Talk:Strait of Gibraltar crossing

Gibraltar Bridge

I see there was some confusion between the bridge and the tunnel, although the bridge is a conceptual structure and likely to remain so, it generates a lot of interest due to the Discovery TV programme about it and many people seem to think it exists ! I get endless inquiries for pictures of it on my Gibraltar website.

Also the title should be 'Gibraltar Bridge' and not 'Gibraltar bridge'

I've included a link to the tunnel project, and fixed the Gibraltar disambiguation page.

--Gibnews 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have wikified the article format. By any chance, do you know the name of the Discovery Channel programme? --Asterion^talk 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think its 'Megastructures'. There are some references to the bridge in the tunnel article that need moving across - for some inscrutable reason the PC I was using yesterday would not do copy and paste properly. I had one guy who really insisted that it existed because he had seen it on TV :) --Gibnews 11:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In April of 2011 construction of the Gibraltar bridge was suspended indefinitely due to the overwhelming amount of sharks found in the Mediterranean sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.177.114.146 (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge and redirect

I moved this title to Gibraltar Tunnel a few weeks ago. The accurate title is Gibraltar Tunnel as it is confirmed now that it will be a tunnel and not a bridge. As a consequence this article should be merged with Gibraltar Tunnel and then redirected. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The tunnel is highly speculative, and the feasibility study simply a way of sucking up EU funds. There is a degree of interest in the bridge due to the Discovery channel programme. I think we should keep the articles seperate.

--Gibnews 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Gibraltar Crossing as used here and combining both articles? (Setting up redirects for both bridge and tunnel) Asterion^talk 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How is that highly speculative? Things have been already confirmed (Europe-Africa rail tunnel agreed, Spain and Morocco agree to rail tunnel under Gibraltar strait, Swiss plan tunnel under Strait of Gibraltar). Lombardi Engineering Ltd has already won the contract to design a railway tunnel. Preliminary studies should be finished by 2008. A 4.8-metre-wide service tunnel will be built first. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Planning a tunnel is one thing, funding it and building it are another. The studies are simply a way of getting EU money, but nobody is going to pay for a tunnel linking North Africa to Europe.

That does not mean there should not be an article about it, as its a topic of conversation as is the bridge, which won't get built either. --Gibnews 15:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain to us Gibnews why do you think your analysis is not part of original research? How do you know it won't get built? Do you talk on behalf of Spanish and Moroccan officials? If so, than your analysis is quite contradictory to their official agreements! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What I think is immaterial, Wikipedia policy on future events is clear and sensible. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. At present there is a feasiability study into the proposed tunnel. Given that the Channel Tunnel is not profitable despite less challenging conditions, A big question is who would pay for a straits tunnel certainly not me. At present its no different the the bridge. If it ever becomes a serious proposition the Spanish Government will change the name to something else as they have attempted with the Bay of Gibraltar. In the meantime you may want to believe but there is no tunnel. --Gibnews 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess that it would not be called the Gibraltar tunnel since it would not terminate in Gibraltar. As for the bay of Algeciras, it is called that way quite simply because Algeciras is the largest town on the bay. Notice that Spain does not call the Straight of Gibraltar straights of Tarifa or Straights of Ceuta or the "Spanish channel":-). It has nothing to do with the nationalist silliness which you imply (a valid example of this would be the use of the "Arab gulf" instead of the Persian Gulf).

I also think the articles should be merged under a term similar to the Spanish one used "enlace fijo". --Burgas00 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the sort of sillyness that insists that the Frontier is a fence, or that removes Gibraltar from Spanish maps and roadsigns and insists that Parsley Island is Spanish soil ?

However, if there is a consensus to merge the articles, fair enough but they are both nonsense, whatever they are called. --Gibnews

Notability

I get a large number of enquiries about the 'Gibraltar Bridge' and its usefui to have a page on wikipedia to refer people to, and since its creation its grown. User:Asterion removed the 'notability' tag and I see no reason to reinstate it unless there is some reasoned debate on the subject.

I note there are some users who use this tactic as an attempt to push a political POV and anonymous IP's lack credibility.

