Talk:Tunnel

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bridges and Tunnels Top‑importance This 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Gutenberg has "Tunneling: A Practical Treatise" by Charles Preleni with public domain full text and illustrations. Many of the illustrations would work for this article. A description of the history of tunneling, construction process, finding the center line, how to join up a tunnel dug from each end, ... would be helpful for this article. Adding a link to the public domain book would help. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:BC70:D931:6D17:23A5 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)

This claim also made in NY Times on 1990-12-02, and at [2], [3] and [4], although the later has a comment "every reference I have found to date seems to stem from this article". Open4D (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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:

• Strait of Messina
• Fehmarn Belt
• Cook Strait
• Palk Strait
• Strait of Tartary
• Irish Sea
• Strait of Bonifacio
• Surigao and San Bernardino Straits
• Hainan Strait
• Strait of Georgia
• Kvarken
• Chacao Channel
• Strait of Magellan
• Bering Strait

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]

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]

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]

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]

'Railway tunnel' and 'Rail tunnel' should not redirect to this article. They should have their own article. For example, Channel Tunnel. 'Tunnel' is too broad. WinterSpw (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need. Bridges and tunnels can be classified many ways, including age, continent, type of barrier crossed, materials, size, and traffic carried. The way this article classifies them is by construction method, and each type is used for more than one kind of traffic. There's no more need for a separate narrative about rail tunnels than for one about South American tunnels or road tunnels or stone bridges or 18th century bridges or tunnels between 5 and 10 meters wide. At most, someone might seek mere list articles, broken down in these various ways. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source [5] suggests it's becoming cheaper to build multiple thinner tubes rather then one thicker tube. Probably should be added to the article, if more sourcing can be found Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some civic planners define a tunnel as 0.1 miles (0.16 kilometers) in length or longer, while anything shorter than this should be called a chute.

This isn't sourced and it isn't clear how wide spread this definition is. Given that the definition is rather adhoc in any case, it seems more likely to me that someone in a country where metric predominates would use some like 150 metres or 200 metres rather then 160. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind any WikiProject taking an interest in any article however tenuous the relation between the project and the subject matter at hand. So for WikiProject Bridges to adopt this article I have no objection. It's a little odd, that's all. However, for the article itself to be categorized into Category:Bridges I am concerned, and all the more so since there is not one word in the article which discusses this. If there is a tradition among architects and transportation planners to define a tunnel as a bridge, then that must be detailed and documented. If not, the category should not include this article.

I became aware of this situation as I was attempting to see if a tunnel could be categorized by year of opening. If the above connection can be made, perhaps it would be prudent to rename the Category:Bridges by date to Category:Bridges and tunnels by date? __meco (talk)

I only tagged it because of the categorization. I will note, however, that there is no firm line between the two; a cut-and-cover tunnel, for instance, can be considered a bridge, as can a tunnel through a huge railroad fill. --NE2 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good many tunnels have a Bridge WikiProject, including this one. I support that choice. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about tunnels made by other creatures such as spiders, rabbits, moles etc? This seems solely dedicated to human-engineered tunnels. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 12:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of articles about such tunnels? __meco (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved these here because I fail to see how they're notable. Probably should have deleted them outright but I'm not logged in. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sydney Harbour Tunnel in Sydney, Australia was built in 1992 to augment the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
• The Clyde Tunnel in Glasgow, Scotland, connects the districts of Whiteinch and Govan in the west of the city.

The Cobble Hill and Murray Hill Tunnels are not of note now the Liverpool tunnels have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.126.148 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cobble Hill and Murray Hill Tunnels removed from the list as historically not important now the Liverpool and Shildon tunnels have been added. Waterspaces (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The types is important and distinction should be made. A water tunnel is different to a canal tunnel which is different to a rail tunnel which is different to a road tunnel, which requires large fans to operate properly.

Then a distinction should be made if the tunnel runs under water and the construction of generally different to above water tunnel.

Then the construction method, which is different in many tunnels.

Then there is the first, oldest, oldest still used, longest, pioneering, etc, of each type.

