![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
For the reference Megaprojects and Risk, the author's last name is listed as Flyvbjerg, and a online check of ISBN agrees with the spelling. All seven notes in the article list the name as Flyvberg without a 'j'. I'd normally change the seven myself, but since the associated ref names might also be affected, I'm leaving it for an author or another editor. -- Michael Devore ( talk) 12:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite a while ago I did the route-diagram templates for the Chunnel. Would somebody else be willing to check them over the accuracy and locate a position within the article to transclude them? — Sladen ( talk) 10:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The History section currently is a mixture of "before" and "after". I would call the "before" Development and move the "after" to its own section, called Operations and placed after Engineering. Also, rather than start the Development section with a long summary of its subsections, I would start with something like this:
That's a very rough draft, without polish, just to give the idea of introducing rather than repeating the content of the subsections. An introduction like this can reveal some obvious big picture questions such as: did the 1988 construction build on the 1974 construction, or start over? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of the writing style in this article is overly technical rather than encyclopaedic prose. As an example this from the Engineering : Tunnelling section:
While I'm sure this is all very accurate, it's rather opaque to the lay reader. It communicates plenty of information but little knowledge.
I humbly suggest that bits like this are re-written in a more accessible style. I don't mean dumb them down; rather use less technical language and omit technical descriptions that convey no meaning to readers who don't know what those technical terms mean. AJKGORDON «» 09:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes)
04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oneiros ( talk · contribs) has proposed merging the Safety features at the time of the fire section from Channel Tunnel fire into the Engineering section of the Channel Tunnel article. As the Channel Tunnel article is currently 57 kilobytes long I would have expected a proposal to split information out of the parent article rather than one to merge information back in. Can you please share your reasoning behind merging more information back into what is already a long article? Road Wizard ( talk) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Above, Ajkgordon made a good point about the article being too technical, and this problem has not been fixed. Instead of quoting big chunks of text, would it be possible to form, say, a top five list on the talk page here of the bits of the article that people want to be more accessible - being as specific as possible. This incremental approach may help me or others get around to improving the article.
I suppose I (and maybe others) have trouble making the technical sections more accessible for the lay person because I am familiar with the topic and it makes sense to me, so any help is appreciated.-- Commander Keane ( talk) 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(I don't think this one requires its own article). The tunnel was shutdown for 24 hours on 2006-08-21 following another fire [1]. — Sladen ( talk) 09:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that the article would be written from the perspective of England -- the island. The first paragraph says the chunnel runs from England to France. But doesn't one normally talk about destinations from the mainland to islands? Besides, a Frenchman first proposed the idea. The French version also says it links Britain and France, but that it runs between Coquelles and Folkestone. That inconsistency ought to be corrected one way or the other, but English is my first language, so I'd like to settle the matter here before tackling the French version.
I'm not going to embark on a rewrite if the matter's already been settled, but it seems to me that France ought to be featured consistently as the origin of the tunnel, and England as the destination. What controversy would I stir up if I rewrote from that perspective? If nationalistic bias comes into play, I ought to disclose that I'm a U.S. citizen who can trace his ancestry back to both France and England. -- tbc ( talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, there was an article from the day before yesterday [2] "[..] services within a few days of the Chunnel freight train blaze on September 11.". And Google News lists 56 others. — Sladen ( talk) 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
We need to be very careful with statements that attempt to give the number of fires that have occurred in the tunnel, either implicitly or explicitly. It is obviously very difficult to verify as witnessed by the fact that either this or the articles on the fires themselves have got it wrong in the past, describing the recent fire as the second, when it was the third. However, I would go further and say that this is impossible to confirm or verify. Are we seriously suggesting that there has never been a small fire in the galley or a litter bin that was quickly brought under control with a fire extinguisher? Or at the most trivial level, nobody has ever lit up a cigarette? Such minor fires are intrinsically non-notable and unlikely to be reported in the media in even news reports, much less here. That makes such statements fundamentally non-verifiable and so we shouldn't be making them.
