Martin wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:48:19 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
> >On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:10:51 +0100, Martin
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:00:14 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>
> >>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:41:51 -0800, Gregory Morrow
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>Hatunen wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:48:25 -0800, Furze Platt
>
> >>>>> But I would still think the British had a considerably more
> >>>>> difficult job of decision making than the French, who already had
> >>>>> track for their TGV that could be used. Not to mention, of
> >>>>> course, that the UK does not have the same sort of authoritarian
> >>>>> government that the French do.
>
> >>>>The Brits were concerned about possible military uses of the
> >>>>chunnel...
>
> >>>This isn't about the tunnel per se, since it was built before the
> >>>UK finally found a route for the high speed connection to London.
> >>>Before that the impressively sleek Eurostar, which looks like
> >>>it's doing 150mph when it's standing still, had to creep along on
> >>>regular rails.
>
> >>Greg refers to the Victorian tunnel.
>
> >Upon re-reading it appears you are right. But I believe the old
> >bugaboo of invaion-by-tunnel did come up when the Eurotunnel was
> >first proposed.
>
> It came up again in a BBC program about the tunnel recently. I didn't realise
> that the beginnings of the Victorian tunnel still existed and were accessible.
>
Wasn't there initially some concern about rabid animals using the
Chunnel to enter the UK...???
--
Best
Greg
|
