Talk:Channel Tunnel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

{{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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed merge from Channel Tunnel fire

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)

The safety features section of the fire article is the one that could most easily be merged into this article—and IMHO this article is short on the security features. I'm not very familar with both articles, having just stumbled upon the fire article. If you want to split articles, go ahead.--Oneiros (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking to split articles, I was asking for your reasoning in merging data into a long article against the WP:LENGTH guideline. Exceptions in article length can be allowed, but it is always nice to know the reason why an exception is proposed.

Now that you have provided an explanation I will leave it to editors more familiar with the topic whether they agree that "this article is short on the security features." Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Top five list for accessibility imporovement?

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)

2006 Channel Tunnel fire

(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)

The article has had a line on this 2006 fire for some time (eg at least since March 2008). However, when the 2008 fire occurred it was called the second fire (incorrectly, it is the third fire I believe). I have tried to fix these errors.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why England -> France instead of France -> England?

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)

I think with preferential things like this there are two factors: the Wikipedia article should use what reliable sources use, and if an article currently has an arbitrary preference, leave it alone. I am not sure what reliable sources should be consulted, but Britannica says between England and France, but I suppose if you consult English language sources you will get a bias, so perhaps leave it alone.--Commander Keane (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is making a fuss about nothing. I'm not personally aware of any convention re mainland->islands, it only depends on where you start from. It would make sense to me to keep the current arrangement on the basis that it is logical that an English language article should be written from the perspective of an English speaking nation.

One final minor point: England is not an island. Britain is. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Chunnel

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)

No more "There have been n fires..." statements

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)

Please clarify "LADOGS"

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)

Thanks. That's interesting information, but unfortunately it says they are "known as LADOGS" and doesn't explain why. I found a definition here that says it stands for "Low Altitude Drive on Ground" but I don't know if that applies; that's just a random website and also Edgepedia's link says they are "derived from commercial runabouts used extensively in Europe", so perhaps it is a European acronym. (It would make sense if it was in French.) Lessthanideal (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tables with traffic figures

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)

I put up the update request at the file's Talk page.--Rontombontom (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo error in 'History / Proposals and attempts' ?

One paragraph of this section contains statements which appear to contradict themselves:

"The cross-Channel ferry industry protested under the name "Flexilink". In 1975 there was no campaign protesting against a fixed link, with one of the largest ferry operators (Sealink) being state owned. 'Flexilink continued rousing opposition throughout 1986 and 1987......" (my emphasis).

Should the first portion not have read: "In 1975 there was a campaign....." ? --HarryZilber (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see any contradiction or ambiguity here. In context the article makes clear that there were two separate attempts, the 1975 one and the Thatcher-era proposals. Reading the article as a whole rather than a sentence or two in isolation makes the distinction between the two. The earlier attempt received no opposition but the later attempt did. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent reorganisation

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)

I think the changes have been helpful. However I have enhanced the introduction because 95% of the article is historical, and while some readers will be interested in that, it seems to me we should give a general description first about what the tunnel is and does. --Afterbrunel (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of "chunnel" (again)

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:

• Its usage has been discussed several times on this talk page with no strong concensus for or against.
• A quick google news search shows the continued use of "chunnel" in very recent publications such as The Wall Street Journal and TIME Magazine.
• As "chunnel" currently redirects to this article, it would be helpful to maintain the reference to "chunnel" in the lede so that the reader understands why they were redirected.

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)

Good call. I'm an Englisman and I use the term frequently when referring to the tunnel and the widespread use fo teh term is worthy of note in an encyclopaedic article IMO. HJMitchell You rang? 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It does not take too much searching to find many references from "reliable" sources. For example, typing "chunnel" into the search engine at the Guardian website finds 27 hits over the last five years in that paper alone. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

18/19 December 2009 incidents

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)

Not clear - some news reports say that eurotunnel does not send out rescue locomotives until asked, and that they were not asked for several hours.. (Another even has an un-named eurotunnel person criticising eurostar for not having their own rescue locomotives). Either of those can be taken with a pinch of salt until confirmed (by the enquiry which I look forward to...)

