Talk:History of rail transport in Great Britain 1923–1947

Competition between the Big Four
This artical states: "Although not in direct competition with each other". However I am under the impression that where routes or lines offered alternative options for freight or passengers the companies would compete and try quite hard to attract custom away from the other company via advertising, service levels or only doing the bare minimum in allowing access to their tracks. e.g. between GWR and SR in Devon and Cornwall.

Perhaps the wording could be changed to "Competition was limited to wherever the companies offered alternative routes to the same customers, e.g. between LMS and LNER between London and Scotland or between GWR and SR in some areas of Devon and Cornwall."

Unsigned: 15:15, 2 December 2008 -- 

Order of companies -- alphabetical?
Now, you're going to think this is a case of "sour grapes", or similar, but it's not...

In this article, the LMS is consistently listed first, which may suggest that the original compiler was an LMS fan... :o) Wouldn't it be normal to expect the companies to be listed alphabetically? OK, so I am a GWR fan, having grown up in "GWR territory", but that's why I noticed it -- the GWR is usually listed first, LMS second -- simple, alphabetical listing -- a common policy in WP articles.

EdJogg (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)