Talk:Gerrards Cross Tunnel
![]() | Gerrards Cross Tunnel was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move
[edit]Gerrards Cross tunnel collapse → Gerrards Cross Tunnel — This article covers the tunnel in general and the accident. The lead could be reworked to show this. Simply south...... 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support: just be bold and get on with it! --RFBailey (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Any additional comments:
I'm a bit 'meh' about this either way to be honest. When I first wrote the article I was only really bothered about how the collapse happened and what they did afterwards. Since then it's grown a bit so it's a bit more about the controversy over the Tesco store. One thing would be that if the title is changed, things like the section headings would also need changing otherwise it might look a bit odd. Quantpole (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- That can easily be fixed. --RFBailey (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep - I wasn't meaning it was a problem to the proposed move. Like you say above I'd be happy for it just to be got on with. No point in a WP:RM unless it's likely to be controversial. Quantpole (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed---only now we're stuck waiting for the 7-day period to expire before doing anything..... --RFBailey (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep - I wasn't meaning it was a problem to the proposed move. Like you say above I'd be happy for it just to be got on with. No point in a WP:RM unless it's likely to be controversial. Quantpole (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll be bold and end early, seeing as nobody's likely to object. Simply south...... 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
HSE report
[edit]Just to let people know, but the HSE report still hasn't been released. I have found some info from a FOI request which seems to indicate that tje investigation is ongoing. The HSE also seem to have employed David Nethercott (head of civil engineering at Imperial) to be their consultant on the matter ([1]). Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- For info: The HSE report has been released due to a successful FOI Act request. A copy can be found here. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gerrards Cross Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614041846/http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20Assets/Documents/news-research/Press%20releases/Global%20Powers%20of%20Retailing/Global_Powers_of_Retailing_2010_report.pdf to http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20Assets/Documents/news-research/Press%20releases/Global%20Powers%20of%20Retailing/Global_Powers_of_Retailing_2010_report.pdf
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.jackson-civils.co.uk/news/news_archive_MBO.htm - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212063124/http://babcock.co.uk/uploads/financial/Babcock_AR2009.pdf to http://www.babcock.co.uk/uploads/financial/Babcock_AR2009.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Cost and compensation
[edit]How much did the incident cost Chiltern Railways and Network Rail? How much compensation did Tesco pay and was it offered willingly or was there a legal battle? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class rail transport articles
- Low-importance rail transport articles
- C-Class UK Railways articles
- Mid-importance UK Railways articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- C-Class Engineering articles
- Unknown-importance Engineering articles
- WikiProject Engineering articles
- C-Class Architecture articles
- Unknown-importance Architecture articles