What we can measure is the number of significant fires. There of course we have to decide what counts as significant. I think most would accept loss of life as significant, though thankfully this has not happened yet. A fire resulting in the closure of the tunnel would almost certainly qualify as significant too, but we need to be careful to define exactly what we mean when we are making this kind of statement. CrispMuncher ( talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions LADOGS - "The service tunnel uses Service Tunnel Transport System (STTS) and Light Service Tunnel Vehicles (LADOGS)". This makes it look like an acronym, but of what? Can someone clarify this please - I couldn't discover myself what it refers to. Lessthanideal ( talk) 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There's some information here Edgepedia ( talk) 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the two tables I inserted earlier with both the earlier and the latest data. However, as discussed with Commander Keane at my Talk page, to eliminate redundancy (and not make the article too long), I will transform the data into a format suitable for a graph request. -- Rontombontom ( talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
One paragraph of this section contains statements which appear to contradict themselves:
Should the first portion not have read: "In 1975 there was a campaign....." ? -- HarryZilber ( talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've recently reorganised the article into a new series of sections and subsections, hopefully this is more chronological. This was a major complaint from a failed GA review a year ago, that the page was flying inbetween the current date and the middle of the 90s and 80s randomly, making it hard for anyone to follow right the way through and comprihend things in order. If anybody wants to discuss the changes or improvements, drop a line here. This new method isn't perfect, and there are doubts in my mind anyhow, but I feel that the old style was not the best this page could have, and that with some improvements this new structure could turn out to be better. Thoughts? Kyteto ( talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The assertion "known coloquially as the Chunnel" was removed from the article with the edit note "colloquialism which isn't used in UK or France". I've restored the chunnel reference for a few reasons:
I think it would be best to keep it in the article unless consensus determines otherwise. -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Eurostar have failed to explain why it took them so long to rescue the failed trains. At least one train (with passengers) was drawn out of the tunnel by a pair of Eurotunnel Class 0001 diesel locomotives. Why was the same not done for the other four? Why the nonsensical decision to evacuate passengers in the tunnel? Biscuittin ( talk) 09:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to call it an "undersea" tunnel. According to the dictionary, undersea means below the surface of the sea, whereas the tunnel is located under the sea floor based on the diagram contained in the article. Sj122 ( talk) 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
This section doesn't seem quite right - the rolling stock is specific to individual companies (and it's not infrastructure) - the only truly relevant item would be the tunnel rescue trains (that go in the centre tunnel) (are these actually trains?) [3]
I think this section should probably be merged into the operations section - is this right? Shortfatlad ( talk) 03:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it the article is about the channel tunnel, not eurotunnels operations - other freight operators eg DB Schenker or Euro Cargo Rail do operate freight trains through the channel tunnel (without using class 92s). If this is somehow wrong of me please mention it on the talk page. Shortfatlad ( talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this section, surely some of the information is more related to the Eurostar and BR Class 373 pages, such as the break down of a Class 373 on Thurock Viaduct, and details of the trains etc. Also what is missing is when the tunnel re-opened, rather than when Eurostar services restarted. I haven't time now to do this justice. What do others think? Edgepedia ( talk) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Many years ago, I wrote to Eurotunnel and suggested that, for publicity purposes, they might like to run a condensing steam locomotive through the tunnel. The one I had in mind was Mersey Railway Cecil Raikes which had spent its working life in a (rather shorter) underwater tunnel. Eurotunnel didn't like the idea but, in view of recent difficulties, perhaps they should keep a few condensing steam locomotives on standby. Biscuittin ( talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the British Rail Class 373 locomotives, I'm not surprised they are vulnerable to the weather. The side of the locomotive is largely wire mesh which is an open invitation to rain and snow. Older electric locomotives (e.g. British Rail Class 81) have louvers to provide some weather protection. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The actual report is available at:
— Sladen ( talk) 00:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The tunnel has just grown from 50 km to 104 km. Is this vandalism? Biscuittin ( talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This channel tunnel ias very long as hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.124.128.109 ( talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is completely out of all proportion, it has been lopsided completely towards the events of a few months ago, and far beyond the scale of the other incidents listed. The 1996 train failures, which directly affected 1000 people, justified all of 36 words. Why do we need 600, almost twenty times as many words, to cover an event that inconvinenced 2000? The answer is simple, people rush to Wikipedia and write tons about what is immediately going on, with no care for long term worth or proportionality. This needs to be trimmed, dramatically, in the retrospective aftermath, after all the caught-up-in-the-drama editors have gone home, much like the info about what is likely the hundreth strike by BA staff infesting the History of British Airways article with no long term relivance, or the coverage of this same event on the Eurostar page. We do not need a checklist of a by-the-minute commentry of the incident, we do not need every single useless detail on the event nor the same information written out three or more times. Conceise, precise, moderate coverage, in balance with the coverage of all the other events, would be be wholley more normal, preferable, and more typical of what is expected of an encyclopedia. At this level of coverage, the incident isn't far off justifying its own article; why should it dominate over the other incidents other than it being 'new'? Kyteto ( talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The large number of failed trains meant that both running tunnels were blocked.