Lets see some debate first, or at least comment otherwise IMNSHO its vandalism. --Gibnews 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Noteworthy and notability are not the same, and noteworthyness is not grounds for inclusion in wikipedia.

To establish notability it either needs to be a real project which is likely to be built by someone, or a serious conceptual structure, worthy of inclusion in proper architectual journals, not pulp science designed for school children.

Weasel words & subjective terms

This article is Peppered with weasel words (all be it cut and paste from the references)

Several engineers - please state which engineers captured the attention of the world - needs more than one reference Recent talk of a road bridge between Europe and Africa - who is talking about this (if anyone?)

Feel free to improve the article and add material, along with a signature to your comments. --Gibnews 12:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

gauge choice

Gibraltar tunnel will use 1435 standard gauge. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? bobrayner (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

rolling stocks

Gibraltar Tunnel will use Bombardier JetTrain. (standard gauge non-electric high-speed train) 58.138.45.84 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Edgepedia (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

At least it is highly unlikely to use a non-electric train on such a connection, especially in conjunction with a tunnel. For unplausible statements a source is really a good idea.--Bk1 168 (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar tunnel nowadays is just an idea. You cannot choose the train if you haven't start the project.--HrAd (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Brunnel" or Tunbridge"

Given the long width as well as depth, the only solution would be a "brunnel" or "tunbridge", aka, an underwater bridge. It doen't have the depth excavating requirements of a tunnel, nor the complex pier structure of a long and tall bridge.

The only possible danger of underwater bridges comes from sinking boats, anchors or runaway submarines. This kind of structure would have do be permanently under surveillance by coastal boats, tow boats as well as submarines, adding to the cost of maintenance. Apart from this possible danger, the construction of such sructure is far less expensive. An underwater bridge dosn't need the pier strengh of a bridge. Because it has air inside, it floats under water. It is stuck by cables only. It is also the best solution in areas prone to earthquakes as it's cushioned by the surrounding water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.159.88 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel There are two concepts, having the tunnel hang from floats on the surface, or have it anchored to the seafloor (or perhaps just weighted to the seafloor, to give it limited movement and simplify construction). Surface floats would be more subject to weather conditions and potentially drift. Seafloor anchors would be very deep (engineering challenge) and be more subject to tectonic activity (though less than a tunnel or road). The big issue is probably the amount of waterflow through the strait, and how much pressure there will be against the tunnel. Submarines wouldn't be too much of an issue, active sonar could monitor the subs, or they could use low-strength underwater sonar buoys to create "lanes" for sub traffic. For ship anchors, they could use surface floats to submerge cables on each side of the tunnel, at the tunnel depth. If an anchor comes into contact with the line, it moves the floats and sets off all kinds of alarms. Could even tether floats to the tunnel itself with warning lights and sirens on them to notify a ship when it can't cross. Cost benefits would be not having to drill or build the tunnel on-site (sections can be created elsewhere, sealed - so they float - and towed to the construction site). This should save on labor and materials, as well as time. Multiple sections can be done at the same time. Repairs are quicker and cheaper than a drilled tunnel, because they just need to replace the damaged section. If the seafloor tethers are strong enough, they could expand the system by just sinking new sections and attaching them side by side, with anchor links on the outermost tunnels, allowing faster and cheaper future expansion. In a severe emergency, sections of tunnel that are severely damaged (on fire, for example) could be sealed and let go, saving the rest of the tunnel (the seafloor tethers would have a float near the tunnel end, so they can easily be recovered). 184.166.6.102 (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Strait of Gibraltar crossing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219101928/http://www.secegsa.com:80/eng/telecharger/BROCHURE_EN_Nov07.pdf to http://www.secegsa.com/eng/telecharger/BROCHURE_EN_Nov07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Update needed

The tunnel project appears to be still going as of 2013. Is it still alive? Shcha (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This project will be alive forever. The Spanish government created a government-funded Corporation 37 years ago back in 1981 whose job is to "study" and to "promote" this project. Please understand that just because the first and second generation of government "workers" on this project have already retired on full pensions, it does not mean that the new generation of "workers" doesn't need to also have a full career and subsequent retirement to look forward to. So the current generation of "workers" just gave a press conference this week, as they will, repeatedly, until their own retirement. XavierItzm (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References