We referred to it as a new tunnel because

First, EH's article in British Archaeology Jan 2005 [Appendix 5] said – "Atkinson's tunnel entrance would be re-opened and "a new tunnel constructed to the centre of the hill"

Second, the Risk Assessment [Appendix 6] section 8.1.2 says that –
> "Re-entering the 1968 tunnel may require some enlargement or re-profiling of the existing tunnels
which would result in new mechanical damage to the sediments within the Hill."
> "Necessary enlargement could be minimal but its exact extent is not predictable over the whole length of the tunnels."
> "Any enlargement of the tunnels would also extend the zone of degradation of in situ biological materials further into the Hill;"
> "The chalk fill may not be sufficiently compacted, with subsequent settlement allowing some new voiding to develop;"
> "The disturbance caused by the work may trigger new collapses."

Third, the Risk Assessment [Appendix 6] section 8.3 makes a working estimate of the degree of enlargement. It says: "For re-entry into the tunnels the amount of mechanical damage is calculated on the basis of tunnel enlargement by 0.2m around the existing roof and sides, along all of the 1849 and 1968-69 tunnelling."

So that's why we called it a new tunnel. Sorry for the inconvenience. We're slaves to what we're told. On Saturday we were told the above was a "wildest dream" scenario and you have now told us it's a worst case one. As i said, we intend to accept the account offered to us by EH on Saturday and will assume that the plan is to go in there without causing damage or enlargement.

But I'd rather talk to them from now on as i don't think you've shown you know one tenth of what you pretend to, as has been evident before. Goodbye and happy trolling.