Wikipedia

Talk:Channel Tunnel/Archive 3

< Talk:Channel Tunnel
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Jackiespeel in topic Channel Tunnel Study Group
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Cultural Reference Missing

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi.. The Tunnel was used very early on in its life for an action scene in the hugely successful US "Mission Impossible" Film Franchise.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.8.72 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See [1]; CGI tunnel, drawn over a pre-filmed section of a section of Scottish railway line. —Sladen (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The CGI tunnel used in the first "Mission Impossible" film is totally different from the real tunnel, it is a Hollywood version:
  • The train used is a TGV, not the Eurostar trains used for the real London-Paris/Brussels service.
  • The railway line in the film is not electrified. It has neither third rail nor overhead catenary. How is the train powered?
  • The train is running on the right. Trains run on the left in both Britain and France, and in the Channel Tunnel (except when one tunnel is closed for overnight maintenance).
  • The train is shown as having a baggage car accessable by passengers. These do not exist in real life.
  • The train is shown as having a door for access to the roof. Real High Speed trains do not have such a suicidal exit.
  • The tunnel is shown as one bore with two tracks in it (a train passes in the other direction at one point). The real tunnel has two single-track bores.
  • The helicopter blades would be wider than the train and would not fit in the tunnel, even assuming it could get behind the train without fouling the overhead catenary wires.

The whole sequence must have been made by people who did not do their research. TiffaF (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Hollywood is not in the business of depicting truth. That does not sell nearly as well as fantasy. —EncMstr (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Acronym City for the Uninitiated

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So another article is written for those who are conversant in the art. The rest of us have to assume what a TLA(Three Letter Acronym) and phrase depending on origin of education is supposed to refer to. Specifically the term 'rake'. Now , last I looked, a rake was used to grab the grass from a lawn, and/or a field of hay. But alas, there is another definition, and that is of a series of wagons hooked together. So since this is Wikipedia , I am adding the ambiguous portion to the first occurrence of the TLA, ao that it is more readable for the rest of us. Sigh, O.K. Rant over. Back to editing and learning about Euro* and the rails. Richard416282 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposals and attempts

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

'cost estimates had ballooned to 200%' - not clear. Can anyone fix? Regards, Notreallydavid (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Notreallydavid. I possibly added this fact to the article some time ago. I no longer have access to the source. When I re-read the sentence it means (to me at least) that the original cost of the project doubled from the time of commencing construction to a bit after commencing construction. If no one can fix for clarity feel free to remove the bit that doesn't make sense.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the cost had doubled then it would have been a 100% increase - original plus original is doubled which is a 100% increas on the original estimate. If the cost increased by 200% then the original cost had trebled - original + original + original. It is just basic mathematics! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.193.127 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Punch cartoon 1907

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not sure if there was a plan in this period but maybe this is useful. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Channel Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Channel Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Creep

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this article a number of "citation needed" flags have been added, creeping their way in. I would like to know who added them but the page history is rather dense. In a major edit in 2008 I made, everything was cited satisfactorily, in my opinion of course. Someone probably needs to compare the current version to the old version and replace the "citation needed" flags with a repeated citation.

An example: "1990 and 1994 predictions were overestimates" is cited in the old version but gets a "citation needed" flag in the current version.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Channel Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Channel Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Channel Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel introductory section, overlong and digressive

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comparing this article’s introductory section to other articles concerning feats of engineering and technology — like the Shinkansen article or the TGV article, say — it seems a little digressive and overlong while simultaneously lacking some detail. In favor of major facts which are omitted entirely (such as its safety record: only 10 incidents since its inauguration, all without serious injury), the introductory section suddenly dives into side-topics or digresses into the minutiae of subtopics which probably belong only in the later sections specific to those details… where further reading shows they are in fact already well-covered! This intro could be cleaned up, mostly with a tighter focus, maybe including more details as behooves an encyclopedia’s historic POV while also shortening it in other regards, all to the reader’s benefit. 66.167.64.114 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

1913 proposal

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've stumbled across this on eBay. No idea how significant it was at the time, but it does refer to a "deputation" to the British PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3A1:9700:F40D:A671:8FE7:7A38 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The information from the 'Key dates' box on the 'Origins' section of the article should be modified

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In my opinion regarding the information from the 'Key dates' box on the 'Origins' section of the article, a 'History' tab should be created within the article and the information from the 'Key dates' box on the 'Origins' section should be moved from the box to the 'History' tab as the alignment of the text within the 'Key dates' box is unprofessional in my opinion as the text is all over the place. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel and the effect on ferry routes and international train traffic

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

May I suggest a paragraph/section covering the Channel Tunnel's effect on the provision of cross-Channel and North Sea ferry routes. The following are a some of the routes to have closed since 1994:

Folkestone - Boulogne Folkestone - Calais Sheerness - Vlissingen Ramsgate - Dunkirk Harwich - Ostende Dover - Ostende (now only Hydrofoil) Harwich - Esbjerg (recent) Felixstowe - Zeebrugge Harwich - Hamburg (laterly Cuxhaven)

It is now no longer possible to get connecting ferries therefore to train services, e.g. Dover-Ostende used to connect with the Ostende - Vienna express which no longer runs. Now one would have to travel via Eurostar to Brussels and change several times to get to Vienna. International trains no longer arrive at Hoek van Holland and the Boat Train no longer runs from Liverpool St to Harwich Parkestone Quay (now renamed, ironically, 'International', despite the fact that there are fewer international links available from Harwich. 92.236.213.38 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing sig and date just added. Hope it will archive OK now. DBaK (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation for operation chart

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GraemeLeggett rightfully added a [citation needed] flag to the chart located at Channel_Tunnel#Operation.

However, previously File:Chunnel traffic.svg was in the article and that was fully cited on its image description page. This image is now out of date.

What is the solution?--Commander Keane (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

French name

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not sure where the relevant policy is, but to my knowledge things that have a native name different from the one commonly used in English have that native name mentioned in the lede, often in the first sentence. Given that the Channel Tunnel is a joint Anglo-French project, I think it's obvious the French name(s) should be mentioned in the lede, just like all local names are mentioned for the Gotthard Base Tunnel. And I'm pretty sure the Académie Française wouldn't let circumstances stand under which no Frenchmen is using a French name to refer to that (partially) French thing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: MOS:FOREIGN and its four sub-subsections. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
that doesn't address the issue at hand at all Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64: MOS:PLACE is probably the relevant one ("At the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, …"). —Sladen (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. And I don't want to make trouble but to still include the abomination "Chunnel" (used by no-one except w*nkers and journalists since 1643) whilst excluding the actual current French term for a thing with one end there would seem to me to be the height, or in this case depth, of wrongness. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel Study Group

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have a 36pp booklet issued by the CTSG in 1964 published by Whittaker, Hunt & Co Ltd., London: should this be added to the bibliography?

The rail option was considered the most practical - a bridge required international negotiations, would be a shipping hazard and was more costly, and a road tunnel would have problems with rush hour traffic and breakdowns.

Dr Richard Beeching (then of the British Railways Board) had a plan for 'Liner trains' to be used. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel:, better than just appending to the general bibliography is to extract factoids and specifically cite those. "Liner" usually refers to a container train. —Sladen (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sladen: Mainly because the booklet is likely to be fairly inaccessible - and further detail possibly too obscure for Wikipedia (and not one of my areas of expertise).Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Channel_Tunnel/Archive_3&oldid=1181125314"