Also note that according to reports one train was not evacuated by eurostar - but the doors were forced open by passengers (guided by off-duty policemen) when they started to run out of air ie the decision to evacuate was not eurostars..

Additionally another report says that passengers were moved onto a rescue train, and then had to sit there, still in the tunnel, for 5 hours.

The simplest explanation is that this is a "royal british balls up".Shortfatlad (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

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)

?The tunnel is "underneath the surface of the sea" ... Shortfatlad (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Undersea tunnel or marine tunnel or subterranean tunnel or sub seafloor tunnel: There really isn't a reason to distinguish much between these. If it weren't below the sea floor, it wouldn't be a tunnel—instead, it would be a tube. Shortfatlad, what would you call it instead? —EncMstr (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing - as far as I can tell the tunnel fits into the definition of undersea tunnel supplied by Sj122 - hence my leading question mark - I don't think there is a problem.Shortfatlad (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh "sub-sea bed tunnel" (or is that "sub-sea-bed" or "sub sea-bed" )seems to be the phrase to use if people want to change it..87.102.82.88 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Section rolling stock

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)

The central service tunnel is used with double-ended electric/diesel rubber-tyred vehicles. These are electrically guided, but are road-based, not trains. As far as "rescue trains" akin to the Swiss LRZ NT (Fire Fighting and Rescue Train)—there aren't any par-se for the Channel Tunnel. Stock used for rescue efforts have included Class 373 EMUs, Passenger Shuttle rakes and Eurotunnel's various locomotives. I don't recall having heard of Class 92 locomotives being used in the situations thus far, but these would might be situation aswell. —Sladen (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Channel tunnel freight

• copied from User talk:Sladen#Channel tunnel freight at request[4] of User:Shortfatlad

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)

The only electric locomotives currently allowed (and suitably equipped) to traverse the Channel Tunnel under their own power are the Eurotunnel Class 9, British Rail Class 373 Power Car and British Rail Class 92 locomotive. Before the final delivery of the Class 92s, nine SNCF Class BB 22200 locos were temporally used; and in addition, two British Rail Class 319 also made a pair of (one-off) return VIP trips through in 1993.

You can't just send any old locomotive through the Chunnel; the catenary is higher than normal (because of clearances for the RO-RO Shuttle wagons), the train requires TVM430 cab compatible signalling (with an even more special Eurotunnel parameter set), Eurotunnel network-compatible radio (trunked UHF), special post-derailment lifting points; then all of the extra requirements laid down by the Inter-Governmental Commission (fire suppression, dual redundancy—basically two locomotives in one bodyshell).

All of these requirements are laid down in the publicly available Eurotunnel Network Statement[5]; the necessary sections are 4.1.4 (signalling), 4.2.1 (Class 92) and Appendix 2 ("Technical Specifications Concerning the Rolling Stock").

[6] (page 15) notes that the "through the tunnel" sections are hauled by Class 92s [only]. Were there any further queries you had? —Sladen (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you use the articles talk page for the feedback - it may help others. I almost didn't see this response since I was only watching the talk page of Channel Tunnel.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

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)

Please do! —Sladen (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done The bot should start in the next 24 hours.--Oneiros (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009 - Snow

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)

Indeed. My personal intention was going to be to wait a couple of weeks until new information had died down and we've got a fuller picture—then to work out what belongs on the British Rail Class 323 article, the Eurostar article, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the Channel Tunnel articles. It's possible that when any reports come out in the next month, that the event may be notable for its own article—which might help to solve the issue of how to split the bits up (or perhaps collate it all on December 2009 European snowfall). —Sladen (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Permitted locomotives

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)

OK, the above is frivolous but there is a serious point behind it. It seems to me that, in an emergency, ordinary diesel locos such as British Rail Class 66 and British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul) should be allowed to enter the tunnel for rescue duties. The Class 70s would be particularly suitable because they are new and have been built to comply with the latest diesel emission standards. Biscuittin (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

More on snow

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)

Eurostar Independent Review

The actual report is available at:

