Talk:Channel Tunnel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Channel Tunnel is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Date: 04:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Channel Tunnel is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 31, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event mentioned in this article is a December 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Le Shuttle

Pretty sure 'Le Shuttle' is no longer called that. Can anyone confirm?

Having looked around a bit I've failed to find the actual positive evidence, but it does look a lot like it, yes. For example it is not mentioned on their web site any longer. I think maybe they have moved on from the name though it's a pity there isn't a date or press release that I've yet seen. Nevilley 10:07 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
What do they call it now? "Thing that gets you through the tunnel"? ;-) -- Tarquin
Train of Bigness? 62.30.150.99 18:30 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
'Le Shuttle' to change name - to Eurotunnel, calling the franglais name confusing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)Dwhite
It is now called Eurostar --195.248.109.163 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No its not - Eurostar is the passanger trains, le shuttle (whatever) is the car transporter, might also be the name for the lorry serivce. Pickle 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original construction

Could someone in the know confirm the year of the original construction attempt - was it 1880 or 1881?

the eurostar page (linked in the article) says 1880. Do you know of some source that says '81? -- Finlay McWalter 21:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC
The article once cited both 1880 and 1881, but that's been fixed.

Possible Plagiarism? In the "Construction" section the last line is "Both types of cross-connection (cross-passage and PRD) can be seen in the schematic at the top of this page." There is no schematc. Either it was once there and has been deleted (in which this line should be deleted), or the line and possibly then entire paragraph was copied from another source.63.161.86.254 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Duh, reading the history I answered my own question. The image was removed due to copyright issues. So I've removed the line that refers to it, there was no plagiarism.63.161.86.254 19:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that another attempt at building a tunnel was made in the 1970s, but I see no mention of this here.--Philsy 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See Channel_Tunnel#Planning. --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Financials

We're seriously difficient in the financials for le Chunnel. I know it cost a huge amount more than it was supposed to, and allegedly EuroTunnel will never recover its costs before the tunnel goes back to the two governments (in 30 or 50 or however many years). I can't seem to find an decent page on the subject, and it's tough to find much about TML either. -- Finlay McWalter 22:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To the person asking about the financial problems, according to a program I saw on History International the original cost was around 7 billion dollars but eventually doubled to 14 billion and it would be 20 to 30 years before the investors started to see a profit . --CorranH96

There's no information on the source of these billions of dollars. Why paid for the tunnel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.33.114 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

I am not sure what you are asking. Can you please rephrase your question? If you are wanting a source that says how much the tunnel cost, this BBC article quotes a figure of "about 14bn euros ($17.7bn; £9.8bn)". Road Wizard 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 28 Weeks

removed this: "The tunnel is also alluded to in the movie 28 weeks later, where a group of zombies infected with the Rage virus use the tunnel to enter France from Britian."

because it's not clear at all in the movie that the zombies use the tunnel (in fact, if anything, a character in a helicopter seems to be the carrier). regardless, the tunnel doesn't appear in the movie at all. --Pnoeric 05:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to watch the movie again. It's clear that the zombies ran to Paris from London through the Chunnel. The movie shows the zombies descending into the London Underground and emerging from an underground Metro station by the Eiffel Tower. While this is not factually correct (they'd have to take the London Underground to Waterloo Station, then run along the rail all the way to the Chunnel entrance, through the Chunnel, to Gard du Nord, then take the Metro from there to the Eiffel Tower), the director is clearly implying they ran all the way to France from England, thanks to the Chunnel. I'm adding this back in to the article. -Jaardon 01:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question.

What gauge are the railways?

Standard gauge, surely? -- ChrisO 16:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is standard gauge, but there are tricky considerations regarding loading gauge, which measures the cross-section envelope of a train car, and affects loading dock height, ceiling, placement of railway equipment, and the like. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Loading gauge is very much non-standard, the tunnel having been built to accommodate the very large diuble-deck shuttle vehicles and freight shuttle vehicles. -- Ivanberti 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebay auction

If one machine was dismantled and the other machine was driven into the rock, then what was auctioned on eBay last year?, [2] [3] [4]

No mention of this in the article BTW Jooler 12:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as i can make out from [5] there were far more than 2 tunneling machines involved. At least 6. 3 from each side of the tunnel, of the 3 -- 2 were for the large 7m tunnels, 1 for the smaller service tunnel. 60.234.139.237 14:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aerodynamic shockwave

'and dissipates the aerodynamic shockwave that would otherwise accumulate in front of a train travelling through a main tunnel at full speed.'

Even though I have done some research into the Seikan Tunnel (a fellow undersea tunnel), I haven't come across the aerdynamic shockwave phenomenon. Can someone (possibly the person who contributed the info into the article) provide me with a source for this information? --Commander Keane 12:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The best that I can suss out is that the problem being accounted for is not a shockwave in front but a vacuum in back. It doesn't seem to be an issue of tunnel strength but one of air management. Thus, the third bore and the access tunnels allow air to infiltrate from the other parts of the tunnel system and fill the gap. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the shockwave comment. Below is the orginal text if anyone has any objections:
"It allows maintenance workers access to the tunnel complex, provides a safe route for escape during emergencies, and dissipates the aerodynamic shockwave that would otherwise accumulate in front of a train travelling through a main tunnel at full speed."
--Commander Keane 12:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. The piston relief ducts connect the North and South rail tunnels direct without any connection to the service tunnel. They go over the top of the service tunnel. The service tunnel allows staff access to the rail tunnels for maintenance and also allows an escape route out of the rail tunnels in an emergency. It was used in the fire in 1996 for this very purpose. The ventilation system maintains a higher pressure in the service tunnel to prevent fumes entering it from the rail tunnels. The purpose of the piston relief ducts is to dissipate the pressure build up in front of trains and the partial vacuum behind due to the piston effect of the trains running through the tunnel. This is necessary for the comfort of the passengers in the trains who would suffer discomfort in their ears from the pressure changes. This may seem unlikely but anyone riding high speed trains in the open air knows that when you pass another train at speed you feel the shock wave in your ears. The piston relief ducts have shutters which can be closed in an emergency to prevent fumes from one rail tunnel entering the other. David Edwards 4BC 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossing time

