Draft talk:History of Merseyrail
Forwarding from Talk:Merseyrail[edit]
Just looking over the history draft, I reckon we could/should cut down the future section by quite the amount, as half the talking points are redundant. For example, Battery_train_trials and Extending the network via battery/electrification make eachother redundant, as it is repeating the exact same thing, Perhaps we could split the future section like this to try and stop the redundancy/repetition of the exact same points.
Future - Past Proposals (Older proposals that have no obvious work done to them, for example, tram-trains)
- Expansions
- Additions to the current network (ie, Maghull North before it was built, not stations that expand the distance of the network, but just fill in the network)
- Expansions to the network (ie: headbolt lane, wigan, preston, etc)
Obviously these can be changed to see fit, but I really don't think the current format is completely necessary as it is heavily redundant. Its also all over the place imo, which again, this format could help fix. If agreed that this how it should go, or if you just want a draft of this version, I can work on writing one up. --- ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ฎ (Talk) โข ๐๐ฝ๐๐/๐๐ฝ๐๐ 00:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bungle @DankJae, think your the main two who are working on the merseyrail stuff, feel free to ping any others you know are involved or would be involved in this discussion. I've created a rough and dirty draft of my suggestion on my Sandbox, obviously it needs a lot of work still, but I think it might be a good way forward if we can clean it up and remove any major repetitiveness (Such as how I removed the whole battery train stuff as it was getting pretty redundant, probably next going to work on cleaning that up and adding it in.) --- ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ฎ (Talk) โข ๐๐ฝ๐๐/๐๐ฝ๐๐ 20:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- @NeoJade, the whole "future" element I think needs to be condensed quite significantly, rather than being tidied up. If this were a fan site wiki, then it'd be a fairly solid article on speculation and what not, but I think here we really need to be quite strict about how much we're covering about an aspect of the network that broadly speaking, doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we have other articles which could absorb the bulk of the existing future stuff (namely Borderlands Line, Canada Dock Branch and Skelmersdale Branch to name but a few); the main article would then just be a summary, rather than a fully detailed overview. Bungle (talk โข contribs) 21:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Totally agree, honestly I'd say just a paragraph about all the proposed stuff, and a majority, like at most 2 paragraphs more, about the near future. It's in my opinion, really not in the scope of wikipedia, or the UK railways project, to be going on about proposed projects, especially those that havent had media coverage for over 10 years... --- ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ฎ (Talk) โข ๐๐ฝ๐๐/๐๐ฝ๐๐ 02:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think its obvious, but we should definitely keep historical proposals that are notable, or ones that seem pretty major, and the main current proposals, so borderlands and skelm/wigan. --- ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ฎ (Talk) โข ๐๐ฝ๐๐/๐๐ฝ๐๐ 02:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Totally agree, honestly I'd say just a paragraph about all the proposed stuff, and a majority, like at most 2 paragraphs more, about the near future. It's in my opinion, really not in the scope of wikipedia, or the UK railways project, to be going on about proposed projects, especially those that havent had media coverage for over 10 years... --- ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ฎ (Talk) โข ๐๐ฝ๐๐/๐๐ฝ๐๐ 02:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @NeoJade, the whole "future" element I think needs to be condensed quite significantly, rather than being tidied up. If this were a fan site wiki, then it'd be a fairly solid article on speculation and what not, but I think here we really need to be quite strict about how much we're covering about an aspect of the network that broadly speaking, doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we have other articles which could absorb the bulk of the existing future stuff (namely Borderlands Line, Canada Dock Branch and Skelmersdale Branch to name but a few); the main article would then just be a summary, rather than a fully detailed overview. Bungle (talk โข contribs) 21:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Continuity Issues[edit]
Currently spending a bit of time copy-editing a majority of the history, and came across a few continuity issues, that someone with more knowledge, is probably better off trying to fix.
Firstly, we start the Creation of Merseyrail (1960s - 1977) section by talking about how Liverpool Exchange railway station and Liverpool Central High Level railway station closed. Yet we talk about how they are to be used in the 1969 proposal by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority "At that time, the lines out of Liverpool Exchange, Liverpool Central Low Level, Liverpool Central High Level and Liverpool Lime Street stations were separate. The existing electric and diesel hauled lines identified to become the new Merseyrail lines, the first stage of Merseyrail's creation, were named the 'Northern Line' (from Exchange and Central High Level), 'Wirral Line' (from Central Low Level) and 'City Line' (from Lime Street station) respectively."
Also, we just randomly include the fact that "Riverside Terminal Station at the Pier Head closed in 1971 due to the demise of the transatlantic liner trade." in the middle of explaining the Beeching Axe and talking about the implications of it, thats something I've tried to fix, but think it still needs some look into. --- ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ฎ (Talk) โข ๐๐ฝ๐๐/๐๐ฝ๐๐ 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)