Talk:Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway

What are the Wicker Arches?
The Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Co viaduct in Sheffield, at the site of Sheffield Victoria Station was named the Victoria Viaduct. No entry for this can be found in Wikipeadia. In Sheffield it is almost universally referred to as the Wicker Arches and has a wiki page of that name. I am suggesting changes to Wikipeadia articles and references to this structure. Please post all comments and opinions on the Talk:Sheffield page.

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
I see no reason to redirect this article to GCR - it was a company that lasted 50 years until it was renamed as such - and the latter only lasted 17 years! There must be much more to say - it covered a large area of northern England and had its own story to tell. The GCR episode brought it down if anything else!!!! Peter Shearan 09:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to rewrite both this and the Great Central Railway so as to conatin the details of each Railway's history within that article. That way, there need be no mention in this one of the London extension, which happened after the GCR came into being, nor much mention of later closures of lines. Peter Shearan 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely the company began with the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester Railway, which took over the finance of the Grimsby line, then linked it to Sheffield and then gained an Act of Parliament to merge the the two other lines into itself as the MS&LR. It was as the SA&ML that it built the first bore of the Woodhead Tunnel with provision to build the second bore as traffic built up. Chevin 10:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The MSLR and the Great Central Railway were the same company just renamed. I dont see a case for this being split. G-Man  * 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about the GCR. The SA&MR wasn't a subsidiary of the M&SLR as the article implies, it was the beginning of it. Chevin 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why split?
I'm sorry but I still dont quite understand the logic of splitting this from Great Central Railway. The MS&LR and the GCR were the same company just renamed when the London extension was opened. Personally I think they should be re-merged, with MS&LR redirecting to Great Central Railway. G-Man * 22:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well seem as no-one's commented on this. I'll at some point get round to re-merging the articles. G-Man  * 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment. The MS&LR was formed from the Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway and the Sheffield, Ashton-Under-Lyne and Manchester Railway. If we are going to start merging, I suggest the title Railway, and we can have a really long page about it. Conversely, if each constituent company retains its own page, it will be easier to edit, easier to find stuff and won't involve a multi-megabyte download when the individual pages are accessed, unlike a huge big merged article. End comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.163.213.196 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sheffield Railway
I'm trying to get more information so I can correctly link Sheffield Railway in the Bridgewater Canal article. The reference for this information is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Canal#cite_note-13 - could anyone help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Construction
For a cutting edge venture of its day, there is little mention of the engineers and men that built the lines, embankments, stations, tunnels, goods yards etc. etc.

Is this information unknown or has it been assumed that no one is interested in such trivia?

I for one would like to know more about the years 1845 - 1849 when most of the work was actually done. The day to day operations of the railway are not the interesting bits of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.163.213.196 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of template
Why not this template?

Peter Horn User talk 22:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also Template:Infobox rail line Peter Horn User talk 22:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox company is not really relevant to a railway because it lacks fields that are peculiar to a railway. whereas Template:Infobox rail company is relevant. The the fields that not found Template:Infobox rail company but found in the former could be added to Template:Infobox rail company Peter Horn User talk 17:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

MS&LR Ltd; and ships
The infobox claims that the MS&LR was a Limited Company. