Talk:Sakhalin–Hokkaido Tunnel

Untitled
This template:

Тоннель Сахалин—Хоккайдо

was vandalized. i removed it.


 * That is not a transcluded template, but an inter-wiki link to a valid Russian language page on the same subject. Vandalism is not really an excuse to remove the link.  Astronaut (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Object
Objects of undersea rail tunnels: 58.138.25.31 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sakhalin-Hokkaido Tunnel: Russia - Japan
 * Japan-Korea Undersea Tunnel: Russia/Japan - South Korea/North Korea/China

Why Alaska Railroad
Why is the Alaska Railroad mentioned here at all? It is far away and totally unrelated. A possible Bering Strait crossing and railroad links to the Bering Strait on both sides are very speculative and very far away and do not have any impact at all on this project.--Bk1 168 (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The text makes it pretty clear imho. If the North American network is to be reached, that'd be via the Alaska Railroad. Hence why the gauge of that one may be relevant down the line eventually. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. But I find it too speculative to be relevant for a Wikipedia-article. And I do not at all believe that the potential connection via the Bering Strait has any impact at all on the choice of the gauge for the Sakhalin-Hokkaido connection.  It will be Russian broad gauge 1520 mm most likely, because Japan has two different gauges, 1067 mm for freight and 1435 for high speed passenger service, so there will be one break of gauge when entering Japan anyway. But again, this is speculative.  I would base the content of the article on sources that KNOW what gauge is chosen. Most likely they still do not exist, because it is a bit too early.  What we could write:  In Japan gauge X for UVW and gauge Y for ABC exist, in Russia gauge Z. If tunnel is built with gauge X, gauge Y, gauge Z respectively, for these kinds of traffic there will be break of gauge on the Japanese or Russian side.... But please, keep the Alaska connection out. It has zero relevance at the moment, even if it is a nice dream that I would like to see becoming true one day...--Bk1 168 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Bering Strait Crossing and Alaska. As I said, I really like this idea, but I do not see that it is really part of any near or long term planning. Right now it is more like a great idea or a dream, but I see no evidence that this influences current decision making for the Hokkaido-Sachalin crossing. And for dreams, ideas, even great ideas, that are not in some kind of official planning pipeline, there are forums to discuss them. In Wikipedia we need some hard evidence that this is at least being discussed by parties that could in principle make it happen within reasonable time.--Bk1 168 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)