• http://www.eurostarindependentreview.org/pdf/Eurostar%20Independent%20Review.pdf

—Sladen (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added a ref to the article. Biscuittin (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation 8, page 67, refers to "insufficient rescue locomotives". I still cannot understand why Class 66 and Class 70 locomotives are not allowed to enter the tunnel in an emergency. Is it just bureaucracy? Biscuittin (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess:

1. Lack of Diesel exhaust scrubbers
2. Lack of TVM430 signalling
3. Lack of Scharfenberg Type 10 couplers

Never mind the issue of trying to procure one at short notice. —Sladen (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How about what you might have called 'fire proofing', or these days 'fire control and mitigation measures'? Edgepedia (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that there seems to be no attempt to balance one risk against another. The important thing is to get the failed train out of the tunnel as quickly as possible. Lack of Diesel exhaust scrubbers is hardly a major problem - think of the road tunnels under the Alps. Lack of TVM430 signalling - the rescue locomotive should proceed slowly until the driver can see the failed train. Lack of Scharfenberg Type 10 couplers - this can be handled by barrier wagons. Why can't they use a bit of imagination? Biscuittin (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The tunnel has just grown from 50 km to 104 km. Is this vandalism? Biscuittin (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It has been reverted. This article seems to be a very popular playground for vandals. Biscuittin (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We have had more vandalism today. Should we put some editing restrictions on this article? Biscuittin (talk) 17:51, 23 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)

Train Failures section - nothing short of madness

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 1996 Channel Tunnel fire article contains roughly 4,000 words (not 36 words).

Deleted material and citations[7]:

---

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. ... Of the five Class 373 trains and two turned back:

1. 18:59 Brussels–London (9157); towed to London St Pancras by a Eurotunnel diesel locomotive. Delay of 3 hours 49 minutes.
2. 18:43 Paris–London (9053); 700 passengers evacuated via service tunnel to an empty Eurotunnel shuttle train in opposite running tunnel. Passengers taken to Ashford International railway station, for conventional trains to London. Late into London by 12 hours, arriving at 08:00 the next morning.
3. 19:13 Paris–London (9055); Coupled to adjacent 20:13 Eurostar train behind and dragged out by diesel locomotive, then continued to London. Hauled to Folkestone and picked up passengers from 20:13 Paris service behind it.
4. 19:37 Disneyland–London (9057); 664 passengers evacuated via service tunnel to an empty Eurotunnel shuttle train in opposite running tunnel and taken via France.
5. 20:13 Paris–London (9059); Coupled to adjacent 19:13 Eurostar train in front, passengers transferred to the earlier 19:13 train for journey to London or taken via Folkestone and transported in five coaches by road to London.
6. 20:29 Brussels–London (9163), held at Calais then turned back to Brussels before reaching the Channel Tunnel.
7. 21:13 Paris–London (9063), held at Calais then turned back to Paris before reaching the Channel Tunnel.

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". The Channel Tunnel reopened at 05:40 CET the following morning.

