
@AzorAhai: because of the presence of "grey africa" right next to "blue africa", and the seeming pangeafication of the world?
– whatsisname
2 days ago
8
8
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
@whatsisname I didn't even see the background. I don't think it's important. Are the routes off?
– Azor Ahai
2 days ago
11
11
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
2 days ago
@whatsisname: that's just a "watermark" background for all the slides.
– kundor
2 days ago
|
show 7 more comments
Three steam ships of the Blue Funnel Line used both routes (round the Cape of Good Hope and via the Suez Canal) between Europe and Asia from 1866 to 1870. Upon switching from round the Cape to through the Suez Canal, these same ships saved between 10 and 12 days.
Arthur Holt's Blue Funnel Line sister ships Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles all sailed on their first trips from London to Singapore via the Cape of Good Hope in 1866. Agamemnon, the first to sail (in April), took 59 days. Achilles, the last to sail (in August), was the fastest at 57 days.
Cargo steamer SS 'Agamemnon'. After several years sailing round the Cape, this was one of the first cargo ships to pass through the Suez Canal. Image source: magnolia box
The three ships continued to ply this route (they also went on to various Chinese ports) until the Suez Canal opened. Between 1866 and 1869, they averaged 58 days from London to Singapore. By June 1870, these same three ships had all switched to the Suez Canal route, saving 10 to 12 days, but they were not the fastest in that year: the steamship Shantung set a new record when it made the trip form Glasgow to Singapore in 42 days.
Even without the Suez Canal, the Blue Funnel Line ships had already cut the sailing time between Europe and the Far East, being much faster than sailing ships such the Eileen Radford which set the best (non-steamship) London - Singapore time in 1867 at 116 days (see also the Great Tea Race of 1866 - 3 ships took 99 days from Foochow, though they were all beaten by the auxilliary steamship Erl King which took 77 days). Equally important for the shipping company was that the steamers carried far more tonnage than the sailing ships.
Main source:
Macolm Falkus, The Blue Funnel Legend: A History of the Ocean Steam Ship Company, 1865-1973
add a comment |
Three steam ships of the Blue Funnel Line used both routes (round the Cape of Good Hope and via the Suez Canal) between Europe and Asia from 1866 to 1870. Upon switching from round the Cape to through the Suez Canal, these same ships saved between 10 and 12 days.
Arthur Holt's Blue Funnel Line sister ships Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles all sailed on their first trips from London to Singapore via the Cape of Good Hope in 1866. Agamemnon, the first to sail (in April), took 59 days. Achilles, the last to sail (in August), was the fastest at 57 days.
Cargo steamer SS 'Agamemnon'. After several years sailing round the Cape, this was one of the first cargo ships to pass through the Suez Canal. Image source: magnolia box
The three ships continued to ply this route (they also went on to various Chinese ports) until the Suez Canal opened. Between 1866 and 1869, they averaged 58 days from London to Singapore. By June 1870, these same three ships had all switched to the Suez Canal route, saving 10 to 12 days, but they were not the fastest in that year: the steamship Shantung set a new record when it made the trip form Glasgow to Singapore in 42 days.
Even without the Suez Canal, the Blue Funnel Line ships had already cut the sailing time between Europe and the Far East, being much faster than sailing ships such the Eileen Radford which set the best (non-steamship) London - Singapore time in 1867 at 116 days (see also the Great Tea Race of 1866 - 3 ships took 99 days from Foochow, though they were all beaten by the auxilliary steamship Erl King which took 77 days). Equally important for the shipping company was that the steamers carried far more tonnage than the sailing ships.
Main source:
Macolm Falkus, The Blue Funnel Legend: A History of the Ocean Steam Ship Company, 1865-1973
add a comment |
Three steam ships of the Blue Funnel Line used both routes (round the Cape of Good Hope and via the Suez Canal) between Europe and Asia from 1866 to 1870. Upon switching from round the Cape to through the Suez Canal, these same ships saved between 10 and 12 days.
Arthur Holt's Blue Funnel Line sister ships Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles all sailed on their first trips from London to Singapore via the Cape of Good Hope in 1866. Agamemnon, the first to sail (in April), took 59 days. Achilles, the last to sail (in August), was the fastest at 57 days.
Cargo steamer SS 'Agamemnon'. After several years sailing round the Cape, this was one of the first cargo ships to pass through the Suez Canal. Image source: magnolia box
The three ships continued to ply this route (they also went on to various Chinese ports) until the Suez Canal opened. Between 1866 and 1869, they averaged 58 days from London to Singapore. By June 1870, these same three ships had all switched to the Suez Canal route, saving 10 to 12 days, but they were not the fastest in that year: the steamship Shantung set a new record when it made the trip form Glasgow to Singapore in 42 days.
Even without the Suez Canal, the Blue Funnel Line ships had already cut the sailing time between Europe and the Far East, being much faster than sailing ships such the Eileen Radford which set the best (non-steamship) London - Singapore time in 1867 at 116 days (see also the Great Tea Race of 1866 - 3 ships took 99 days from Foochow, though they were all beaten by the auxilliary steamship Erl King which took 77 days). Equally important for the shipping company was that the steamers carried far more tonnage than the sailing ships.
Main source:
Macolm Falkus, The Blue Funnel Legend: A History of the Ocean Steam Ship Company, 1865-1973
Three steam ships of the Blue Funnel Line used both routes (round the Cape of Good Hope and via the Suez Canal) between Europe and Asia from 1866 to 1870. Upon switching from round the Cape to through the Suez Canal, these same ships saved between 10 and 12 days.
Arthur Holt's Blue Funnel Line sister ships Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles all sailed on their first trips from London to Singapore via the Cape of Good Hope in 1866. Agamemnon, the first to sail (in April), took 59 days. Achilles, the last to sail (in August), was the fastest at 57 days.
Cargo steamer SS 'Agamemnon'. After several years sailing round the Cape, this was one of the first cargo ships to pass through the Suez Canal. Image source: magnolia box
The three ships continued to ply this route (they also went on to various Chinese ports) until the Suez Canal opened. Between 1866 and 1869, they averaged 58 days from London to Singapore. By June 1870, these same three ships had all switched to the Suez Canal route, saving 10 to 12 days, but they were not the fastest in that year: the steamship Shantung set a new record when it made the trip form Glasgow to Singapore in 42 days.
Even without the Suez Canal, the Blue Funnel Line ships had already cut the sailing time between Europe and the Far East, being much faster than sailing ships such the Eileen Radford which set the best (non-steamship) London - Singapore time in 1867 at 116 days (see also the Great Tea Race of 1866 - 3 ships took 99 days from Foochow, though they were all beaten by the auxilliary steamship Erl King which took 77 days). Equally important for the shipping company was that the steamers carried far more tonnage than the sailing ships.
Main source:
Macolm Falkus, The Blue Funnel Legend: A History of the Ocean Steam Ship Company, 1865-1973
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Lars BosteenLars Bosteen
43.6k9201270
43.6k9201270
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
8
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
2 days ago
Hi Ross! I assume you mean "how much time was saved in a year". Is that right?
– axsvl77
2 days ago
4
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.♦
2 days ago
2
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
2 days ago
1
Did anyone else see this question in the HNQ and think it was asking about how much time travel was involved?
– Obie 2.0
15 hours ago