Talk:Liverpool and Manchester Railway

message: Why is Huyton Junction in the station list? Nessuno834 21:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly shouldn't be listed as a currently-open station, and I don't think it was ever a station (it's very close to Huyton), so I've removed it.  --RFBailey 19:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Whishaw in 1840 the intermediate stations were Broad Green, Roby Lane, Huyton Lane, Huyton Quarry (where one would expect a junction?), Kendrick's Cross, Lea Green, St. Helen's Junction, Collin's Green, Parkside, Kenyon Junction, Bury Lane, Flow Moss, Lamb's Cottage, Barton Moss, Patricroft, Eccles, Cross Lane Bridge. It is not however known when these opened. In early railways there were not such stations, generally the train would be stopped and boarded at a level crossing, adminstered by a crossing-keeper. Chevin (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wavertree Lane is missing (closed 1836 when Edge Hill opened). I'm currently drafting an entry for it. CastWider (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wavertree Lane railway station now added. There's also a Wavertree Lane added erroneously if anyone knows how to delete it. My apologies -- should have used Move.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastWider (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pick the one that you don't want, and add  to the top. Do it soon, because if somebody else edits it in the meantime, it may become ineligible for speedy deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Done. Thanks CastWider (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Stations

message: I propose that the article on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company should be merged here.  It's a fairly short article which contains very little content, which could be included here because it's all relevant.  --RFBailey 21:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support:  good idea, they fit together well. Shrew 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support:  Nessuno834 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support:  I completely agree Ed Podesta 10:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support:  How much did the shares cost? Tabletop 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support:  I support such a proposal. DonBarton 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support:  Agree; The new article should, however include details of rolling stock, particularly locomotives. See eg Edge Hill railway works: "by 1845 some twenty-eight engines were built ..." Peter Shearan 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: This article is currently under Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 23:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: delisted GA per above.Sumoeagle179 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: The Opening section says "By 1840, the track seems to have been largely replaced by parallel rail".  What is this supposed to mean?  That the pre-1840 track had non-parallel rails? --Jotel (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Booth's parallel rail": Top and bottom edges of the rail were parallel so it could be turned over and re-used when worn. It didn't work, because of the wear on the underside from the chairs made the intended new surface bumpy. Stephenson had used fish-belly rail. If nobody else gets to it I'll change this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fishbelly rails were castings. The parallel rails came in when it was possible to roll wrought iron. Whishaw describes five different classes of rail, in 1840, the fishbelly mostly superceded by "double parallel" form in various weights, what would in later years become "Bullhead" Chevin (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel rail 

message: Somebody has put in a bunch of "Citations Needed" on the colour of the various signal lights. I'm not sure where one would find detailed information, but a place to start, believe it or not, is Marvin Harris's (1979) Cultural Materialism, which includes some information on same as part of a discussion of the vagaries of structuralism (pp. 197-200). He cites Frederick Gamst (1975), "Rethinking Leach's Structural Analysis of Color and Instructional Categories in Traffic Control Signals," American Ethnologist 2: 271-96.  Doubtless Gamst's original article has better sourcing, but this might be a place to start.24.81.25.127 (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  colour of lights 

message: *Liverpool to Manchester monorail worth a mention?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Worth a mention

message: Spectator Magazine, 18 SEPTEMBER 1830, Page 4, refers to a gap of approximately six feet. Accounts of the Huskisson tragedy refer to others as standing firm in the middle of the two tracks and being untouched, and it seems clear that the width of the gap was not the critical factor in the accident. Other sources, which may be urban myths, support the view that the middle was built to guage so that exceptionally wide loads could be moved at quiet times. It is suggested that the whole paragraph relating to width be deleted since there are no supporting citations, and the contemporaneous Spectator report is contradictory. 27.252.141.33 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track spacing 

message: Shouldn't Earlestown come above Newton-le-Willows given the location of the stations? CastWider (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station sequence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008183818/http://www.n-le-w.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=27 to http://www.n-le-w.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=27
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've changed the date of formation to reflect that shown in ref 12 which comes from Booth's account. The new date marks the decision to form a Joint Stock Company, to restrcuture the hitherto provisional committee, and to replace James with Stephenson. The significance of the previously cited date is unclear other than its being cited by Grace's Guide. Arguably the new date is also somewhat arbitrary as no permission had been granted by Parliament at this stage to build a line.CastWider (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of formation 

message: There is no support for these claim. The railway was largly finaced by Liverpool, The MSC was built by Manchester to bypass Liverpool., it lfailed economally as ship size increased before it was finished, but the rate payers of manchester are still paying for it to be built.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive profits