Article quote: "Nearly 7 million passengers take the 35 minute journey through the tunnel every year." I think this is incorrect, or at least misleading - the actual journey through the tunnel takes only 20 minutes on Eurostar. It is the Shuttle service which takes a total of 35 minutes, I believe. However, so that this can be properly corrected, are the '7 million passengers' referring solely to Eurotunnel shuttle customers or to Eurostar travellers too? --David Edgar 14:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've amended the transit times. In fact, '7 million passengers' was probably Eurostar passengers, which is 7.3m, though with 2.1m cars, 1.3m trucks and 63,000 coaches, Eurotunnel shuttles could carry about 7m passengers too. I've added the Eurostar passenger, and car, truck & coach figures for 2004 to the stats section. StephenDawson 15:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Chunnel" nickname

The term should remain, if only for historical reasons. (Also, there is a Chunnel page, which redirects here.) Googling site:uk chunnel retrieves 5800 results; channel.tunnel gets 140,000. 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. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's with the title of this article? Wikipedia is Communism? Looks like vandalism to me.


Without having looked at the Google search comparisons, what is the usage in each of the search results. In America, I'd always just called it the Chunnel. Is this, perhaps instead, a cultural difference or just slang? If it is slang, perhaps many of the 140,000 results from Google are from websites that shy away from slang usage. Basically, though it may have fallen out of academic/journalistic usage has it fallen out of everyday speech?

I'm sorry, this makes no sense to me. Everyone calls it the Chunnel. I've never even heard of the term the "Channel Tunnel." I think the line that that term has fallen out of use needs to be removed, in fact, I'm going to make that change. All of my friends concur that either are correct. (209.208.197.176 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Sovereignty

How does sovereignty work with the Chunnel? On the surface (ie at sea) the nations have their territorial borders about 12 miles off their respective coasts, but where is the border in the chunnel? Is it half way along, or is there some weird deal that the middle bit is joint sovereignty (as you have to go from either Britain or France to get there then there is no need for it to be annexed)?? David, England

There used to be a note to this effect in the Eurostar article. The official border is in the middle of the tunnel; I've heard there's a painted line and flags but I haven't seen a picture. I did turn up this:
The United Kingdom and France have established "control zones" at both ends of the Chunnel that crosses beneath the English Channel. UK authorities exercise authority within the control zone on the French side, and French authorities exercise authority within the control zone on the UK side. Violations in the control zone are treated as if they occurred within the territory of the adjoining state within that zone, and extradition is not required to remove a violator to the operating state for prosecution. Officers of the adjoining state can carry guns within the control zone.
Ah, confirmation of the line: [6] It's all under a treaty that effectively grants limited dual sovereignty within the tunnel. Interestingly, the sovereignty issue is split not two ways, but three -- Belgium has a hand in things. --Dhartung | Talk 16:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that link to the CPS about law and the Chunnel. So sovereignty is divided in the middle, though juristiction and control is really shared between Britain and France along the whole tunnel (via a rather large amount of legal jargon) and Belgium has something to do with it with trains that go straight on to Belgium. David

Re: "As one of the first international rail tunnels" This is totally incorrect. There have been international rail tunnels ever since they started building railways. Example Fréjus Rail Tunnel between France and Italy, opened 1871. Simplon tunnel between Switzerland and Italy, opened 1906. Chris F - English living in Switzerland

Re: "In an unusual move, the British and French governments agreed to provide immigration staff at opposite ends of the tunnel;" This is not in the least unusual. In Europe it is very common to have joint border posts operating a short distance from the border, once you go through the border post you are for customs and immigration purposes in one country, but for criminal law you remain in the "correct" country. It is also common to check passengers before you get on / after you get off a train, the same rules then apply. A train is physically in one country, but the passengers and goods on board are for customs and immigration purposes in a sealed bubble of another country. This is called a "sealed train", or a "transit train". Chris F - English living in Switzerland

Thanks for your insights. The article's wording may be overbroad. I think the three-way agreement involving Belgium may still be unique, though; I'll look into this further. Sealed train is actually a good idea for an article, one we could link to here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going bust?

Is there any chance of Eurostar or Euro Tunnel going bust?

I heard there was a tv programme detailing the massive debt that one or both companies have and was told to watch this space.... am concerned about making a booking for Christmas this year incase they should close down - unlikely I thought but does anyone know if it's likely? -- unsigned

Please sign edits to Talk pages. The company has been a candidate for financial failure from the beginning, according to some critics. Today a bankruptcy is considered very possible. [7] Personally I wouldn't book tickets under these circumstances -- the company may end up in new hands by then. If ridership is really down, as they say, you shouldn't have much of a problem getting those seats. --Dhartung | Talk 00:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The tunnel itself is an asset because it makes an operational profit. The huge debt Euro Tunnel is in is a liability. When a company goes bust its assets are sold off to repay part of the debt. Thus the tunnel is likely to be sold to a different company, which is likely to keep it running.
Eurostar is a seperate company. A change of tunnel owner won't hurt them. They are very unlikely to go bust.
But even in the unlikely event that the buyer of the tunnel decides to close it for traffic (a financially stupid decision) the government will almost certainly buy it back an keep it open. Both the French and the UK Government have stakes in the high speed lines connecting the tunnel.
So I wouldn't worry about purchasing tickets. 137.222.40.132 14:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial vs metric

Which should be used, "imperial (metric)" or "metric (imperial)". Eg "897 yards (820 m)" vs "820 m (897 yards)".

On that note its a bit inconsistent either way, in the first paragraph it goes metric (imperial), later it used imperial (metric). Is there some standard used on wikipedia for this sort of thing? --Mr snarf 05:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

France use Metric. UK are half Metric, half Imperial. Personally, I'd be inclined to use "Metric (imperial)", although the preference for acres in the UK is correct. - JVG 23:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use "Metric (Imperial)" as only two counties in the world use the Imperial system today USA and Burma. As for the UK it has gone completely metric except for pints and road signs. The UK construction industry has been totally metric since the mid seventies.