Problems started at around 21:00, with Kent fire brigade being alerted at 21:46. [f 1] ... Of the five Class 373 trains and two turned back: [f 1] [f 2] [f 3] [f 4]
The occasion was the first time during the fifteen years that a Eurostar train had to be evacuated inside the tunnel itself; the failing of four at once being described as "unprecedented". [f 6] The Channel Tunnel reopened at 05:40 CET the following morning. [f 7]
"Four Eurostars broken down at one time — it's absolutely unprecedented", John Keefe of Eurotunnel ... "There's never actually been an evacuation of a Eurostar train in the fifteen years that the tunnel has been opened and last night we evacuated two whole trains to get people off",
I used the exit coordinates for the chunnel on google earth, and it put me in Gaziantep, Turkey, which is WAY off of where it is supposed to be listed (as Coquelles, France) in the article. This just needs to be corrected. Or google earth is wrong. I just found the coordinates for the exit of the chunnel to be 50degrees55'35.10" N 1degree49'16.36 E. The article has the exit coordinates as; 50degrees55'22" N 1degree49'06.29 E, which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.3.229 ( talk) 19:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Only silly Americans... ...call it the "Chunnel" anymore. In England we stopped calling it that in about 1995. It's just the Channel Tunnel or the Eurostar ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.176.39 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 September 2010 UTC
Sorry, but this is another example of US-centric world view in Wikipedia. Here's the reality: When the Channel Tunnel was being built and for a period after it opened, the tabloid newspapers in the UK did indeed coin the nickname, "Chunnel". This nickname was picked up by publications in the US and it stuck there ... however, it did NOT stick in the UK, among the general population. The fact that it may have been used again recently again by the UK Daily Mirror is hardly a surprise as Chunnel fits easier on a front page headline than Channel Tunnel. However, I have hardly EVER heard people in the UK call it Chunnel - it is known by the overwhelming majority of people there as "the Channel Tunnel". The only time I EVER hear "Chunnel" is when my American friends talk about it (I am a US resident). Two of the references quoted are obviously American, so can hardly be used as reliable sources for a UK topic. For the opening line to suggest that this is a "colloquial" term is misleading in the extreme. Colloquial would suggest at least to be in widespread use (surely in the country of origin) and this just isn't the case. -- 621PWC ( talk) 20:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
To suggest that the Daily Mirror is a reliable source because (like other media sources) it uses a headline writers' shorthand that is NOT used by the population at large, is ridiculous. The fact that all but three sources quoted in the reference list do NOT call it Chunnel is ignored ... and of the three, two are American where the original media nickname did stick. To suggest by placing it in the opening paragraph of this article that this is widely-used alternative name, is completely wrong and perpetuates incorrect or misleading information in Wikipedia. -- 621PWC ( talk) 14:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editon=
ignored (|edition=
suggested) (
help)" says the same (apart from the information about the dates). I'm reverting your edit as you have not provided a
reliable source for your statement. You may think it's silly, but the policy in wikipedia is
verifiability, not truth.
