Template talk:Infobox tunnel

Midpoint co-ordinates?

I'm not convinced that giving the co-ordinates of a tunnel's mid-point is ideal. It is not easy to objectively source this information and it's not that useful. By comparison, citing the co-ordinates of the two endpoints is more verifiable and useful in my opinion. --VinceBowdren 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the best way to label the article with a single set of coordinates; in fact that's aleady done on the tunnel articles I've seen. Andy Mabbett 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any compelling need for a single set of co-ordinates though? --VinceBowdren 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we want the article to appear in the Google Earth layer for Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett 10:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If the google earth's wikipedia layer is not up to the job of reading two co-ordinates in a single article, I think that's google earth's problem. Including verifiable and useful information for wikipedia's primary audience (human readers using web browsers) trumps google earth. --VinceBowdren 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While you may, in general, have a point, how is any system supposed to know which of two (or more) coordinates in an article relate to the whole article, and not just a point mentioned in it? Perhaps the answer is to make sure that the article-specific coordinates, in this case a tunnel mid-point, are the first to occur. Andy Mabbett 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Giving a single set of co-ordinates for a tunnel is misleading because the tunnel is not a point feature, it is a line feature. If a single set of co-ordinates for a tunnel article would be misleading in general wikipedia terms, it would be equally misleading to google earth. To take an extreme example, giving a single co-ordinate for the Mars article would of course be meaningless, so we shouldn't include one; and it is obvious in this case that google earth's requirements don't matter when the article's subject makes the use of a single co-ordinate inappropriate. --VinceBowdren 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty using the midpoint as the tunnel's location in Vista Ridge Tunnels. The midpoint would not lie over the tunnel at all, but due to the tunnel's curvature, be some distance south of its path. Furthermore, even if the point were chosen midway along its length, zooming in a satellite photo at this point would show residential streets and houses—most confusingly I would think. It would take some map panning to discover the tunnel entrances. Someone familiar with the topography would naturally look left and right, but what would others do? I do believe the most useful handling is the start and end like {{infobox rail tunnel}} has. See that used nicely in Robertson Tunnel, where the "tunnel location" is given at the only station in the tunnel.

Also, the various parameters seem fairly specific to rail tunnels. Is this template intended for them too? —EncMstr 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing fields

I'm glad this template sprung into existence, as I've been waiting for one for Winston Tunnel. It could use a couple more fields based on that article:

• Vertical clearance
• Grade

As I've not been involved with the coding of the template, I'd like to leave it to active editors of the template to debate the usefulness and inclusion of this info. —Rob (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

More documentation needed, what do the following parameters mean?

I have kicked off some documentation of the parameters, but I am confused about some of the,. What do the following mean:, linelength versus track length, character, and system? Cheers, --Commander Keane (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Height parameter

I am also a little confused about the height parameter. Perhaps it could be swapped to dimensions, or clearance.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at articles using the template, it is being used as clearance. Changed the title in the template to suit. Wongm (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a way of influencing the size of the image used?

Something like the "|image_size =" of Template:Infobox future infrastructure project is needed here. I would try to add it, but not so flash in manipulating infobox templates, so will only do it if no one beats me to it. Thanks. Ingolfson (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

All done. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, great, QUICK service. I will shop here again. Five stars! :-) Ingolfson (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Map

Hi, could someone please look at adding map parameters? A few editors are planning on writing about many of Gibraltar's tunnels and it would be nice to point out their location on a map as shown here using a non-specific infobox. Many thanks, --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

missing parameter crosses

I am looking for the equivalent to the |crosses=<rivername> from {{Infobox bridge}}, but I have not found it yet. Is there one? —EncMstr (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Start/Open Dates

How are multiple start/open dates handled? There's a tunnel complex that was opened in two stages many decades apart. Both are considered the same tunnel. Why? Lane traffic in the tunnels is now segregated by direction between the older and newer tunnels—both enter and exit on the same highway route. Fluous (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Start/End points

Tunnels obviously have two end-points. Choosing one end arbitrarily to be the "start point" in the infobox could potentially lead to disputes over WP:POV, particularly in international tunnels such as Channel Tunnel for example. Could this be neutrally renamed, such as simply referring to both collectively as "End points"? —sroc (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Two images

Suggest that two images are supported, eg for obvious two ended tunnels.. Prof.Haddock (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of bores (tunnels)

I'm surprised this isn't a parameter, since it's such a noteworthy aspect of a tunnel: the number of individual bores (or tunnels) that compose a "tunnel". AHeneen (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the following additions:

• "Bores": Number of bores/tubes/tunnels (separate by type, eg. "Two rail tunnels, One service tunnel")
• "Borelanes": In multiple bore/tube tunnels, the number of lanes per bore.
• "Boretracks": In multiple bore/tube tunnels, the number of tracks per bore.

