Jump to content

Talk:Tunnel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary
~~~~ Zoomeri: discussion of economics analysis
Line 54: Line 54:
"In Victorian times, it was anticipated that going through a dark tunnel in a train at high speed (30 mph) would be such a shocking experience that people would come out the other side irreversibly damaged."
"In Victorian times, it was anticipated that going through a dark tunnel in a train at high speed (30 mph) would be such a shocking experience that people would come out the other side irreversibly damaged."
--[[User:Brz7|Brz7]] 22:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
--[[User:Brz7|Brz7]] 22:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

== Need for economics comparison section ==

This article could be made more useful to those studying transportation systems if it included a section detailing tunnel economics versus economics of other transport systems such as surface roadways, surface trains, elevated railways, etceteras... Several cities have had costly underground commercial transportation tunnels built (e.g. London Post Office Railway and the very lengthy Chicago Tunnel System) that subsequently closed due to poor economics. What changed between conception, construction and closure? Were the original economic analysis faulty, did other transportation systems become more cost competitive, or did the original tunnel system contract customers cease operations (such as discontinuation of coal deliveries in Chicago after the advent of gas heating)? In an increasing congested urban environment such economic analysis would benefit those studying, planning or implementing urban transportation systems.
[[Special:Contributions/206.47.191.132|206.47.191.132]] ([[User talk:206.47.191.132|talk]]) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Zoomeri

Revision as of 16:21, 11 December 2007

WikiProject iconBridges and Tunnels B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

=Small Edit Note

I edited *The Fredhälls Tunnel in Stockholm, Sweden is busier yet (150,000) but there are probably even more busy tunnels to*The Fredhälls Tunnel in Stockholm, Sweden is busier yet (150,000) because it was unverfiable and thefore invalid by the rules of Wiki.--WngLdr34 01:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime Tunnels

I suppose someone intended to fill in this section, then forgot about it...I'm inclined to remove the section since in its current form, it is not that informative, but maybe someone else wants to have a go at adding some information :P -- Ferkelparade π 19:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I removed the following section:

==Wartime tunnels==
  • Castles, sappers
  • trench warfare: Crimea, US Civil War, WWI
  • Germany WWII, V2 factories, slave labor
  • North Korea, infiltrators, midget subs...
  • Japan, Corregidor, etc. (Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon?)
  • Vietnam, tunnel rats ("Platoon"?), spider holes
  • Cold War: nuclear bunkers, etc.

The section does have some potential, but in its current state, it is totally useless :p If anybody wants to have a go at expanding it to something useful, I can see it growing into something pretty interesting, but a simple to-do-list with lots of question marks does not really belong in an article. -- Ferkelparade π 09:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oldest?

As of early August 2005 the article says the oldest tunnel is the Saperton. The Romans built aqueducts in tunnels 2000 years ago. And there were even older underground water conduits in mesopotania. -- Geo Swan 14:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, that wasn't the intention. The sections are merely a means of categorizing notable tunnels based on what is notable about them, other than that they are someone's favorite tunnel in the country of choice. I've renamed the one in question.
If you feel it is noteworthy, please consider adding the above information to the list. Davilla 18:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally it would appear that the Babalonyians built a tunnel under the Euprhates River c. 2180 B.C. see www.answers.com/topic/tunnel --Bgrainger 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan Straits tunnel?

The Jingtai Expressway article reports that plans are under consideration for a road link between Beijing and Taipei, including a possible tunnel under the Taiwan Straits from the Chinese mainland (likely Fujian province, according to the article). If this is confirmed, surely it might be notable on the topic of tunnels. --Dpr 16:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longest?

I suggest we remove the listing of the St. Gotthard Tunnel from the list of the longest tunnels, as there is already a longer road tunnel listed. --ZorroIII 22:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add more info on the possible plans of contructing a tunnel and/or bridge across to the other side elsewhere? I am quite curious as to whether any steps have been taken to decide to build infrastructure links across the:

Anyone with inside knowledge on any of these? I've posted similar requests elsewhere. Gruesome Twosome! 8v] //Big Adamsky 10:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tunnel experience

Wanted to insert the following, but the current article is not yet receptive for history/social sciences. "In Victorian times, it was anticipated that going through a dark tunnel in a train at high speed (30 mph) would be such a shocking experience that people would come out the other side irreversibly damaged." --Brz7 22:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for economics comparison section

This article could be made more useful to those studying transportation systems if it included a section detailing tunnel economics versus economics of other transport systems such as surface roadways, surface trains, elevated railways, etceteras... Several cities have had costly underground commercial transportation tunnels built (e.g. London Post Office Railway and the very lengthy Chicago Tunnel System) that subsequently closed due to poor economics. What changed between conception, construction and closure? Were the original economic analysis faulty, did other transportation systems become more cost competitive, or did the original tunnel system contract customers cease operations (such as discontinuation of coal deliveries in Chicago after the advent of gas heating)? In an increasing congested urban environment such economic analysis would benefit those studying, planning or implementing urban transportation systems. 206.47.191.132 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Zoomeri[reply]