Edgepedia (
talk)
17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This really illustrates why so many people are critical of Wikipedia as a reference source. Edgepedia asks for a reliable source - I have already pointed out (twice) that the reliable sources are all the OTHER references listed on this page that do NOT use the term Chunnel! Now the latest edit uses the word "colloquial" which once again implies that the term is in common use! It is not! (Unless you are a tabloid journalist or, possibly, American). I will revert the line back to reality once more and ask editors not to perpetuate this inaccuracy simply based on personal opinion, or the fact that the term has been used by a couple of sources! The issue is not whether the term has ever been used or not used - we all agree that it HAS been used. The issue is whether or not the term is in COMMON or COLLOQUIAL use ... which it is not. -- 621PWC ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The edit warring to restore the "right/correct" version needs to stop. I've already issued one warning, and will warn/report any users who continue edit warring from this point on. Gain a consesnus here first, then make the changes. - BilCat ( talk) 22:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sladen, you will have to go back a long way to see what is considered to be the original or correct version. A quick glance at the history shows that this controversy was "resolved" at least once before - back in March 2005 in fact - when an editor pointed out the massive disparity between search results for the term. However, the contributor concluded: “Clearly the term has fallen into disuse. But an encyclopedia documents history as well, and there are many official and authoritative sites in the former list, including the BBC and the royal website. I will edit the phrase to indicate formerly popular nickname.” So we know for sure that the incorrect portrayal of the word “Chunnel” has been a grievance here for many years (the fact that so many contributors have had their hackles raised by something so seemingly innocuous ought to be a clue that the un-qualified use of the word is widely perceived to be incorrect). In the case of "Chunnel" its status is elevated to an unacceptable level by its inclusion in the opening paragraph as a widely used (colloquial) alternative.-- 621PWC ( talk) 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sladen, unfortunately Wikipedia guidelines are often contradictory. For example, it is stated "that you should not revert a bold edit due to non consensus". It is at that point that WP:BRD should begin. However, can you and I (at least) find a consensus? We appear to be the two current protagonists. I agree with BilCat that my current edit is not adequate as my qualification is too narrow in one direction as the previous version was too narrow in the other. As I have said before, I don't object to the fact that Chunnel is a nickname - it clearly is (and particularly among media outlets and Americans - where the use of Chunnel in initial publicity did stick). I object to it being portrayed as being in current widespread use within the UK. -- 621PWC ( talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Edgepedia, with the greatest respect, (as Hans Adler pointed out earlier) dictionaries contain hundreds of words that have fallen out of use over time. New words are included, some fade, and some are ultimately retired from the condensed volumes. The fact that Chunnel is included in dictionaries only proves that the word exists (which no-one has denied) - but it does not prove that it is in common or colloquial use (which is the contentious issue here). This is a mis-use of the function of reliable sources. As I have pointed out several times in this thread, of all the sources quoted, only two out of 102 use the term ... hardly indicating that it is in widespread use.-- 621PWC ( talk) 22:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't really about WP:V rather WP:Notability as some people have clearly used the term and that isn't in doubt. However just because some people may well use it as a term occasionally doesn't mean that it is actually used in the vernacular. I have no issue with its existence per-se, but if it is included it should not be given WP:Undue Weight. Otherwise anything incorrectly published in a paper would be published as fact on WP. Just take a look at the Leveson Enquiry if you wan't a few good examples of why that should be avoided. 94.13.113.160 ( talk) 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The article states that one of the proposals for an alternative crossing would be the eurobridge at 4km. ? This is clearly incorrect - any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.43 ( talk) 03:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The European Railway Agency have published their technical opinion in regard to queries made by the Channel Tunnel Inter-Governmental Commission (the IGC):
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)This mostly covers the ten "special" rules for operation in the Channel Tunnel above and beyond those published in the ERA Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) and their legality/necessity. These are the ones that have come up with the desire by Deutsche Bahn and Eurostar to operate Siemens Velaro D distributed tractor train-sets. — Sladen ( talk) 23:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is missing any reference to the cost for use by motorists. Discounting passenger train service, which presumably factors in the toll, what about regular motorists? How does the fee compare with the standard ferry service from Dover to Calais? 70.72.223.215 ( talk) 14:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was under the impression there was a 'breakdown' of a train due to carriage failure (possibly due to internal fire) - where a distorted carriage's side rubbed against the tunnel wall and this extra drag being detected by the control gear stopped the train as a fault condition - consequently spoiling the planned fire procedure of keeping the train moving in the case of a fire to get it out of the tunnel.
