Talk:Mount Royal Tunnel

Intresting

This article is very interesting. I got here from "random article." I wonder if anyone lives by the tunnel and is reading this that might be able to provide an image or two? Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

After X number of days the electronic editions of the Montreal Gazette become no longer available. A more permanent reference needs to be found for Mount Royal Tunnel#Purchase of line by AMT. Peter Horn.2 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

While it's nice to have online sources, it is not a requirement. There is nothing wrong with having a full reference to a newspaper article that is not online. Unfortunately the Gazette references were not properly cited. We don't know the date of either article, and for one we don't even know the author. I've added a CN media release to cover some of the missing material. Meters (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Royal 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316081603/http://www.montrealgazette.com/purchases%20Deux%20Montagnes%20rail%20line%20from%20million/9564065/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/purchases%20Deux%20Montagnes%20rail%20line%20from%20million/9564065/story.html

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) 21:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The structure gauge

A structure gauge of 14 feet 6 inches (4.42 m) was too low for the former rolling stock. the coaches were 14 feet 6 inches (4.42 m), not to mention the pantograph and the electrification. About 16 feet 6 inches (5.03 m) at the tracks would be more like it. Peter Horn User talk 01:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Indefatigable: Where did you get the 14 feet 6 inches (4.42 m)? That was the loading gauge Peter Horn User talk 00:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox tunnel#For rail Peter Horn User talk 01:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Horn, I do not remember adding that to the article, but I have found the edit where I did so, 5 years ago. The measurement was already in the article at that time, second paragraph of the lead section, and called "structure gauge", so I only copied it from that section to the infobox that I added. I admit I was fuzzy on the difference between structure and loading gauge until now, and I probably did not check the referenced source for the measurement when I added the infobox. Thank you for finding and correcting this error. Indefatigable (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Indefatigable By now the reconstruction of the Réseau express métropolitain has reduced the structure gauge making it impossible for Via Rail to use the tunnel. Peter Horn User talk 23:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)