References

---

Coverage by mainstream media is what makes something WP:NOTABLE, not any one individual's personal opinion of its relevance. Some of this information ("first evacuation of a Eurostar in the tunnel"; "both main tunnels blocked"; "five simultaneous failed trains") is arguably quite pertinent... —Sladen (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously referring to coverage within this article, not the dedicated sub-article, which is a simple 36 word line of text. Considering it was the first major failure of the Channel Tunnel, it might be equally pressing to mention that directly, and equally notable as well, but it isn't mentioned here, it is left to the relivant sub-article covering the event in full detail. I'm looking for a justifiable reason why this deserves all this extra content that the other incidents do not have, unless this is effectively 20 times more significant why does it need to take up 80% of the entire Train Failures section, isn't this unbalanced against the other events? Either they need to be expanded, as there were PLENTY of articles covering the 1996 failure, or more likely, this needs to be trimmed down to a more conventional size just as the calls on Eurostar saw the same thing happening. This talk page already logs that it is grossly out of proportion in the opinion of other users. Finally, just because something is covered by the mainstram media in great detail means it belongs precisely here, a proper sub article for full elaboration would be more suitable for...full elaboration. There isn't any need to bloat the section too much, when it isn't dramatically above-and-beyond previous incidents listed, it just happens to be recent and sadly that tends to mean it gets jam-packed with a heavy commentry of the event. The sizing isn't great now, but it is at least approaching decency and a capable level. Do remember that this is supposed to be a summarising section of all the events, not just the one; I'm sure you can recognise that there is something wrong with the level of coverage between the 2009 failure and any other failure of the Channel Tunnel either before or since. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of the minute-by-minute coverage, even though it violates WP:Not News by its excessive depth, as long as the other sections have the same kind of coverage. Else it looks silly, to put it simply and bluntly; the reason for this is best put by the policy I linked: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" Simply because it exists, does not mean the section should be jammed with the stuff, as that size it should be spun off to an appropriate daughter page. Kyteto (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just though I'd leave a notewhen I noticed you though I was referring to the Channel Tunnel Fire of 1996. I was referring to the 1996 train failures cause by the cold weather. Why does one incident, the first and not exactly minor in comparison with the 2009 incident, deserve far more coverage than the other; they're both major failures of multiple trains on the same reason, both got very heavy coverage from the press. The answer is that Wikipedia wasn't around in 1996, in 2009 it was, people threw up tons of unnecessary data because it happened to be there; I'd argue unless the 1996 coverage of the cold weather failures is to a similar proportion to the 2009 cold weather failures, there's something wrong and unbalanced about our coverage, thrown towards the present and near-present and negelecting the past. Both need to be fairly similar in size, as they are fairly similar incidents. Kyteto (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

wrong coordinates for the chunnel exit

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)

Chunnel

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

Apparently that's not true. Within the last two years, the Mirror called it that, several news items, and several British wikieditors. —EncMstr (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is one of those issues where the few who do use the term are more vocal about the issue than the majority who don't use the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.176.39 (talk) 21:55, 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)

Re. References and sources - quoting American publications that perpetuate the word Chunnel, is not a justification for its description as a colloquial term. If you want to weigh up the sources that refer to "Chunnel" and the sources that describe it as "the Channel Tunnel", look no further than the REST of the list of references on this page!--621PWC (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Another case of a word used almost exclusively by tabloid newspapers: tot, Mucca, Becks, etc. etc. Since none of the sources actually say it's a colloquial term, I'm going to change the text to "sometimes referred to as [] by media sources", though given its very irregular incidence, I don't think even that's noteworthy enough for the introduction.FrFintonStack (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a sensible edit.--621PWC (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Two of three references given are not media sources. To say 'media sources' without a reliable source is just as much orginal research as to say it's colloquial. Edgepedia (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that I have never heard anyone refer to it as the Chunnel in everyday speech.FrFintonStack (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The same for me, and I know a few English people who use it quite often. I am pretty sure it's the same phenomenon as the Warsaw Treaty which morphed into a "pact" to fit the headlines – with the difference that people didn't think about that and simply followed the newspapers, while everybody can see "chunnel" is a silly made-up word. Hans Adler 20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing here is called orginial research. Looking at the reliable source, The Mirror called it the Chunnel this morning. [8]. The BBC called it the Chunnel at the beginning of September [9]. Yes I know they're media sources, but there's a book [10] and more than a couple of websites (http://www.chunnel.org.uk/, http://www.chunneltrainlondonparis.com/chunnel-prices.html). Edgepedia (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The popular media are perpetuating all kinds of silly misconceptions about language such as Eskimos having many words for snow and whatnot. If you want to claim that normal people use the word you need a dictionary. And original research is perfectly appropriate so long as it is used to keep false claims out of articles. It's called editorial discretion. We are not obliged to copy every lie or stupidity into our articles. Hans Adler 14:53, 8 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)