[edit] Second Channel Tunnel

Paragraph states that a second tunnel is under consideration. To me, this looks like a joke edit - I'm fairly sure the existing tunnel is under-utilized, and I well remember it was over-budget. I can't see anyone starting a second tunnel just now - or find any evidence for this on the Web.

  • Can you state where it says that? The para on the second tunnel reads:
Second tunnel
As of 2005, the British and French governments are investigating the possibility of a second tunnel through the Channel. While no planning has progressed past its feasibility, it is possible that such a project might be a single (wider or taller) tube as tunnel boring technology has progressed significantly over the past two decades.
The governments are bound by the original Treaty to investigate the possibility; they will do nothing and no tunnel will be built. But the para is not inaccurate. If you can point me at the innaccuracy in the para, I'll correct it from primary source documents. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but the onus is not on us (no pun intended) to disprove this claim, but on the original editor to provide references as per WP:NOR. I'm not a huge fan of that particular policy, but I can certainly see where future edit wars could be averted by simply providing a source URL here. That being said, I can see that you've already put a great deal of effort into maintaining the general sanity of this article - I'm just pushing for you to keep doing the same.  ;) Orethrius 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completion

I've removed the phrase about the tunnels meeting in a crossover cavern. The the undersea crossover caverns are at roughly one third and two thirds through the tunnels, wheras the drilling actually met very roughly half way. I've also amended the error on the centre lines at first meeting. In fact they drilled a probe through between the French and English sides on 30th October to do a final check on the positioning before completing the drive. The error was a little bit greater than originally stated, but still pretty impressive. David Edwards 4BC 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a citation for the above centre line errors from an excellent illustrated book by Jeremy Wilson and Jerome Spick. I also corrected the date for the initial probe breakthrough from early October to 30th October, for which the same citation is relevant. Unfortunately I've corrected this information which is under another citation, so there may now be a mismatch. I'm wondering if the date on the Washington Post quote should be 30th October, rather than 3rd October.

[edit] Naming references in opening paragraph

I have removed the reference to the tunnel's supposed name "Euro Tunnel", as well as the verbose justification of the term "Chunnel". As was formerly noted, the thing is known by almost everyone as simply "the Channel Tunnel". I would suggest that any other detail should go somewhere other than the opening sentence, which is already a bit rambling. --Rollo 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Around here, 'the Chunnel' is all it is ever called. Maybe that's its common name in America, or just this part of America. In any case, I don't think it's accurate that 'almost everyone' calls it 'the Channel Tunnel', at least not internationally. David McCabe 18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I live in Kent and use "the Channel Tunnel" quite often, with family in the north of England, and non of us have used the phrase "Chunnel" since it was completed, the phrase only seems to have been used before and during construction. Olive Oil 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The phrase was used for many years before construction, and appeared in official documents, so it isn't just headlinese. The tunnel operator has made much effort to sideline the name Chunnel. The article Chunnel redirects to this one, so it should be noted and bolded in the introduction (per WP:NAME) but doesn't have to be right at the beginning. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Economies In Passive Fire Protection During Chunnel Design And Construction

I was manager of R & D for a company associated with one of the bidders. That is how I know of the fire door tender for the rail cars, which went absolutely nowhere. Incidentally, trading money against safety is not uncommon in passive fire protection. Just take a look at the history of firestops in North America [8]. The hydrate issue and exploding concrete is a known fact to anyone who has ever conducted fire tests. You can find reference to maximum moisture levels in cementitious products in fire test standards the world over. That is what makes it so painfully obvious that false economies were at work here as it is hard to justify ignorance of such basic scientific facts on the part of the design team for this project. When you follow the links to how the hydrates work FOR proper fire protection among fireproofing plasters and even drywall, you might wonder why those materials don't pop apart in a fire, unless and until you hold a chunk of it in your hand. Those materials are simply not dense enough to explode easily due to very rapid subliming. The steam can gently escape and thus take the energy out of the fire, literally, "blowing" steam against it. Once the water is spent, all that's left is insulation, which means the heat rise then increases more rapidly on the unexposed side, beyond the boiling point of water.--Achim 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have marked the section in the article as POV. It is obviously trying to argue a case, contrary to WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Its tone is a little less than encyclopaedic at times. I have no knowledge of fire protection and request editors that do have take a look at this section, thanks. BillC 10:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the new description of the fire is definitely advancing a point of view, which is inappropriate, and certainly goes into far too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Most readers will neither care nor have the technical knowledge to digest these details. The older description indicates that there are differences of opinion about the fire (as there often are in any engineering disaster) -- it is not the role of Wikipedia to resolve these issues. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly a matter of arguing known scientific fact. This is elementary physics. You can check into the European "Eureka" project concerning fire testing in tunnels. An abstract can be seen here: [9]. Further evidence is right here: [10]. A specific treatise on the need to provide fireproofing inside traffic tunnels can be seen here: [11]. Another document specifically addressing this internationally known fact is right here: [12]. If you doubt the fact that public and nationally accredited test standards limit humidity in cementitious products prior to fire testing even in accordance with the building elements curve, let alone the hydrocarbon curve, you can contact ULC [13] and speak to an expert in the field there: 416-757-3611. You can short-circuit this by microwaving a small chunk of firestop mortar. It will definitely pop apart, just as the concrete lining did in that tunnel. It is a known and established fact in passive fire protection that concrete cannot survive the onslought of hydrocarbon fires. That is why there is an established market, with products made and certified specifically for that purpose and no other. Here is a French example of such an offering, complete with pictures: [14]. The Eureka project clearly established the effect of ferrous, versus meltable railcar ceilings. It follows, that if the top of the railcar is made of sheet metal, that if the ends of the railcar are not equipped with fire doors, fire will escape there and then attack the tunnel lining and also adjacent rail cars in both directions. This is but common sense. As I stated above, it is also quite commonplace for money and safety to be traded. Ask anyone in the business at all. Without strict regulations governing and making fire protection mandatory, not a soul would spend any money on it. The Chunnel is no exception. What was lacking here, was any acknowledgement of the passive fire protection aspects, which was amplified by the fact that product certification is optional in the UK. Look at the technical merit. I did tone it down though...--Achim 01:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Elementary physics or not, can you find someone else that has made this synthesis and written about its specific application to the Channel Tunnel fire?
  2. Can you tone it down to about 2-3 sentences long, so that it doesn't contravene WP:NPOV#Undue weight? --BillC 09:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do you think that the concrete lining on this tunnel was so vastly different from all other concrete that the physics governing it are suddenly so different? Or are you unable to follow the links I provided that clearly prove my case? Have you taken the time by the time you wrote this, to have read the narratives? If you google the issue of concrete fireproofing for tunnels, you'll see this all over the place. It's actually big business and everyone in tunnelling knows about it. The Chunnel people ignored it because it was cheaper to do so. Do you think for a moment that people like Promat would invest tens of thouands of Euros in fire testing and marketing if nobody bought this?