It is all relevant, they are all are worthy of note. Rail tunnels I find important as the railways shrunk the world.

Waterspaces (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is time to start a WikiProject Tunnels. I don't think that they are bridges, either! Does anyone agree with me, and want to join me? Go to:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tunnels Pustelnik (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed 1800m long double track tunnel in the Slovakia is set to cost €52.8m (SEK540m) or $77.18. [6]

If someone has information about the approximate costs associated with each construction method, that would make an excellent addition to the article. (That's what I was after when I came here, actually.) 217.158.111.130 (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however with little background in economics so I could do little to contribute. As an aside, there are several cost figures mentioned in Japan-Korea Undersea Tunnel which may be helpful to others doing that section. HarryZilber (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The economics of tunnel projects is very complex and numbers shouldn't really be quoted on this page becasue they would probably be read out of context. There should probably be a new page created dealining with tunnel costs and economics so that it can be dealt with propoerly. Splash6 11:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash6 (talk • contribs)

I have a few time uploaded a photos of the world's oldest used rail tunnel. It kept getting deleted for no apparent reason.Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead picture "Underground tunnel for heatpipes between Rigshospitalet and Amagerværket in Denmark" is a bad choice: dazzlingly psychedelic/symmetrical, unfamiliar visual material, not a good way to convey a concept to a reader the actually needs to learn what "tunnel" refers to.

The picture "A short section remains of the 1836 Edge Hill to Lime Street tunnel in Liverpool. This is the oldest used rail tunnel in the world. A tilting train passes through the tunnel." is bad and should be removed; contrary to the caption, this is picture of an open above-ground station, not a tunnel.

Some of the other pictures currently in the article are OK, but none of them are good introductions to the basic general concept.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that either Tunnel fire be merged into the Hazards section, or that Tunnel fire should be expanded. --ZhongHan (Email) 08:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel fire should be an own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.99.254 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#RfC: Yet another attempt at jumpstarting WikiProject Tunnels. __meco (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Somport tunnel is a tunnel in the Pyrénées, 8.6 Km, and he doesn't have a english version. It will be good create a article about this. The french article is here.

France64160 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing were done about drainage, a tunnel would slowly fill up with water. What are the most common solutions? Pumping? Are any fully passive mechanisms to prevent tunnel flooding in use or even possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.90.173 (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant content has recently been added to Tunnel#Secret Tunnels, mostly regarding historical smuggling tunnels in New England. The material needs copyediting and improved references, but I'm also concerned that this coverage is too detailed for a survey article that is already quite long. I think that this material would be better placed in the Secret passage article. Any comments? Reify-tech (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the deleted material was moved to the Smuggling tunnel article, which seems more appropriate. I did some copyedit cleanup, but more is needed there. Reify-tech (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/big_dig/

  Triggered by \broadtraffic-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fork article about tunnel construction had been created using contents from the main Tunnel article. In User_talk:ThurnerRupert#Tunnel construction, the creator suggested tunnel construction could be expanded. I'd like to bring this to the interested parties about this article for discussion and views on action. For now, I have redirected the newly created duplicate article to the corresponding section in the main article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that tunnel construction is a vast enough subject which deserves its own article. A WP:SPLIT from Tunnel is a good start, then construction techniques can be briefly described in the main article per WP:SUMMARY. — JFG ^talk 10:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG and ThurnerRupert: agreed, I have reinstated the tunnel construction fork. The main article will need editing to shorten the section in order to resolve the duplication as per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. I noticed that there are 3 main types mentioned in the intro to that section, but then the article goes on to summarise many more. I'm not an expert in the field, so didn't want to arbitrarily delete and move stuff around. Any thoughts? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section on tunnel construction is sizable enough to justify a separate article, especially if it will be expanded. However, thought needs to be given to the split, along with careful editing to prevent unhelpful duplication of coverage. Reify-tech (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert either, but I'm sure some specialists will show up to write a better summary if we start with a crude one. — JFG ^talk 15:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]