Template talk:Infobox tunnel

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing fields 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More documentation needed, what do the following parameters mean? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Height parameter 

message: 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)
replies: text: All done. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, great, QUICK service. I will shop here again. Five stars! :-) Ingolfson (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please have a way of influencing the size of the image used? 

message: 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 77talk 2 me 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiple Start/Open Dates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Start/End points 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I like the idea of just using , 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Number of bores (tunnels) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use on projected tunnels 

message: The template currently has parameters for  and . 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  with the description "Average elevation, use only if hielevation and lowelevation are not used". AHeneen (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average elevation parameter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Perhaps we could have the following: . Peter Horn User talk 22:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  For rail, combine  and  with ? Peter Horn User talk 01:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Or have a choice. Peter Horn User talk 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  For rail 

message: See what happens when the height restriction of  is ignored. Have a good laugh you all. Peter Horn User talk 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Related, http://www.2m40.com/ --Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  The phenomenon is all but universal. "If something can go wrong, it will". Peter Horn User talk 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not respecting height restrictions 

message: Sydney Harbour Tunnel
:Missing Peter Horn User talk 01:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That amounts to two additional fields. Peter Horn User talk 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The sample looks just fine and will serve well. Peter Horn User talk 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Horn, added.  it would be great if you could update the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I don't know when I'll find the time to do so. Peter Horn User talk 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm not to sure how to do that. Peter Horn User talk 16:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   Interesting, good point. Peter Horn User talk 13:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new field for the depth of a shipping channel ('''shipping clearance''') above the tunnel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Type of tunnel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification of "system" and "operator" parameters