For what it's worth, the 1997 report of the CTSA's investigation into the fire (Inquiry into the Fire on Heavy Goods Vehicle Shuttle 7539) made 39 recommendations, none of which involved retrofitting structural fire protection to Channel Tunnel. Consequently, I don't see a need to include any of this text on the page: it belongs on a page about structural fire protection. Ecb 10:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, put; I agree. --BillC 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for issues like this to be swept under the rug. That is exactly why I gave you the history link to firestopping. Particularly in the UK, where product certification is optional, do you really think they would raise such an issue? They'll talk about all sorts of stuff about moving and stopping the trains, but the passive fire protection culprits are left out. That is the norm because imagine how it would look. When designers ignore the most basic of physics AND experience, and they get the Queen and the Mitterand to open the thing amidst a lot of fanfare, it is really uncomfortable and highly frowned upon to expose the fact that short term economics led to such a problem. Before you guys put down my text, I suggest that you actually read the links I provided. Judging by the timing of your rebuttals, you did not take the time to do this. You're just looking for ways to shoot it down. Why don't you try it on technical merit. Prove it wrong. Try that.--Achim 16:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have missed the main points of the objections, which are these: the text you have added is too long, and it is not relevant to the progress, results or consequences of the Channel Tunnel fire.
However true your text may be, whatever its technical merits, Wikipedia's section on the Channel Tunnel's 1996 fire ought not to consist of 300 words describing the fire plus 500 words describing why tunnels should have passive protection countermeasures.
I reiterate my suggestion that we move it to a page on fire protection of concrete. Ecb 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How about putting it in the tunnel article, with a hyperlink between the two? The concrete article says nothing as yet about fire protection and the fire protection article is too broad in its scope to address something this specific. It is really a tunnel issue. The only other place in fire protection where you need to beware of hydrocarbon fires is in petrochemical refineries and chemical plants. There, concrete is not the issue. It's all about steel and LPG containers, pipe bridges, vessel skirts. In building construction, hydrocarbon fires are only an issue if there is a transformer room and they simply use a 3 hour rating to the building elements curve as opposed to anything to do with hydrocarbons. So, it's really a generic tunnel issue, except that here is a high profile case, where those involved get their noses bent out of place when something that obvious is pointed out. So what of putting this into the tunnel section and then hyperlinking it to here with the brief mention you want so as not to detract from the glory of this thing?--Achim 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, Achim, is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your pet issue, no matter how important it may seem to you. Nor is Wikipedia a publisher of original theory or thought, because what we add must be verifiable. Thus in the case of the Channel Tunnel, we really need to require that some authoritative source has written about the 1997 fire and made the specific recommendations that you're trying to bring into the article. Otherwise, non-experts can never be certain that you are only advancing an opinion. Additionally, please assume good faith when debating the merits of additions to an article. Using phrases like "noses bent out of shape" and "glory of this thing" really isn't fair to people who are most likely thinking of the usefulness of having an article discuss something fairly tangential. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I can see we are likely to have and edit/revert war on our hands here, so I'd like to make a proposal. I have access to lots of obscure sources on tunnel fires (NTSB, HMRI & other statutory reports, letters between fire brigades, newspaper articles, fire brigade videos, that sort of thing) some of which I've summarised on wikipedia. You can see examples of the summaries at Summit tunnel fire, Holland tunnel fire and Caldecott Tunnel fire.
I had intended my next major fire article to be on the 1979 Nihonzaka tunnel fire. I will put those references to one side, dig out the resources I have on the Channel Tunnel fire, and write up a page on it. I'll keep an eye out for evidence that supports Achim's text and if I find anything I'll include it (the evidence, not Achim's text) in the page.
Then I'll delete Achim's text, replace it with mine and when the edit war settles down, we ought, God willing, to have a better, more balanced page on the Channel Tunnel fire.
A few final points, directly addressed to Achim Hering.
  • Firstly, a compliment. I think the technical content of your text on spalling is worth keeping, though not on this page. I suggest you start a page titled Spall_(concrete) with it, disambiguate it from the existing Spall page, link it to Concrete and link it to Tunnel. I can't recommend that we link it to here. I will add details from an excellent 2005 summary I have on the mechanics of spalling and details about the use of polypropylene fibres in the concrete mix of bored tunnel segments. You can add your information on boards and sprays and we can resolve the NPOV issues in the usual way.
  • Secondly, a warning. Tunnel design is a fairly specialised business and tunnel fire safety design is extremely specialised. If you contribute to wikipedia on fire safety and insult those who disagree with you as freely as you have on this page, you might end up insulting someone who has the power to turn down your company's tender for a fire protection job. Don't take that as a threat from me: I'm not a fire protection engineer (I design tunnel ventilation systems for a living). But the next person you cross might be better informed than you, more easily offended than me, and less well-disposed towards humanity than either of us. So, I urge you to keep a civil tongue in your head when you edit.
Ecb 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I fully support Ecb in this plan for the article. In fact, I'd go further and propose that the entire section goes off to form a new article, linked from this one, called something like Channel Tunnel fire precautions or even Channel Tunnel fire. However, in the meantime, Ecb is volunteering to do a lot of hard work in a difficult area and should be supported by everyone for being willing to do so. This is, of course, a wiki - that means that what Ecb does can be edited and changed with ease and the result can please everybody who has no line to push.
Speaking as a guy with railway experience, I know that the Tunnel fire precautions are inadequate in some areas and over provisioned in others; the methods for dealing with a fire are poorly thought-out in some areas and tried and tested in others; the information supplied to the public has been over-simplified in some areas and over complicated in others. This is because the Tunnel is a giant undertaking with thousands of movements supervised by hundreds of specialists: ie, it is real life and thus is not black and white.
We need to think of our customers - the readers - and tell them what they need to know. Not what we think they ought to know; not what we think they would like to know, but what they need to know in an encyclopedic article about a long railway tunnel under the sea. There should be no need for any of us to be incivil about another editor if the goal of making a relevant and useful encyclopedia is the ultimate aim we always keep in mind. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to make that change, I say go ahead and see what that looks like. I would simply like anyone interested to keep in mind the work done on EUREKA [15] and [16] by Dr. Ekkehard Richter of iBMB TU Braunschweig [17] and all the various countries that supported it and used the findings in new regulations for tunnel design and maintenance. I would also like to point to the expertise gained by STUVA [18] and its tunnel fire test facility as well as the information publicly available through Promat [19]. The Promat tunnel website shows it best. I believe that the best location for the result of the information would be the tunnel article, which can be hyperlinked to the Chunnel article, as the issues are generic, though perhaps more immediate for the Chunnel as it's a little tougher to escape. A long way to go, and under the sea. So to not protect the concrete lining against thw world's experience on the topic is a huge judgment call that one might consider if one were to use this tunnel.--Achim 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything happening on this article for a few days. I reduced this section to a minimum and put the bulk of the technical content into a subsection of the fireproofing article. If you all are OK with that, then perhaps it's OK to remove the POV tag?--Achim 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy to see the POV tag removed. The more stuff I read on this particular fire, the more I believe that having passive fire protection of the concrete wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome. I can't agree that Wikipedia should say that the Channel Tunnel fire proved that it's always prudent to take significant passive fire protection countermeasures.
The text still concentrates too much on passive fire protection. Eurotunnel were heavily criticised for their poor operational procedures, but no-one criticised them for using unprotected concrete tunnel segments. So I think we shouldn't concentrate on fire protection of concrete on this page. Also, we say that the fire started in a truck carrying polystyrene, but User:DgkWhite (see below) and the CTSA report both record that the truck carrying polystyrene suffered hardly any damage. As an aside, the CTSA report indicates that the truck that first caught fire was carrying either cornflakes or reels of paper (it was a bit difficult to tell which caught fire first afterwards).
While I understand your keenness to get the POV tag removed, Achim, I can't agree that it should be taken away yet.
I'd ask that you all have patience while I complete the thorough revision I suggested on 8 May: it ought to be finished in a week. Ecb 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but do yourself a favour and include in your research the results of Eureka and the Promat tunnel pages. There is a reason why so many tunnels are protected in this manner. It costs money to do so. There often aren't stringent code requirements for people to do so. It's not a building after all. Who is the Authority Having Jurisdiction? From a career spent in the field, I can assure you that it takes a very strong case for anyone whatsoever to spend even the slightest amount of money on fire protection. There is no immediate return for one's money, meaning everyone would rather not talk about it in the first place. It gets left out of investigative reports. Particularly the UK are infamous for lax fire protection measures, as product certification, of all things, is not mandatory. That's the same as the North American nuclear field. And what do we get for this? The Thermo-lag scandal. The silicone foam scandal, the Thermo-lag replacement issues - same thing all the time. When you have a culture where faith in the ethics of any old manufacturer is sufficient to meet code, there's something fundamentally wrong. So before you judge it by the party line over there, have a look at the STUVA writings, Eureka and Promat. I know that Promat is just one vendor and I have no ties with them, but I know one thing, they do their homework where it comes to bounding. So that can save you a lot of time.--Achim 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What caught fire

