Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010

Jeffrey  wrote  on Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:17:34 -0500:

Not only that but there is a rarely used verb to "transboard" meaning
"To transfer from one ship or vessel into another; to tranship" (OED)

Using the word "shuttle" in this context risks serious ambiguity. The
trains that carry road vehicles through the tunnel are known as
shuttles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel_Shuttle

"Shuttle" sounds quite wrong to me - I always expect the possibility of
a return when shuttles are involved. Plain old "transfer" will do if you
don't like "transship" - OMG, it's one of those words like "skilful":
only one S.

Wouldn't the English word be "transfer"?

That is often used for changing trains, or buses, for from one mode of
transport to another, or even from an airport to a hotel.

Obvious hypothesis: the inverted commas are used to indicate that 'push'
and 'pousser' are descriptive rather than technical terms.

On reading the reports this hypothesis crumples.

   Eurotunnel took the decision to recover both 9059 and 9055 using the
   Krupp recovery locomotive from the French side. The plan was to
   attach the Krupps to 9059, moving forward to attach to 9055, and
   to propel the two trains out of the Tunnel towards the Folkestone
   terminal. This was the first time this manoeuvre had been undertaken
   and the CCC is to be congratulated on taking this decision.

   Eurotunnel a pris la décision de secourir  à la fois le 9059 et le
   9055 en utilisant les locomotives de récupération Krupps stationnées
   du côté français. Le plan était d'atteler les Krupps au 9059, pour
   mettre en contact 9059 et 9055, et de pousser les deux trains hors
   du tunnel en direction du terminal de Folkestone. C’est la première
   fois qu’une telle manœuvre était tentée. Il faut féliciter le CCC
   d’avoir pris une telle décision.

Might the section of the report outlining the evacuation plan have been
written first in English and then translated into French? The use of the
scare-quoted word "'push'" rather than "propel" as used in the detailed
descriptions later might have some slight justification. But the use of
scare-quoted "« pousser »" rather than the straightfoward "pousser" as
used in the detailed descriptions seems odd.

There was no reasonable alternative to the Roman roads. If you needed to
travel somewhere you used the roads provided. The Channel Tunnel was,
and is, competing with existing successful cross-channel ferry services.

I seem to remember that a crucial aspect of the tunnel was that it would
be a commercial operation not a public service.

Yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel

   In 1979, the "Mouse-hole Project" was suggested when the
   Conservatives came to power in Britain. The concept was a
   single-track rail tunnel with a service tunnel, but without shuttle
   terminals. The British government took no interest in funding the
   project, but Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she had no
   objection to a privately funded project. In 1981 British and French
   leaders Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand agreed to set up a
   working group to look into a privately funded project, and in April
   1985 promoters were formally invited to submit scheme proposals.
   Four submissions were shortlisted:
   
   * a rail proposal based on the 1975 scheme presented by Channel
     Tunnel Group/France–Manche (CTG/F–M),
   * Eurobridge: a 4.5 km span suspension bridge with a roadway in an
     enclosed tube
   * Euroroute: a 21 km tunnel between artificial islands approached by
     bridges, and
   * Channel Expressway: large diameter road tunnels with mid-channel
     ventilation towers.
   
   The cross-Channel ferry industry protested under the name
   "Flexilink". In 1975 there was no campaign protesting a fixed link,
   with one of the largest ferry operators (Sealink) being state-owned.
   Flexilink continued rousing opposition throughout 1986 and 1987.
   Public opinion strongly favoured a drive-through tunnel, but
   ventilation issues, concerns about accident management, and fear of
   driver mesmerisation led to the only shortlisted rail submission,
   CTG/F-M, being awarded the project.
   
   The British Channel Tunnel Group consisted of two banks and five
   construction companies, while their French counterparts,
   France–Manche, consisted of three banks and five construction
   companies. The role of the banks was to advise on financing and
   secure loan commitments. On 2 July 1985, the groups formed Channel
   Tunnel Group/France–Manche (CTG/F–M). Their submission to the
   British and French governments was drawn from the 1975 project,
   including 11 volumes and a substantial environmental impact
   statement.

The tunnel is 50.5-kilometre (31.4 mi) in length. The concern that there
might be "driver mesmerisation" is understandable.