Talk:Burnley Tunnel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Burnley Tunnel is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale. |
|
Suggested article edit guidelines:
|
|
|
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
[edit] Misc
Just a note to record why I edited this article to make it differ from Domain Tunnel (5 Jan 2005).
We didn't actually finish the Burnley tunnel until December 2000 (as those who worked to dry out Swan Lake remember all too well).
The shallow river crossing (sheet-pile cofferdam, half the river's width at a time) was restricted to Domain tunnel. The roadheader on Burnley tunnel went deep under the river and wasn't troubled by the river at all.
The presence of the Yarra had nothing to do with the water ingress problems of the Burnley tunnel - that was all down to the pressures in the Silurian aquifer Burnley passed through. The water pressures were much higher than expected.
It's perhaps a wee bit unfair to say that the deepest parts of the Burnley tunnel still leak (five years after the last inundation). But I suppose under the circumstances (having opened a year late, under higher legal pressure than water pressure) it's still worth recording that the tunnelling engineers didn't come out of this one smelling of roses.
Ecb 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need separate articles for each of the Citylink Tunnels, can't they be merged with the Citylink article ? Andypasto 04:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Melbourne Tunnel Catastrophe.
As it is unclear whether terrorists were involved, I think we should only mention that this is not yet confirmed. This is definately the best way to go about it. yes. --203.16.24.170 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is inappropriate for you to insert your own personal speculation into this article. Please cite your sources for such changes.--cj | talk 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why mention Al Qa'eda or Terrorism at all? It's not mentioned in the article. It's also unclear if a truck suffered a tyre blowout. Dkam 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let me be more blunt, It's also unclear that the character Bender from the hit TV show Futurama was responsible. Please stop inserting yours ( or other's ) speculation. Dkam 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What on earth?? It was a car crash - suggesting terrorism involvement when there was clearly none serves only to incite fear among the population! Lasiorhinus 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or to sell tabloid newspapers.... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I totally agree. When I first heard of this crash, "terrorists" or "Al-Qa'eda" never came to mind. If your reading this and those things did come to your mind, your paranoid. I would suggest you wake up to reality. 124.191.233.89 06:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