I was the freight (HGV) allocation controller in the French Traffic Control Center during the night of the fire. The shuttle that caught fire was carrying one truck that was known to be transporting dangerous goods: 26 tons of expanded polystyrene in granular form. This truck was in wagon 15, that is the last carriage of the front rake which did not burn. I was later told by colleagues which went into the tunnel afterwards to help the clean up efforts that this truck's only damage was melted rear-view mirrors. I found no evidence at the time that the fire was due to a vehicle carrying a dangerous cargo.--DGKWhite 10:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[User:DGKWhite].

This I did not hear. However, having done a lot of testing of firestops with combustible loading, especially from cable jacketing, I know what burning plastic can do. I can give you a glimpse of it on this page: [20], which shows the effect of just a bit of plastic on a few feet of cables, which is nothing compared to what was on that train, by the above account. 26 tons of expanded polystyrene is an absolutely awesome source of hydrocarbon fuel, which would make for an awesome amount of hydrochloric acid, as well, which is not especially good to breathe, plus it's a severe concrete poison, as it attacks the cement stone, which holds everything together. It is also very damaging to electronic contacts, which is what causes electrical and electronic malfunctions even well after a fire. If that load did NOT catch on fire, it would be quite a miracle. Polystyrene is listed according to DIN4102 as B3, meaning easily ignited. It is actually prohibited in buildings in most industrialised nations' building codes, unless concealed behind drywall or sheet metal or within concrete block, for this very reason. A metallic shell, such as a railcar, at steel's density, which approaches 8, is a highly efficient conductor of heat, which is why cookingware is made of steel. Since there was no exterior fireproofing on the trains and no fire doors subject to any product certification, it would seem less than likely for this insulation to have been uninvolved in this fire. I did not do the post-mortem investigation, so I cannot be entirely certain, but I do know that it is not unusual to practice a bit of information compartmentalisation in some of them.--Achim 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asylum seekers

Unauthorised asylum seekers travelling through the tunnel have been a growing concern over the years. Many authorities have suggested increased surveillance and a more pronounced presence of law enforcement agencies.