(it may be that the incident is included but in insufficient detail to be able to identify it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.253.145 ( talk) 01:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The introduction to the page says that the tunnel has faced 'several problems'. It then cites fires (four, with two, ten, and two year gaps, the last being four years ago), illegal immigration (which any transport hub such as an air or seaport would face, and which the relevant section states has mostly stopped), and the Sangatte refugee camp (which was stated in the same sentence as now being closed). Given that these have been resolved by now, is the sentence necessary? Rincewind32 ( talk) 22:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
What ever happened to the tunnel boring machines after the tunnel was finished? It's not like there's a huge demand for these kind of machines - I've heard rumors about some of them being sent to drill into the underground and be lost there forever. 87.48.36.63 ( talk) 23:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
For the reference Megaprojects and Risk, the author's last name is listed as Flyvbjerg, and a online check of ISBN agrees with the spelling. All seven notes in the article list the name as Flyvberg without a 'j'. I'd normally change the seven myself, but since the associated ref names might also be affected, I'm leaving it for an author or another editor. -- Michael Devore ( talk) 12:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite a while ago I did the route-diagram templates for the Chunnel. Would somebody else be willing to check them over the accuracy and locate a position within the article to transclude them? — Sladen ( talk) 10:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The History section currently is a mixture of "before" and "after". I would call the "before" Development and move the "after" to its own section, called Operations and placed after Engineering. Also, rather than start the Development section with a long summary of its subsections, I would start with something like this:
That's a very rough draft, without polish, just to give the idea of introducing rather than repeating the content of the subsections. An introduction like this can reveal some obvious big picture questions such as: did the 1988 construction build on the 1974 construction, or start over? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of the writing style in this article is overly technical rather than encyclopaedic prose. As an example this from the Engineering : Tunnelling section:
While I'm sure this is all very accurate, it's rather opaque to the lay reader. It communicates plenty of information but little knowledge.
I humbly suggest that bits like this are re-written in a more accessible style. I don't mean dumb them down; rather use less technical language and omit technical descriptions that convey no meaning to readers who don't know what those technical terms mean. AJKGORDON «» 09:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes)
04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oneiros ( talk · contribs) has proposed merging the Safety features at the time of the fire section from Channel Tunnel fire into the Engineering section of the Channel Tunnel article. As the Channel Tunnel article is currently 57 kilobytes long I would have expected a proposal to split information out of the parent article rather than one to merge information back in. Can you please share your reasoning behind merging more information back into what is already a long article? Road Wizard ( talk) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Above, Ajkgordon made a good point about the article being too technical, and this problem has not been fixed. Instead of quoting big chunks of text, would it be possible to form, say, a top five list on the talk page here of the bits of the article that people want to be more accessible - being as specific as possible. This incremental approach may help me or others get around to improving the article.
I suppose I (and maybe others) have trouble making the technical sections more accessible for the lay person because I am familiar with the topic and it makes sense to me, so any help is appreciated.-- Commander Keane ( talk) 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(I don't think this one requires its own article). The tunnel was shutdown for 24 hours on 2006-08-21 following another fire [1]. — Sladen ( talk) 09:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that the article would be written from the perspective of England -- the island. The first paragraph says the chunnel runs from England to France. But doesn't one normally talk about destinations from the mainland to islands? Besides, a Frenchman first proposed the idea. The French version also says it links Britain and France, but that it runs between Coquelles and Folkestone. That inconsistency ought to be corrected one way or the other, but English is my first language, so I'd like to settle the matter here before tackling the French version.
I'm not going to embark on a rewrite if the matter's already been settled, but it seems to me that France ought to be featured consistently as the origin of the tunnel, and England as the destination. What controversy would I stir up if I rewrote from that perspective? If nationalistic bias comes into play, I ought to disclose that I'm a U.S. citizen who can trace his ancestry back to both France and England. -- tbc ( talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, there was an article from the day before yesterday [2] "[..] services within a few days of the Chunnel freight train blaze on September 11.". And Google News lists 56 others. — Sladen ( talk) 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
We need to be very careful with statements that attempt to give the number of fires that have occurred in the tunnel, either implicitly or explicitly. It is obviously very difficult to verify as witnessed by the fact that either this or the articles on the fires themselves have got it wrong in the past, describing the recent fire as the second, when it was the third. However, I would go further and say that this is impossible to confirm or verify. Are we seriously suggesting that there has never been a small fire in the galley or a litter bin that was quickly brought under control with a fire extinguisher? Or at the most trivial level, nobody has ever lit up a cigarette? Such minor fires are intrinsically non-notable and unlikely to be reported in the media in even news reports, much less here. That makes such statements fundamentally non-verifiable and so we shouldn't be making them.
