Talk:Channel Tunnel

Chunnel name

I recently reverted the addition of this change, because the wording introduced gave the impression that this name "Chunnel" was no longer used. A quick search online shows that this is very clearly not the case. Nevertheless it was reverted with a request for sources. So I have provided a source. However to allay any concerns that this is a one-off anomaly, I wanted to provide additional sources here which further contradict the assertion that the name is something that was only used when the Channel Tunnel first opened: Bloomberg, May 2022; History Channel, May 2022; Business Insider, August 2021; Time, January 2015; USA Today, August 2015; the Connecticut Examiner, June 2022; CBS News, January 2019; The Telegraph, October 2021; The Independent, October 2021; UPI, May 2019; The Times, April 2019. I could keep going but I hope that's a sufficient number of sources that show that this name is still current, therefore the wording "also referred to in the early days by the media" is inappropriate as it is very clearly contradicted by the multitude of reliable sources which still use this name. - Aoidh (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Plus “also referred to in the early days by the media as” seems like an overly verbose way of saying “also known as” RickyCourtney (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It was, and still is, only used by sections of the press. It never caught on with the general public and current reports of the problems at Dover refer to it as Eurotunnel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murgatroyd49 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources I linked above are a wide variety of sources not a "section". That it is only used by "sections of the press" is a claim, do you have sources that support this claim? One article using one alternative name does not validate the idea that this name is only used by "sections of the press". Is this a no true scotsman thing? Are you saying no one calls it this, except for all the sources that do? - Aoidh (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that Chunnel is used in normal speech. The cited BBC articile uses Chunnel only a couple of times, and always in inverted commas, but uses Channel Tunnel many times, without inverted commas. The inverted commas signify that Chunnel is not intended as a formal word by the BBC. Furthermore, most of Aoidh's sources listed above are American. Given that the Channel Tunnel is British (and French), I dispute the relevance of what some American authors may think is the appropriate name. So the consensus here seems to agree in qualifying the "Chunnel" term as being a rare usage.31.52.90.201 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The map of all of the stations on the 'line' is pretty bad

Everything has all been compressed into one area and there is measurements in yards on the English side but no measurements on the French side. I am not well versed in making such diagrams so I hope someone can clean it up. (and if you are worried about space then just set it to collapse automatically) GarethBaloney (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Concession radio?

Please define this term. 2001:8003:303D:BC00:C49D:973A:5FC6:30C2 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Radio communication system used inside the area used by the tunnel operating concession. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I had a go at improving the wording. Wire723 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Cost to build

The cost to build the Channel Tunnel is given as £9 billion, but the Channel Tunnel website says that it cost £4.65 billion. The latter number is the actual cost, as well, whereas the £9 billion is supposedly more than the £5.5 billion estimated cost. These numbers don't make sense and the sources do not appear to be as good as the Channel Tunnel's own website .

Gavinayling (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gavinayling. I have restored the 4.65B and removed the source claiming 9B. I think it was introduced in 2016 by User:ZH8000 (no blame there, the le shuttle website should be better).

I don't have the book anymore, but the source Flyvbjerg should be reliable (my 2008 edit shows 4650M).

In the 2016 edit it is also asserted that it was the most expensive construction project ever proposed, and now it looks like that it attributed to Flyvbjerg. A limitation of the Wikipedia referencing system I guess. Someone should fact check it or remove it.

Also, looking at the 2008 version the length is given as 50.5 km but that has been refined in the current article without a source that I can see. Commander Keane (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)