This is way too vague and unverifiable to be stated as fact. I added the citationneeded template but the article now linked is from 2002 and doesn't really back up the assertions made here. --87.82.12.140 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding. French authorities were so disrupting the train service that the European Commission made an official protest, and they spent months working out new security measures, and you don't think this is backed up? The article says 1500 people made it through the tunnel in six months. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yuck! Very politically-correct. Asylum seekers only become asylum seekers when they arrive in the UK and claim political asylum. Until then they are 'Illegal Immigrants'.ChrisRed 10:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The term "asylum seekers" is used by officials and the press, so I don't think there's any reason to avoid it, but in my expansion I did clarify that it's only an assumption. In any event the short blurb I had written there did not really cover what was a huge multi-year story involving the tunnel, and I hope a clearer picture is now given. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tunnel on Fire

At present, the Channel Tunnel is on fire.

Removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.51.159 (talk • contribs) .

eh? Why is the above "vandalism"? It was on fire today, at least a train was, see the news! [[21]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.48.204 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, when there are sure, complete and encycloped facts, you can add it. For news, you can read and edit: wikinews. Cate 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Inserted something more sensible.--James 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe not vandalism, but not true either - there was a fire on a train in the channel tunnel, the channel tunnel was not itself on fire. I'll change the title... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.51.159 (talk • contribs) .
The fact that "At present, the Channel Tunnel is on fire." was removed is not objectionable, it's the fact that this was labelled "vandalism" (changed now to "Tunnel on Fire") that demonstrates editing and control just as ill-informed about current affairs, as whomever added that line is about wikipedia protocol (it was nobody I know). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.48.204 (talk • contribs) .
Chill. 83.67.51.159 is unregistered and was obviously just eager to clean up. It was mislabeled, then he had the courtesy to change it (although it isn't terribly polite to change your wording on Talk pages, you should strike and write something new so you're not "covering up"). --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
83.67.51.159 was just trying to be helpful as he finds wikipedia useful everyday, he won't bother in future.

[edit] Terminology: "Portal"

What exactly is a 'portal', as used in the article? It appears in the section on the TBM's, for example: "... one French TBM driving the service tunnel from Sangatte cofferdam to the French portal" User:Marzolian

Good question! The portals are the tunnel openings at either end, generally speaking (i.e. including all tunnel facilities). --Dhartung | Talk 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Then where were the 'cofferdams'? User:Marzolian
If I correctly understand the drilling method the French side used, they were a sort of pressure seal inside the tunnel that allows for removal of slurry without encouraging excessive seepage. But I'd rather leave it alone than muck it up, so if any of our other editors can explicate that better ... --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The term cofferdam hasn't anything to do with the TBMs used by the French contractors: the phrase is just a civil engineering term for a monstrous hole in the ground, with vertical sides. You can see an aerial photograph of the cofferdam that the wiki article is talking about here[22]. This cofferdam at Sangatte is where all the French TBMs started from in 1987, and is where they fed in tunnel segments and removed spoil for the next five years.
The French decided to excavate all the earth from ground level to track level (I think about 25 metres deep: I can check if it's wanted on the article rather than the talk page) in a huge, circular hole with vertical sides. Having built this, the French contractors were able to work all sorts of fast, flexible movements of TBM parts, tunnel segment delivery lines, spoil conveyors etc. when running their five TBMs simultaneously. The British contractors didn't built a cofferdam at Shakespeare Cliff (it would have been too deep to be cost-effective) and dragged all their TBMs through shafts and adits instead.
It's called a cofferdam because that's what civil engineers call a large excavation whose walls are vertical, supported by piles (I may be wrong in the nitpicking details of this but it's close enough for the purpose of explication). I think the original source of the word is from the shipbuilding industry, because the technique was developed to allow a relatively cheap, temporary wall (a 'dam' in the normal English sense of that word) to be built to hold back water from a dry dock where they were refitting a ship.
There are many more photographs of the Channel Tunnel's cofferdam at Sangatte on the website of the Amicale des Batisseurs du Tunnel sous la Manche [23] (this is a brilliant resource if you speak French, and they deserve every mention they can get!)
62.255.105.71 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal barriers?

I remember hearing about a system/technology being in place to stop animals making the crossing, due in large part to British concerns regarding rabies and other diseases present on the continent which are not found in the U.K. Does anyone know anything about this. It might be worth mentioning in the article. Grant65 | Talk 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's easy regarding wild animals, placing a cattle-grid in the the service tunnel. The rail tunnels are not passable by animals larger than rats, they would be quickly overrun. The biggest problem regarding rabies must be people hiding dogs in their cars. BIL 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I redirected per your all's comments. Thanks for your edit advice.Courtney Akins 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diesels

Quick question - can Diesel trains operate in the tunnel (DMU, DEMUs or Locos) - ie is there sufficient ventilation or is its just electric traction (ie 25 KV AC by OLE) ? Pickle 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Diesels can work in the rail tunnels but don't usually do so. The maintenance trains are mostly diesel powered, as you can't have people maintaining things in the tunnels with the OLE still live. The supplementary vent system (SVS) is operated when diesel trains are present. They ran diesel works trains throughout the last few years of construction (up to 1994) with the pollution cleared out by the SVS and NVS fans.
Regular diesel train services don't generally go through, mostly because the SVS fans have to be turned off when (I think) the train speeds exceed 100 kmh, and they need the SVS fans when diesels are running through. Train speeds have to be limited when the SVS fans are running because the pressure fluctuations from high-speed trains could damage the fans (it's a more severe version of the pain you sometimes feel in your ears when you're on a train going through a tunnel). There are probably also worries about the higher fire risk of diesel traction compared to electric traction.
Diesel trains could probably be regularly scheduled if they reduced the speed limit, but as they have a perfectly serviceable 25 kV system, they've decided not to.
The vehicles in the service tunnel are diesel powered, although they have emission scrubber systems (based on diesel locos in mines, which are very clean). The ventilation in the service tunnel runs all the time.
62.255.116.246 19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, i only ask because i read about freight trains (diesels) using the tunnel and i was trying to tie it all up. Pickle 20:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road tunnel (or bridge)

