Talk:Channel Tunnel

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.