Have changed text to read: "also nicknamed by some media sources as the Chunnel". There would be no justification for not retaining this clarification as it would otherwise perpetuate a truly inaccurate assertion. As someone who had some involvement with aspects of this project right from the beginning, I can assure other editors that my edit reflects reality, rather than some distant and inaccurate perception.--621PWC (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was unhappy with the sources, as they just referred to the chunnel without defining it, so I popped into a bookshop and found the Oxford Dictionary of English "Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd Edition Revised ed.). OUP Oxford. 11 August 2005. ISBN 3411021446." which defines Chunnel as an informal name for the Channel Tunnel. It goes on to say that the word was coined in the 1920s, but has been common since the 1950s. My dictionary "Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus. HarperCollins. 3 April 2006. ISBN 9780007235773. {{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)

(I knew something like this had to happen. Sorry if I caused it.) In case you are not aware, dictionaries are of course notoriously behind the times, and typically don't reflect current usage. The problem is this: Currently a reader of this article will easily get the message that they will sound cool if they use the "informal" word "Chunnel". This may even be true in an American context. But this is a highly unusual word for an informal conversation (i.e. what most people would understand "used informally" to refer to). If you use it in a serious context without some irony markers, you have a good chance that someone will stare at you for a fraction of a second. We are not doing our readers a service if we encourage them to replace a perfectly acceptable word by a questionable one. Therefore I am now going to add the word "sometimes". I am sure that is not in violation of any rules against original research, and it's simply necessary for accuracy. Hans Adler 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

...from your point-of-view. Other people (FWIW, I live in the UK at the moment) quite happily hear, and will use "Chunnel". The one that really bugs me is the use of the brandname "High Speed 2" (HS2) when legally and technically the line between St Pancras and the Chunnel is the "Channel Tunnel Rail Link" (CTRL). —Sladen (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Ooops, I seem to have used "Chunnel" there... perhaps, just perhaps, it's actually in normal daily use informally.

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)

WP:V ("verifiability, not truth"). Regardless of the truth, the use of "Chunnel" is provable. It is not "just some media outlets", as a quick hop over to Google Book Search[11] and Google Scholar[12] verifies. The OED is there as a citation that "Chunnel" is there as an informal use (back to the 1920s); it is neither a fad, or something new. If you want to verify recent use (in addition to historical use) then Google News[13] shows the most recent use as nine hours ago. —Sladen (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: 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. Why on earth certain editors - presumably not from the UK - insist on perpetuating this nonsense is bewildering. The list of references on this page which do NOT mention this nickname vastly outweigh the small number of sources that do. I am not saying don't use the term, I am saying do not suggest that it is in common or colloquial use. --621PWC (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I live in the UK. Next question. —Sladen (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you must know that what has been adequately described in this thread is correct. Outside the tabloid journalist use, the term is NOT commonly used by the population at large. Reliable Sources: 100 of the 102 sources quoted on this page do not use the term. Reliable Source #1: a search of the official channel tunnel website, www.eurotunnel.com reveals not a single use of the word Chunnel, even in press releases. 621PWC (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My observations on the use of "Chunnel" appear to be at odds to yours; however, this is not really a problem because the need to WP:V + WP:CITE both trump personal or gut feelings. As has been noted twelve lines up,[14][15] non-news media reliable sources are easy to come by; if you believe there is an imbalance in the current selection of citations used, please add more to ensure a better balance. —Sladen (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC) (And if you're worried specifically about the population at large then we all know these are Daily Mail readers who are familiar with such terminology[16]).

VERIFIABILITY! You keep quoting it, but don't accept it yourself! Verifiably, most sources quoted do NOT use the term. RELIABLE SOURCES: 100 out of 102 sources on this page, do NOT use the term. Eurotunnel itself - not just the source, but the horse's mouth! - does NOT use the term. Google the term Chunnel! Of the few obvious references to Chunnel on the first page, most of the references come from American sites. WP:V + WP:CITE indeed both trump YOUR personal or YOUR gut feelings! The current rephrasing of the reference should be a perfectly acceptable edit. --621PWC (talk) 21:44, 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)