Are there any talk about the construction of a road tunnel (or bridge) ? It does not even seem to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Is the chapter about a second tunnel referring to a road tunnel ? The longest road tunnel today is 24 km, under the mountains. In Norway serious plans exist for a subsea road tunnel of 25 km. A Channel road tunnel can be less than 40 km since more steep grades are allowed. BIL 14:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No "serious" talk anywhere, mainly due to funding. I believe there may have been legal obligation in the original treaty (from the 1980s), but currently the chunnel is at no where near full capacity. Ferries are cheaper to use and allow longer breaks so as i understand a significant amount of lorry freight uses the boats. while stenna and P&O may have merged (at Dover), Seafrance still compete into Dover, and Norfolk line are running out of Ramsgate (and i think someone is running the odd ferry out of Folkestone?). Rail freight is almost no existent since the Sangattte saga (illegal immigrants invading the freight marshaling yard and smuggling themselves over here, and EWS's is losing the subsidy to run what little freight there is (in the news recently) so it may soon be atoned completely. With regional and night eurostars never taking place either, that only really leave the main eurostars and Le shuttles (ie cars). This is all massively compounded by Eurotunnel's huge debt structuring problems (again in news recently), they've been teetering on bankruptcy and debt write downs for years. So I'm pretty certain there are no plans at all in short and medium term, probably only there in the far distant future. Pickle 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I remember on one of those early morning educational shows they used to put on TV in the very early 90's mentioning a middle tunnel for cars (in reality the middle one is for services to the two rail tunnels). The show itself probably dated from the 80's or even 70's. I should think it would be quite difficult to ventilate so much carbon monoxide adequatley and would require a fourth tunnel to service the car tunnel in the event of a major crash (which would be a "when rather than if" scenario for certian). And of course border control would be so much harder than it is when considering a single train/ferry 86.158.27.179 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rail freight units

The article says "Rail freight carried through the Channel Tunnel increased by 8% to 1,889,175 in 2004." (statistics section). 1,889,175 what? Stones? Sewebster 01:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer is "tonnes". I have updated with 2005 figures, from Eurotunnel home page, saying 1,6 million tonnes for 2005.

[edit] Construction Dates ??

In the article: Construction on the service tunnel began on December 1, 1987 from both the UK and French shores, and on December 1, 1990 the service tunnels broke through at the halfway point.

I found:

1987 - 15th December - Boring of the service tunnel starts on the UK side. http://ww2.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcAboutUs/ukpHistory.htm

1988 - 28th February - Start of service tunnel boring on the French side. http://ww2.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcAboutUs/ukpHistory.htm PREMIER tunnelier arrivé sur le chantier fin janvier 1988 ,« Brigitte » alias T1, prototype des prototypes, a eu un démarrage difficile et une arrivée triomphale. Construit à Seattle (USA) par ROBBINS le tunnelier est arrivé au port de Calais le 28 janvier 1988 où il était attendu par tous les responsables de la Construction France et par la population Calaisienne curieuse et pleine d'espoir. Un mois plus tard le 28 février le T1 donnait sont premier tour de roue. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/batisseurs-tunnel/chap1.2.3.pdf T1 = tunnel de service sous mer http://perso.wanadoo.fr/batisseurs-tunnel/chap1.1.1.pdf Côté mer, le T1 démarre le premier, le 28 février 1988, dans le tunnel de service. A la date d'achèvement, le 1er décembre 1990, le point de jonction est passé de 13 800 mètres à 15 618 mètres, soit un allongement de 1 818 mètres côté français. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/batisseurs-tunnel/chap1.1.1.pdf

1st small breaktrough: October 30, 1990

Un forage horizontal, long de 100 mètres et de 56 millimètres de diamètre, fut donc attaqué depuis la tête de coupe du tunnelier britannique en direction du T1. Le 30 octobre 1990 un courant d'air historique - et bien sympathique - soufflait entre les deux pays. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/batisseurs-tunnel/chap1.1.1.pdf

Wdew 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

2006 is over, can anyone update '06 stats? 68.20.26.110 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Border

This text is in the Sovereignty section—which raises more questions than it answers:

The official border between France and the United Kingdom is marked by a stainless steel band, roughly halfway through the tunnel (the UK side is somewhat longer, because a longer part of the tunnel is on land).
  • Is the border in the tunnel meant to coincide with the border on the water above? Aren't there international waters above?
  • If the answer to the first point is "yes," is the placement of that border at the midpoint of the water?
  • "a longer part of the tunnel is on land"? I expect this means that there is more tunnel under the UK island than is under the continent?
  • Since there are three tunnels, are there three stainless steel bands?
  • What are the dimensions of that/those band(s)?
  • What purpose, if any, do(es) the band(s) serve? The fire article as well as most of the description could be interpreted to meant it is more trivia than anything, and that the entire tunnel is effectively the border.

—EncMstr 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The English channel is only 21 miles wide around the Dover - Calais area so there is no International waters (12 miles from each coast) presumably. One presumes the boundary is at the half way line between the UK and France where both countries agree the border is between the UK and France (because its less than 24 (12x2) miles wide), thus thats why there are these rings. A lot of its trivia, but as a country (the UK) without a land border, the media focused a lot on this at the time, and its probably just symbolism. Pickle 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] elevation profile

The article has these enticing tidbits:

  • The average depth is 150 feet (45 m) underneath the seabed.
  • …the tunnel follows a single chalk stratum…
  • For much of its route the tunnel is nearly 40 m (130 ft) under the sea floor, with the southern section being deeper than the northern.

Questions:

  1. How deep is the seabed?
  2. What are the extremes in depth below the seabed?
  3. Is the chalk stratum more or less level?
  4. Is the southern section deeper because the chalk stratum is deeper there?
  5. A diagram showing the depths along the line would be most helpful, along with the related reference features, like the slope of the seabed.