What we can measure is the number of significant fires. There of course we have to decide what counts as significant. I think most would accept loss of life as significant, though thankfully this has not happened yet. A fire resulting in the closure of the tunnel would almost certainly qualify as significant too, but we need to be careful to define exactly what we mean when we are making this kind of statement. CrispMuncher ( talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions LADOGS - "The service tunnel uses Service Tunnel Transport System (STTS) and Light Service Tunnel Vehicles (LADOGS)". This makes it look like an acronym, but of what? Can someone clarify this please - I couldn't discover myself what it refers to. Lessthanideal ( talk) 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There's some information here Edgepedia ( talk) 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the two tables I inserted earlier with both the earlier and the latest data. However, as discussed with Commander Keane at my Talk page, to eliminate redundancy (and not make the article too long), I will transform the data into a format suitable for a graph request. -- Rontombontom ( talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
One paragraph of this section contains statements which appear to contradict themselves:
Should the first portion not have read: "In 1975 there was a campaign....." ? -- HarryZilber ( talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've recently reorganised the article into a new series of sections and subsections, hopefully this is more chronological. This was a major complaint from a failed GA review a year ago, that the page was flying inbetween the current date and the middle of the 90s and 80s randomly, making it hard for anyone to follow right the way through and comprihend things in order. If anybody wants to discuss the changes or improvements, drop a line here. This new method isn't perfect, and there are doubts in my mind anyhow, but I feel that the old style was not the best this page could have, and that with some improvements this new structure could turn out to be better. Thoughts? Kyteto ( talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The assertion "known coloquially as the Chunnel" was removed from the article with the edit note "colloquialism which isn't used in UK or France". I've restored the chunnel reference for a few reasons:
I think it would be best to keep it in the article unless consensus determines otherwise. -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Eurostar have failed to explain why it took them so long to rescue the failed trains. At least one train (with passengers) was drawn out of the tunnel by a pair of Eurotunnel Class 0001 diesel locomotives. Why was the same not done for the other four? Why the nonsensical decision to evacuate passengers in the tunnel? Biscuittin ( talk) 09:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to call it an "undersea" tunnel. According to the dictionary, undersea means below the surface of the sea, whereas the tunnel is located under the sea floor based on the diagram contained in the article. Sj122 ( talk) 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
This section doesn't seem quite right - the rolling stock is specific to individual companies (and it's not infrastructure) - the only truly relevant item would be the tunnel rescue trains (that go in the centre tunnel) (are these actually trains?) [3]
I think this section should probably be merged into the operations section - is this right? Shortfatlad ( talk) 03:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it the article is about the channel tunnel, not eurotunnels operations - other freight operators eg DB Schenker or Euro Cargo Rail do operate freight trains through the channel tunnel (without using class 92s). If this is somehow wrong of me please mention it on the talk page. Shortfatlad ( talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this section, surely some of the information is more related to the Eurostar and BR Class 373 pages, such as the break down of a Class 373 on Thurock Viaduct, and details of the trains etc. Also what is missing is when the tunnel re-opened, rather than when Eurostar services restarted. I haven't time now to do this justice. What do others think? Edgepedia ( talk) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Many years ago, I wrote to Eurotunnel and suggested that, for publicity purposes, they might like to run a condensing steam locomotive through the tunnel. The one I had in mind was Mersey Railway Cecil Raikes which had spent its working life in a (rather shorter) underwater tunnel. Eurotunnel didn't like the idea but, in view of recent difficulties, perhaps they should keep a few condensing steam locomotives on standby. Biscuittin ( talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the British Rail Class 373 locomotives, I'm not surprised they are vulnerable to the weather. The side of the locomotive is largely wire mesh which is an open invitation to rain and snow. Older electric locomotives (e.g. British Rail Class 81) have louvers to provide some weather protection. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The actual report is available at:
— Sladen ( talk) 00:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The tunnel has just grown from 50 km to 104 km. Is this vandalism? Biscuittin ( talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This channel tunnel ias very long as hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.124.128.109 ( talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is completely out of all proportion, it has been lopsided completely towards the events of a few months ago, and far beyond the scale of the other incidents listed. The 1996 train failures, which directly affected 1000 people, justified all of 36 words. Why do we need 600, almost twenty times as many words, to cover an event that inconvinenced 2000? The answer is simple, people rush to Wikipedia and write tons about what is immediately going on, with no care for long term worth or proportionality. This needs to be trimmed, dramatically, in the retrospective aftermath, after all the caught-up-in-the-drama editors have gone home, much like the info about what is likely the hundreth strike by BA staff infesting the History of British Airways article with no long term relivance, or the coverage of this same event on the Eurostar page. We do not need a checklist of a by-the-minute commentry of the incident, we do not need every single useless detail on the event nor the same information written out three or more times. Conceise, precise, moderate coverage, in balance with the coverage of all the other events, would be be wholley more normal, preferable, and more typical of what is expected of an encyclopedia. At this level of coverage, the incident isn't far off justifying its own article; why should it dominate over the other incidents other than it being 'new'? Kyteto ( talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The large number of failed trains meant that both running tunnels were blocked.