AHeneen (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There are more complicated cases: Woodhead Tunnel, for example, has three bores: two single-track, one double-track, although no more than two bores were in simultaneous use. Farnworth Tunnel was originally one double-track bore, but after a second (single-track) bore was dug alongside, the original was reduced to a single track, and also lined, which made it too small to reinstate double track easily - although they've just started to enlarge it again. Then there are the Standedge Tunnels, with four bores: one is canal, the other three are rail bores rather like Woodhead except that all three were in simultaneous use. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Great suggestion. I'd rather have the first option by itself, since the other two are kind of redundant to the existing lane and track parameters. SounderBruce 19:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of just using |bores=, but I don't like the idea of describing every aspect of each bore -- a number will suffice. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, after all. –Fredddie™ 22:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the proposed borelanes and boretracks parameters would supersede the existing lanes and tracks parameters. I do think that noting the types of bores is very useful and should be noted in the infobox. Most tunnels are one or two bores, so if only the |bore= parameter is added, in most cases it would say "Single bore" or "Twin bore". A small number of modern tunnels are three bores, with two road/rail tunnels and one smaller service tunnel in the middle. As far as I know, tunnels like the examples given by Redrose64 are a very small minority and common sense should be applied to how long the infobox description is. AHeneen (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

How would the Limehouse Link tunnel fit into this? It consists of two Y-shaped cut-and-cover tunnels, with the main route being two lanes all the way through, but the slip-road tunnels are only a single lane. I support the proposal as a whole though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I can find more. In the first 40 or so miles out of London Euston there are Park Street tunnels (two bores, one being double-track and the other quadruple); Primrose Hill/South Hampstead tunnels (two single-track below two double-track bores); Kensal Green (three double-track); Northchurch Tunnel (one double, two single); Linslade Tunnel (single, double, single) - the old LNWR has plenty of peculiar tunnels, mainly because what was once a two-track line is now four or six tracks in many places. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Use on projected tunnels

Can somebody take a look at Gallions Reach Crossing? It's a proposed tunnel (or possibly a bridge, and at one point a ferry) that according to Transport for London is planned to be open around 2025. I can add that date with the source provided for "opened", but that's obviously wrong, while plans are currently for a possible tunnel to open on that date, we can't say for sure. I don't buy the argument that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball here as all we are doing is reporting TfL's aspirations and making it clear that's what they are. Any more thoughts? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Average elevation parameter

The template currently has parameters for |hielevation= and |lowelevation=. I am working on a tunnel article and can only find an average elevation for this tunnel, despite a good 25-30 minutes of searching. While I think the high and low elevations are preferable, I suggest adding |averageelevation= with the description "Average elevation, use only if hielevation and lowelevation are not used". AHeneen (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

For rail

@Frietjes:
Similar to Template:infobox bridge
Rail characteristics

| linelength =
| tracklength =
| notrack =
| gauge =
| el =
| structure_gauge =
| speed =
Peter Horn User talk 00:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Peter Horn, seems reasonable, but will wait a day or two to see if there are any objections. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Perhaps we could have the following: |width=. Peter Horn User talk 22:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: For rail, combine |width= and |height= with |Structure gauge=? Peter Horn User talk 01:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Or have a choice. Peter Horn User talk 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

in the case of the Mount Royal Tunnel a user appears to have used the loading gauge for the height. Peter Horn User talk 01:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not respecting height restrictions

See what happens when the height restriction of 11 ft 8 in (3.56 m) is ignored. Have a good laugh you all. Peter Horn User talk 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 12:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Related, http://www.2m40.com/ --Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Redrose64: The phenomenon is all but universal. "If something can go wrong, it will". Peter Horn User talk 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A new field for the depth of a shipping channel (shipping clearance) above the tunnel

Sydney Harbour Tunnel
@Frietjes:

Sydney Harbour Tunnel

Technical
Tunnel clearance	4.4 m vehicle clearance, 16 m shipping clearance or Depth of shipping channel Depth of tunnel below water level

Missing Peter Horn User talk 01:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine Bridge–Tunnel (tunnel part)

Technical
Tunnel clearance	4.4 m (14 ft 5+1⁄4 in) vehicle clearance Depth of the shipping channel Depth of tunnel below water level, 24 m (78.7 ft).

@Frietjes:

That amounts to two additional fields. Peter Horn User talk 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Depth of tunnel below water level {{{depth_below_water}}} Depth of shipping channel above {{{shipping_clearance_above}}}

Peter Horn, seems reasonable. please provide the desired label and parameter name (you can edit the example that I am posting here). Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: The sample looks just fine and will serve well. Peter Horn User talk 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Peter Horn, added. it would be great if you could update the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I don't know when I'll find the time to do so. Peter Horn User talk 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not to sure how to do that. Peter Horn User talk 16:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to indicate whether the "Depth of tunnel below water level" refers to the outside of the lining above the tunnel crown; the crown level; the invert level; or the outside of lining below the invert. These are four different levels. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: @Redrose64: Interesting, good point. Peter Horn User talk 13:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Type of tunnel

@Frietjes: The field "type" has been pre-empted. What is still needed is "Type of tunnel" allowing to descrbe the tunnel as (a pair of) tube(s) a series of caissons etc etc. Peter Horn User talk 16:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of "system" and "operator" parameters

I think there should be more differentiation of the "system" and "operator" parameters. They both seem to be designed to hold info about what rail services use the tunnel. I've seen some articles that use the system parameter and others that use operator. Sewageboy (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)