—EncMstr 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] location table

A bit of nit-picking: the table as it is now (17 June 2007) has an empty column ('Notes'). This looks untidy. I've tried to play with the PoI template, but all my attempted changes were making things only worse. Could somebody more familiar with WP tools & tricks tidy it up? --Jotel 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which side of the road does one drive on?

If the French drive on the right and the British drive on the left, which side does one drive on in the Chunnel? How do they negotiate the switch?

One doesn't drive in the Chunnel at all. One drives onto a train in which all cars are facing the same direction—it's always been forward for me. There is width for one line of vehicles. After driving off the train, there are roadsigns and lots of big arrows to remind of the change. —EncMstr 15:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
a) trains in the UK and France (except Alsace Lorraine) "drive" on the left.
b) the third tunnel, the maintainence tunnel does have service vehicles and i don't know the answer to that.
Pickle 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


b) third tunnel: special road vehicles capable of driving in both directions, made for Eurotunnel:
The fleet of service tunnel vehicles includes four types of machines: - 24 STTS (Service Tunnel Transport System) vehicles made by AEG Daimler Benz. This vehicle designed specifically for use in the Eurotunnel service tunnel has a driving cab and engine at each end. Between the two, different “pods” can be fitted onto the chassis, for maintenance, fire fighting, ambulance or the police. The vehicle is 10m long and cannot do a u-turn in the service tunnel, but it can be driven from either end.
http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcAboutUs/ukcCoreBusinessActivities/
Wdew 20:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
but the question, i think was getting at, was if two of these vehicles met head do they pass each other on the left or right ??? Pickle 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Left, I think. Coccodrillo 13:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Units (again)

Reading this artical was quite annoying, clearly someone obsessed with imperial has edited this to death, when has anyone ever used cubic yards? can we clean this up a bit? we dont need every single meurement on this page in dual mesurement, It is just a hassel to read. Detailing dimensions is easly understood in metric only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 15:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

its an old chestnut, i think it annoys some people on both sides of the metric-imperial divide and quiet frankly i couldn't care less. some old quote about sleeping dogs are best left alone ... ??? Pickle 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Cubic yards are used almost exclusively in U.S. construction, particularly for excavation and raw material transport. One would be looked at askance if one referred to cubic meters, for example at the dump truck rental garage: "I'd like a 5 cubic meter truck please." "A what?" Having both measurements is quite friendly; ignore the units you don't relate to. —EncMstr 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, cubic yards - often and confusingly abbrieviated to just 'yards' - are often used in buildings & grounds work parlance in the UK as well. For example, a friend of mine in Shropshire who had a large garden pond excavated a few years ago required "5 yards of sand" to line the hole and support the waterproof lining. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Migrants walking through the tunnel?

"Most migrants who got into Britain found some way to ride a freight train, but others simply walked."

Really? I know some migrants tried that once, but were caught after a short distance. I can't belive any illegal migrants sucessfuly walked the entire tunnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.97.161 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Depth info missing

In the rewrite a while back, the statistics on the depth of the tunnel seem to have been lost. This would seem to be a crucial piece of info. I was going to re-insert it but I couldn't find a suitable place for it, so I'll let someone else deal with it. The relevant section from the old article is:

The Channel Tunnel is 50.450 km (31.35 miles) long, of which 37.9 km (23.55 miles) are undersea. The
average depth is 45.7 m (150 ft) underneath the seabed, and the deepest is 60 m (197 ft).

Cosmo0 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a source for the average depth and added it to the article. I haven't found a source for maximum depth yet (although you could work it out from the geological cross-section diagram).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Tunnel

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 03:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which gauge?

For the infobox I am struggling to find a source for which gauge railway the tunnel uses, can anybody help?--Commander Keane (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! It was really hard to find—surprisingly so—unless the UIC standard (which is referenced all over http://www.eurostar.com) includes the track gauge. But this document specifies that the cars for the Channel Tunnel should be built for 1432 mm gauge track. I'd poke around more to figure out the context of the document, but the English parts weren't translated to whatever language (Russian maybe?) the rest of the site is written in. —EncMstr 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you mean the rail gauge, it's {{RailGauge|sg}} (1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in)), the same as outside the tunnel at both ends.--Jotel (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Author ref name misspellings

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)

Thanks I fixed the article.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Channel Tunnel}}

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)

I find the end sections a bit confusing so can't check them, but the diagram looks generally ok. The A16 motorway is missing on the French side. The diagram is pretty big, maybe a map equivalent that could be thumbnailed in the article would be better, I'm not sure.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History (at FAC)

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:

Although many ideas for a Channel tunnel or other crossing were floated for over a century prior to any construction, government construction began in 1974 but was soon halted, and commercial construction began in 1988 and was completed in 1994.

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)

[edit] Writing style

Some of the writing style in this article is overly technical rather than encyclopaedic prose. As an example this from the Engineering : Tunnelling section:

Precast segmental linings in the main TBM drives were used, but different solutions were used on the English and French sides. On the French side neoprene and grout sealed bolted linings made of cast iron or high strength reinforced concrete were used. On the English side the main requirement was for speed, bolting of cast iron lining segments was only carried out in areas of poor geology. In the UK rail tunnels eight lining segments plus a key segment were used, on the French side five segments plus a key segment were used.[51] On the French side a 55-metre (180 ft) diameter 75-metre (246 ft) deep grout-curtained shaft at Sangatte was used for access. On the English side a marshalling area was located 140 metres (459 ft) below the top of Shakespeare Cliff, the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) was first applied in the chalk marl here. On the English side the land tunnels were driven not from Folkestone but from the same place as the marine tunnels, Shakespeare Cliff. The platform at the base of the cliff was not large enough for all of the drives, and despite environmental objections tunnel spoil was placed behind a reinforced concrete sea wall at Shakespeare Cliff, under the condition of placing the chalk in an enclosed lagoon to avoid wide dispersal of chalk fines. Due to limited space the precast lining factory was located at the Isle of Grain in the Thames estuary.[50]

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)

[edit] Survey

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.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


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)