Talk:London and North Eastern Railway

London Termini
This article doesn't mention which London termini the LNER used. Someone here must know this? Colin4C (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say Liverpool Street (Great Eastern services), Kings Cross (East Coast mainline) and Marylebone (Grear Central services), I cannot recall any other LNER mainline termini.  XTOV (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ That's the lot as far as long-distance services were concerned - but it's often forgotten that the LNER also owned Fenchurch Street, which had more LMS trains than LNER. I've added info to London and North Eastern Railway. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ships
The article says nothing of the ships operated by the LNER. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on format and push for GA status
Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on this article and articles on the other "Big Four" pre-nationalisation companies here. Contributions to the discussion are welcomed. ColourSarge (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The Discussion has been archived here.-- EdJogg (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

L. N. E. R. headquarters?
Did L. N. E. R. have a headquarters? The Articles for G. W. R., LMS and Southern all have a headquarters in London (Paddington, Euston and Waterloo respectivly), did L. N. E. R. have one too, if so what was it? I can't find anything on the interweb about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The LNER went mainly for a decentralised organisational policy, so that each of the Areas was largely independent of the others, and had its own headquarters which was usually the HQ of the predecessor railway - for example, the HQ of the North Eastern Area was the former North Eastern Railway HQ at York.
 * A few departments covered the whole LNER, but these were split between two of the four London termini - the offices of the Chief General Manager, Chief Mechanical Engineer and Chief Accountant were at King's Cross, but the Joint Secretaries were at Marylebone, as was the Boardroom; it could be stated that Marylebone, as the location of the Boardroom, was the overall HQ (see Steventon railway station). In addition, some meetings concerned with Parliamentary matters were held at offices in Cowley Street, Westminster - the former NER's London offices. These "all-line" departments in London were generally concerned with policy matters, the day-to-day operation being delegated to the Areas - so, reporting to the Chief General Manager were three Divisional General Managers, one each for the Southern Area, North Eastern Area and Scottish Area. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A few departments covered the whole LNER, but these were split between two of the four London termini - the offices of the Chief General Manager, Chief Mechanical Engineer and Chief Accountant were at King's Cross, but the Joint Secretaries were at Marylebone, as was the Boardroom; it could be stated that Marylebone, as the location of the Boardroom, was the overall HQ (see Steventon railway station). In addition, some meetings concerned with Parliamentary matters were held at offices in Cowley Street, Westminster - the former NER's London offices. These "all-line" departments in London were generally concerned with policy matters, the day-to-day operation being delegated to the Areas - so, reporting to the Chief General Manager were three Divisional General Managers, one each for the Southern Area, North Eastern Area and Scottish Area. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New Use Of Name
On 16th May 2018 it was announced that pursuant to Governement Policies set out in UK Parliament by Tannsport Minister Chris Grayling, the East Coast Main Line will be renationalised in June this year. Both The BBC and The Guardian reported that the new name for this nationalised railway will be the London & North Eastern Railway. I added a paragraph to this article referencing the said changes under the heading of "Re_Emergence Of Name" including references to the speech and policy changes and references to the articles concerned. The added paragraph made it clear that no direct business connection existed between the two companies and this was indeed one of the reasons for making the situation clear. My paragraph was swiftly removed with no reason given. I hereby submit that the creation of the new railway under this name needs to be present in this article whether the other editor likes it or not - The UK Government have done this, not me. I would ask whether the editor who removed my addition did so because he or she feels as though they are personally caretakers to this article and don't like other people getting involved... or just jealous of the name LNER and don't like the idea of the new company. There is quite clearly an explanation needed in this article - even if only to differentiate from the original company. otherwise there's going to have to be a disambiguation page. THIS HAPPENED. It happened on May 16 2018. The article is now factually out of date as a result of an edit.86.170.157.134 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)AndyT86.170.157.134 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Did it make any profit?
It was a for-profit company listed on the stock market.

What was its financial performance like? Did it make profits, or lose money? Did its shares outperform the stock market or lag? How did its shares perform relative to other railway companies in the UK? Dividends? Return on capital? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.160.165.186 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

CME Edward Thompson
The opinion of rail historian Simon A.C. Martin is used to describe Thompson's tenure, but it's uncited. Presumably it's from Edward Thompson Wartime CME, ISBN 9781913390280, but I don't have access. Tagged .--AntientNestor (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)