Talk:Rathole tunnel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This could become a great article, I'm not sure why it would have been deleted, I guess someone trigger happy might have done so if they didn't know the phrase (as I don't), and were unable to find any source/reference for the definition? Anyway, good job - just link in a reference just in case. Rcnet 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article needs some work to ensure that it gets the respect it deserves. The definition needs to be made more exact; there are a few non-sequiturs in it; there's a lot of space devoted to tunnels that aren't rat hole tunnels; and the section on how to avoid them seems to ignore some of the financial and practical realities of constructing railways.

If these issues could be addressed, the article could get more recognition.Afterbrunel 18:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It really just needs a good reference, because "rathole tunnel" as currently defined and explained seems made up upon first reading. If this term was widely used anywhere outside of Wikipedia, I don't know about it. —Rob (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I revise the gradient of the new Cascade tunnel from 1.7 to 1.6 after reviewing a number of articles which give the gradient as 1.6%. For more discussion see the Cascade Tunnel article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.45.169 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some links to prove that "rat hole" was a term used outside of Wikipedia.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

BTW the original "proposal to delete" was intended for *non-controversial* deletes, when it's obvious that something should get deleted. obviously this wasn't the case here. furthermore, once someone removes it, YOU MAY NOT PUT IT BACK -- which the original deleter violated. The idea is, if someone removes it, it's obviously not "non-controversial" so go use the standard AfD mechanism. Benwing (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)