Talk:Liverpool Lime Street railway station

Sentences
I thought that writers of articles were expected to use full sentences. There are some obvious problems, but I don't want to spoil the British English (if that is what accounts for some of the stylistic characteristics).

Thanks for the anonymous addition, but it seems to me that the article has full sentences except in the bulleted section. RickK 05:42, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite in a different style whilst retaining the content. I can't wait to find out what stylistic errors I have made!

Rail Template
I have added a very small rail template box, as I only have limited local knowledge on such matters. I do not intend to be a vandal - far from it - but given that there seems to be a standardisation problem with the UKrailwaystations category, I cannot see why such a device should not feature on every page. The current state of the UK Railway Station list is frustrating as so many of the entries are either missing or inadequate. I really want to help out in any way I can. doktorb 20:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Lower Level
Would suggest creating new article for Lime Street Lower Level as it an entirely seperate station. Different operator, different location code, different services and different environment, (underground). If nobody disagree, will create in 7 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.82.135 (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the low level station is technically separate. There should be a 'Lime Street (Merseyrail)' article. The fact that they're managed by different companies (Network Rail and Merseyrail respectively) shows this and is in contrast to the likes of Southport and Chester where there's just one complete station, with Merseyrail just being one of a plural number or TOCs present. Kai (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking since all the Tube stations with Mainline services have a separate underground station article, should we do this for Lime Street too? I've gathered more info for the Undergound over the last few months but I'm not sure it the page now looks messy or not. What do we think? MKY661 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all have a separate article, in fact that's the exception rather than the rule. Most (such as Blackfriars; Cannon Street; Liverpool Street; London Bridge; Marylebone; Moorgate; Paddington; and Victoria) have a single article for both main line and Underground. Separate articles are only provided in special circumstances: where one main line station is served by two underground stations (such as Charing Cross/Charing Cross tube station/Embankment tube station and Euston/Euston tube station/Euston Square tube station); where one Underground station is shared by two main line stations (such as King's Cross St. Pancras tube station/King's Cross/St Pancras and Waterloo tube station/Waterloo/Waterloo East); or where a walk along the streets is necessary (such as Fenchurch Street/Tower Hill). -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I just saw some pf them weren't separate. --MKY661 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Passenger numbers
2005/06: 14.472 million but 2006/07: 6.377 million. On the face of it that's a huge reduction. I imagine that the criteria were changed, since I can't imagine that Lime St. lost over 50% of its custom in a year, but if so shouldn't that be mentioned? It looks bizarre with no explanation. 86.132.139.119 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

passenger number response
this was due to all tickets being sold to Liverpool being credited to Lime Street Mainline, so Moorfields, Liverpool James Street, Liverpool Central & Lime Street Lower Level were misrepresented. This changed. Liverpool Central is probably more intensively used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.228.70 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ken Dodd
I recently visited this station and found there was a statue of Ken Dodd, not sure if this should be included. Zunraa (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See if there's a writeup about it in the Liverpool Echo or similar - if so, then by all means mention it, giving the reference in the usual way. A photo would be nice too - this is not unprecedented, see this statue of a bear from Darkest Peru. Upload that to Wikimedia Commons - their upload page is here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Managed by Network Rail
The article states that Lime Street is "one of 19 stations managed by Network Rail.", however most other station entries and the Network Rail page all claim there are only 18. I'm not sure which is correct, but clearly one isn't. AndyLandy (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This doc, part of the current National Rail timetable, states "Network Rail is responsible for operating 18 managed stations" on page 41. The same page also lists 18 stations, and Liverpool Lime Street is one of the 18. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

'Liverpool Lime Street' can't handle 12-car trains'
According to the Parliamentary inquiry into HS2, the Councils' consortium 51M says that LLSt can't handle 12-car trains (Page 20). Is this true? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless they've shortened three of them, it can. See
 * which shows platforms 6/7/8 as accommodating 12-car trains; platform 9 - 11-car; plats 1, 4/5 - 8-car; platform 2/3 - 7-car. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * which shows platforms 6/7/8 as accommodating 12-car trains; platform 9 - 11-car; plats 1, 4/5 - 8-car; platform 2/3 - 7-car. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Closure
I have just been reqading bits of MALTS(Merseyside Area Land Use/Transportation Study: final report: report A to the Steering Committee) from 1969 in a couple of paras closing Lime STreet and opening a new station at Edge Hill is considered as partof the Mersey Rail plan I wrote it up here [A New Edge Hill http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-new-edge-hill.html] I didn't think to copy the para as a ref. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

First conveyance of mail by railway
Routine conveyance of mail by train between Liverpool and Manchester started on 11th November 1830. Special coaches were introduced in or shortly after April 1831. Lime Street was not the first Liverpool station involved (this would have been Crown Street) and the BBC web page cited is incorrect. CastWider (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Candlesticks
These columns were on the opposite side of the road and associated with St George's Hall, not the station. Legend has it that they were surplus to the Hall's requirements. To be fair, the Echo article doesn't specify that they were associated with the station but that is the (incorrect) implication here and the sentence is better removed. CastWider (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool Lime Street railway station. 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/20110809132640/http://www.ncrug.chrisellams.co.uk/page3.html to http://www.ncrug.chrisellams.co.uk/page3.html

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) 04:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool Lime Street railway station. 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/20170216211824/http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/marc/research/projects/past-projects/LiverpoolReportv2.pdf to http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/marc/research/projects/past-projects/LiverpoolReportv2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170216211824/http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/marc/research/projects/past-projects/LiverpoolReportv2.pdf to http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/marc/research/projects/past-projects/LiverpoolReportv2.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/environmentalsciences/docs/civicdesign/docs/limestreetreport2.pdf

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) 08:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal request has been received to merge 2017 Liverpool Lime Street wall collapse into Liverpool Lime Street railway station; dated: December 2017. Proposer's Rationale: the latter article covers the collapse sufficiently. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The current article devotes two lines to it. There is no reason not to keep the broader material separately (indeed, now that the report has been published, it will be augmented), and even to this to the main article would grant it WP:UNDUE weight. For disclosure, I wrote the article in question, so perhaps Mandy Rice-Davies Applies.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 17:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to merge; the detail is so short that it could be reasonably covered in the main article. The sub-article has a grand total of two paragraphs and one sentence, outside of its own lead - it doesn't seem enough to be worth keeping as its own entity in my opinion. Kyteto (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge as the incident article is not even that long and can easily be condensed into the station article. Not everything on it has to be merged as Wikipedia is not everything. There was a similar collapse at a New York City Subway station in 2009 and we do not have a separate article on that, so I do not see why this collapse needs one. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Preparation for electrification - picture caption error
The 'overhead wires' shown in the 1959 photo are to supply and hold up lights, not in preparation for electrification.

Not only is this clearly visible in the photo, but the wires are held up by supports which are clearly within the platforms, and thus of no use at all to trains on the lines.

The caption needs to be edited to remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.66.219 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I took the caption of the photograph to refer to the large gantry in the right side of the image. That looks like it's not part of the platform and looks considerably more hefty than the gantries you rightly point out are for lighting.LicenceToCrenellate (talk)
 * That's a signal gantry. You never get a ladder up the mast of an OHLE structure, it's too dangerous. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)