message: The caption to the photo suggests that the memorial was unveiled in 1913. While the photo indicates some ceremony is in progress, the Grade II-listed memorial was, in fact, unveiled in May 1831. The tablet was been replaced twice (in 1831 after frost damage and in 2001 after damage by vandals). The "original" is now located in the National Railway Museum at York with replicas at Parkside and Newton-le-Willows.CastWider (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huskisson memorial photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603074339/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAchat.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAchat.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20150309092746/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Better-rail-services-become-a-reality-between-Liverpool-Lime-Street-and-Manchester-Airport-station-22b0.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Better-rail-services-become-a-reality-between-Liverpool-Lime-Street-and-Manchester-Airport-station-22b0.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603060408/http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/lhol/ to http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/lhol/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It says in the Construction section "In place of George Stephenson, the railway promoters appointed George and John Rennie as engineers, who chose Charles Blacker Vignoles as their surveyor". In the next but one paragraph it goes on to say "The Rennies insisted that the company should appoint a resident engineer, recommending either Josias Jessop or Thomas Telford, but would not consider George Stephenson except in an advisory capacity towards locomotive design.[34] The board rejected their terms and re-appointed Stephenson as engineer with his assistant Joseph Locke.[35] He clashed with Vignoles, leading to the latter resigning as resident engineer". So at what point did Vignoles become the resident engineer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richerman (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Vignoles resident surveyor or Engineer? 

message: The somewhat subdued party proceeded to Manchester, where, the Duke being deeply unpopular with the weavers and mill workers, they were given a lively reception, and returned to Liverpool without alighting.
:This doesn't immediately make sense. A 'lively reception' would normally mean an enthusiastic welcome. Or does it refer to a noisy protest? Valetude (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be a typical euphemism of the time. Also they didn't get off the train. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Lively reception' ? 

message: "First Inter-city railway"? Yet it was between 2 towns? The Stockton & Darlington line was the world's first passenger carrying railway, built several years earlier and which infact gave the idea to Manchester-Liverpool. It was however the first 'purpose built' passenger railway. AntCairns (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make a specific point.  The term "inter-city" is a bit geeky here anyway.  From memory I think its quotable the L&MR was the first to introduce a scheduled passenger service between two cities.  From memory the major or key aim might have been freight but passengers came to dominate.  The key question is waht can be sourced.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The L&M was the first public railway to use locomotives for all traffic. The S&D, also a public railway, allowed private operators to run trains and choose whatever motive power they wanted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking not true, then more strictly speaking true (If I read it right Wapping Tunnel was stationary engine worked ... stationary engine at Edge hill until nearly 1900 (Ferneyhough,1980,p.37)).  But I have a real problem with in my problem the undue weight of :Inter-city in the first lead sentence.  The term "inter-city" to me conjures images of a class 47 with a rake of blue-grey coaches which was a British Rail branding term.   The offending source on the article page is , which I think uses "Inter-city" to mean "between cities", was introduced on  by , subsequently disputed by an IP but moved to the first sentence at  by .  To quote (Carlson,1969,IFC) "From every point of view—in its service to users and the surrounding area, in monetary return to its stockholders and operationally—the L&M set the standard for the railway age".  Rolling through wikipedia's various articles relating to inter-city, a 1950's term, I think it is most inappropriate in this article.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that the S&D was planned and operated much like the canals were. A canal company provided the waterway, but the boats were mostly owned and operated privately; the canal company may have owned boats which could be hired. Similarly, the S&D provided the railway lines, but the trains were mostly owned and operated privately; the S&D also owned some locos which hauled (privately-owned) goods and coal trains. Apart from the demonstration run on the opening day, passenger trains were initially horse-drawn exclusively; some "trains" were a single coach, much like a stagecoach on railway wheels, and the drivers of these trains were not S&D employees. Even the steam loco drivers were contractors. See for example Tomlinson p. 117 et seq. It wasn't long before chaos ensued, with a consequent introduction of rules governing how the traffic should be worked - remember, there were no signals, no telegraph, no continuous brakes and definitely no safety devices. So the directors of the L&M learned from the S&D's mistakes, and from the outset resolved to operate the trains themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

text: My understanding is inter-city is a 1950's/1960's branding WP:NEOLOGISM, and while it could be used in the context of between cities that is best avoided.  The S&DR, with which I am very much less familar than the L&MR (I possess zero direct books on former and 4 direct books on latter), while the exemplar railway of the period 1825-1829 its operation was at times haphazard.  From L&MR commencement of operations from September 1830 the L&MR took over as the example others looked to follow and operated regular services in a format that would be recognised in a modern railway.  As (Ferneyhough,1980,IFC) puts it: "As the world's first railway, using steam locomotives regularly to haul passenger carriages and goods wagons along iron rails, the Liverpool & Manchester Railway formed the model for those that rapidly followed, in England and indeed in many countries overseas".  Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you say is general consensus then I am prepared to go with the consensus, and my view may be different because what I generally feel, however even in that event I am far from convinced it is appropriate so high in the lede (without being referenced in the body), especially as there appears to be more than myself at that point of view.  While it appears people think I am calling this because I dont like it; if there are competing claims why it should be included then these may be brought out in the article.  In the interim can someone who wishes the inclusion of inter-city please wikilink it.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

text: @: While I concur with your sentiments Facts without sourced references are possibly treated as WP:OPINION here.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Inter-city railway? 

message: Neither Liverpool nor Manchester were cities until after 1845 when the line ceased to operate as The Liverpool and Manchester Railway. 109.144.16.83 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter city railway