Surely we have arrived at a consensus view: 1) Chunnel is a word that is in use; 2) everyone agrees that it is a word used by various media outlets; 3) the editors who have joined this discussion do not agree whether it is in common/everyday use or not; 4) the current edit is written from a neutral point of view - it acknowledges the agreed facts but does not use the disputed description. There is nothing lost from the article by the current edit.--621PWC (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the current wording implies that only media outlets use it, which is misleading. It's too early to decalre a consensus yet, as it's still under dispute. - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It's still not good enough. Part of the problem is giving prominence to a disputed nickname right there in the opening paragraph. How about a short paragraph further down in the body of the text about the Channel Tunnel in popular culture and the media? Reference could then be made to the nickname and its use promoted in the media?--621PWC (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My general understanding of WP:BRD and similar policies is that if an editor finds themselves reverted, they do not attempt to reapply the disputed changes—that somebody has (and has been further reverted a second time) I find quite and unusual and disturbing. I would prefer if we could have the long-standing wording restored until such a point as there is consensus to positively alter it. —Sladen (talk) 00:09, 9 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)

(edit conflict)The important thing is not to focus on the individual contributions to the previous discussion (you will always be able to find some reply to support your viewpoint), but to look at the outcome and consensus of that previous discussion when it came to a close. Chances are that this discussion will end up going in a similar direction (whatever direction that is). —Sladen (talk) 02:52, 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)

That's exactly my problem as well. My educated guess is that it's a matter of sociolect, possibly also with regional variations. I'm a non-native speaker of English and tend to have my ears wide open for native speakers' usage so that I can correct my own. One of the many things I learned during my two years at an English university was that contrary to my expectations "Chunnel" was not at all current among the people around me, even though it is shorter than "Channel Tunnel" or "Eurotunnel". This discussion shows that I am not the only one with this impression.

There is no denying that the American press and part of the English press are using the word. Obviously I can't deny that some (perhaps many) in Britain consider it a normal word. I haven't done a survey on this. Most likely nobody has. But it's misleading to call this a "colloquial" word if some people who have no problem saying "fuck" in a normal conversation still avoid the word "Chunnel", while presumably for many the reverse holds. "Colloquial" is simply not the right category. Which is why I argue for saying that some people call the thing the "Chunnel".

The current version is correct in my opinion but way too verbose. Wikipedia generally has an unfortunate tendency to give undue weight to trivial naming issues in the lead, but bloating the first sentence in this way is taking it to extremes. Hans Adler 07:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's just paraphrase the reliable source(s) folks. If you disagree with the OED, or every other dictionary I've checked, perhaps you could write to those? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Edgepedia (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

+1 —Sladen (talk) 23:57, 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)

EuroBridge

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)

Sorry for the delayed reply. If you are referring to "Eurobridge: a 4.5 km (2.8 mi) span suspension bridge", this just means that the span is 4.5km long in the middle to allow ships to pass. Presumably the rest of the bridge would be causeway - with numerous very small spans (eg File:Causeway North.jpg).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical opinion of ERA regarding the conclusions of the IGC

The European Railway Agency have published their technical opinion in regard to queries made by the Channel Tunnel Inter-Governmental Commission (the IGC):

• European Railway Agency (2011-03-21). "Technical opinion of ERA regarding the conclusions of the IGC letter of 31st March 2010" (PDF) (ERA/OPI/2011-05). European Union: 1–44. Retrieved 2011-04-13. {{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)

Toll?

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)

You mean fare? Strange to hear it described as a toll. However, its not in the article because we avoid giving pricing information, see WP:NOPRICES. In this case the price would depend on a number of factors and the service compared to the ferry is different, making it difficult, if not impossible, to do a comparison without it being original research. 22:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing incident in the Chunnel ?

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)

"Several problems"

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)

I guess I don't understand. Are those not all problems the tunnel has faced? Why should there not be a mention of historical problems?

Maybe you missed the tense?: It does not say the tunnel faces several problems. —EncMstr (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate faith?

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)

The article actually discusses this - in the last couple of paragraphs in the Tunnelling section:

• "Towards the completion of the undersea drives, the UK TBMs were driven steeply downwards and buried clear of the tunnel."
• "The French TBMs then completed the tunnel and were dismantled".

--Commander Keane (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)