Problems started at around 21:00, with Kent fire brigade being alerted at 21:46. [f 1] ... Of the five Class 373 trains and two turned back: [f 1] [f 2] [f 3] [f 4]
The occasion was the first time during the fifteen years that a Eurostar train had to be evacuated inside the tunnel itself; the failing of four at once being described as "unprecedented". [f 6] The Channel Tunnel reopened at 05:40 CET the following morning. [f 7]
"Four Eurostars broken down at one time — it's absolutely unprecedented", John Keefe of Eurotunnel ... "There's never actually been an evacuation of a Eurostar train in the fifteen years that the tunnel has been opened and last night we evacuated two whole trains to get people off",
I used the exit coordinates for the chunnel on google earth, and it put me in Gaziantep, Turkey, which is WAY off of where it is supposed to be listed (as Coquelles, France) in the article. This just needs to be corrected. Or google earth is wrong. I just found the coordinates for the exit of the chunnel to be 50degrees55'35.10" N 1degree49'16.36 E. The article has the exit coordinates as; 50degrees55'22" N 1degree49'06.29 E, which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.3.229 ( talk) 19:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Only silly Americans... ...call it the "Chunnel" anymore. In England we stopped calling it that in about 1995. It's just the Channel Tunnel or the Eurostar ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.176.39 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 September 2010 UTC
Sorry, but this is another example of US-centric world view in Wikipedia. Here's the reality: When the Channel Tunnel was being built and for a period after it opened, the tabloid newspapers in the UK did indeed coin the nickname, "Chunnel". This nickname was picked up by publications in the US and it stuck there ... however, it did NOT stick in the UK, among the general population. The fact that it may have been used again recently again by the UK Daily Mirror is hardly a surprise as Chunnel fits easier on a front page headline than Channel Tunnel. However, I have hardly EVER heard people in the UK call it Chunnel - it is known by the overwhelming majority of people there as "the Channel Tunnel". The only time I EVER hear "Chunnel" is when my American friends talk about it (I am a US resident). Two of the references quoted are obviously American, so can hardly be used as reliable sources for a UK topic. For the opening line to suggest that this is a "colloquial" term is misleading in the extreme. Colloquial would suggest at least to be in widespread use (surely in the country of origin) and this just isn't the case. -- 621PWC ( talk) 20:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
To suggest that the Daily Mirror is a reliable source because (like other media sources) it uses a headline writers' shorthand that is NOT used by the population at large, is ridiculous. The fact that all but three sources quoted in the reference list do NOT call it Chunnel is ignored ... and of the three, two are American where the original media nickname did stick. To suggest by placing it in the opening paragraph of this article that this is widely-used alternative name, is completely wrong and perpetuates incorrect or misleading information in Wikipedia. -- 621PWC ( talk) 14:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editon=
ignored (|edition=
suggested) (
help)" says the same (apart from the information about the dates). I'm reverting your edit as you have not provided a
reliable source for your statement. You may think it's silly, but the policy in wikipedia is
verifiability, not truth.
