Talk:Pylons of Messina

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image

I believe the Pylons of Messina are not visible on this picture! So remove this picture, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.8.107 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 December 2004

Some remaining questions ( people of Italy can help)

Was the powerline on the pylons until its disassembly run with 220 kV? Or was it already before 1994 run with 380 kV?

I believe that the pylons were abandoned because further upgrading the overhead power line to 380 kV was not feasible; I can't find any document about them operating at a voltage other than 220 kV. Peppepz (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the terminals of the submarine cable? Is the facility shown on http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=38241180&x=15688992&z=18&l=5&m=a&v=2 the cable terminal on Calabriann mainland?

No, the current 380 kV submarine cable that replaced the pylons connects the substations of Paradiso and Bolano. I believe that the sea entry points currently described in the article are accurate enough, and that the line is made up of two different cables in its submarine portion. The submarine cables of the new 380 kV Sorgente-Rizziconi line, which is currently at an advanced stage of completion, follow a completely different path, bypassing the Straits of Messina altogether. Peppepz (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from earlier times as overhead powerline across Messina Strait was in use, in order to show the used insulators.

I can't find any, especially with a free license, but if you're curious, there's this YouTube video where you can catch some glimpses of the insulators used when the line was being doubled (e.g. at 2:18). This other one is older and is more about the supporting structure than the power lines. Unfortunately, they're in Italian. Peppepz (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Strait Submarine Cable

Expand this section. Add please

length
manufacturer
coordinates of endpoint
type —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.211.224 (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Switching stations at the end of the span

Why were there switching stations at both ends of the span? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.191.252 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, to transform the current from the 220 kV of the main line to the 150 kV of the local lines. Peppepz (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of former switching stations and terminals of 380 kV line required

Please add pictures of the mentioned switching stations and the cable terminals of the 380 kV line

Planned second 380 kV cable

Is it already under construction or already built? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.157.135 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged length record

In the Design section, it says: "They did however have the longest span of any hydroelectric crossing ever built at 3646 meters, even greater than that of the current record holder the Zhoushan Island Overhead Powerline Tie at 2,700 meters." According to the article on the Ameralik Span, that crossing, which has existed since 1993, is at 5,376 meters considerably longer than both the Messina crossing and the Zhoushan crossing mentioned. I don't know enough the facts of this matter myself, should this claim be modified in this article? OMHalck (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]