Edgepedia (
talk)
17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This really illustrates why so many people are critical of Wikipedia as a reference source. Edgepedia asks for a reliable source - I have already pointed out (twice) that the reliable sources are all the OTHER references listed on this page that do NOT use the term Chunnel! Now the latest edit uses the word "colloquial" which once again implies that the term is in common use! It is not! (Unless you are a tabloid journalist or, possibly, American). I will revert the line back to reality once more and ask editors not to perpetuate this inaccuracy simply based on personal opinion, or the fact that the term has been used by a couple of sources! The issue is not whether the term has ever been used or not used - we all agree that it HAS been used. The issue is whether or not the term is in COMMON or COLLOQUIAL use ... which it is not. -- 621PWC ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The edit warring to restore the "right/correct" version needs to stop. I've already issued one warning, and will warn/report any users who continue edit warring from this point on. Gain a consesnus here first, then make the changes. - BilCat ( talk) 22:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sladen, you will have to go back a long way to see what is considered to be the original or correct version. A quick glance at the history shows that this controversy was "resolved" at least once before - back in March 2005 in fact - when an editor pointed out the massive disparity between search results for the term. However, the contributor concluded: “Clearly the term has fallen into disuse. But an encyclopedia documents history as well, and there are many official and authoritative sites in the former list, including the BBC and the royal website. I will edit the phrase to indicate formerly popular nickname.” So we know for sure that the incorrect portrayal of the word “Chunnel” has been a grievance here for many years (the fact that so many contributors have had their hackles raised by something so seemingly innocuous ought to be a clue that the un-qualified use of the word is widely perceived to be incorrect). In the case of "Chunnel" its status is elevated to an unacceptable level by its inclusion in the opening paragraph as a widely used (colloquial) alternative.-- 621PWC ( talk) 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sladen, unfortunately Wikipedia guidelines are often contradictory. For example, it is stated "that you should not revert a bold edit due to non consensus". It is at that point that WP:BRD should begin. However, can you and I (at least) find a consensus? We appear to be the two current protagonists. I agree with BilCat that my current edit is not adequate as my qualification is too narrow in one direction as the previous version was too narrow in the other. As I have said before, I don't object to the fact that Chunnel is a nickname - it clearly is (and particularly among media outlets and Americans - where the use of Chunnel in initial publicity did stick). I object to it being portrayed as being in current widespread use within the UK. -- 621PWC ( talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Edgepedia, with the greatest respect, (as Hans Adler pointed out earlier) dictionaries contain hundreds of words that have fallen out of use over time. New words are included, some fade, and some are ultimately retired from the condensed volumes. The fact that Chunnel is included in dictionaries only proves that the word exists (which no-one has denied) - but it does not prove that it is in common or colloquial use (which is the contentious issue here). This is a mis-use of the function of reliable sources. As I have pointed out several times in this thread, of all the sources quoted, only two out of 102 use the term ... hardly indicating that it is in widespread use.-- 621PWC ( talk) 22:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't really about WP:V rather WP:Notability as some people have clearly used the term and that isn't in doubt. However just because some people may well use it as a term occasionally doesn't mean that it is actually used in the vernacular. I have no issue with its existence per-se, but if it is included it should not be given WP:Undue Weight. Otherwise anything incorrectly published in a paper would be published as fact on WP. Just take a look at the Leveson Enquiry if you wan't a few good examples of why that should be avoided. 94.13.113.160 ( talk) 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The article states that one of the proposals for an alternative crossing would be the eurobridge at 4km. ? This is clearly incorrect - any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.43 ( talk) 03:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The European Railway Agency have published their technical opinion in regard to queries made by the Channel Tunnel Inter-Governmental Commission (the IGC):
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)This mostly covers the ten "special" rules for operation in the Channel Tunnel above and beyond those published in the ERA Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) and their legality/necessity. These are the ones that have come up with the desire by Deutsche Bahn and Eurostar to operate Siemens Velaro D distributed tractor train-sets. — Sladen ( talk) 23:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is missing any reference to the cost for use by motorists. Discounting passenger train service, which presumably factors in the toll, what about regular motorists? How does the fee compare with the standard ferry service from Dover to Calais? 70.72.223.215 ( talk) 14:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was under the impression there was a 'breakdown' of a train due to carriage failure (possibly due to internal fire) - where a distorted carriage's side rubbed against the tunnel wall and this extra drag being detected by the control gear stopped the train as a fault condition - consequently spoiling the planned fire procedure of keeping the train moving in the case of a fire to get it out of the tunnel.
(it may be that the incident is included but in insufficient detail to be able to identify it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.253.145 ( talk) 01:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The introduction to the page says that the tunnel has faced 'several problems'. It then cites fires (four, with two, ten, and two year gaps, the last being four years ago), illegal immigration (which any transport hub such as an air or seaport would face, and which the relevant section states has mostly stopped), and the Sangatte refugee camp (which was stated in the same sentence as now being closed). Given that these have been resolved by now, is the sentence necessary? Rincewind32 ( talk) 22:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
What ever happened to the tunnel boring machines after the tunnel was finished? It's not like there's a huge demand for these kind of machines - I've heard rumors about some of them being sent to drill into the underground and be lost there forever. 87.48.36.63 ( talk) 23:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)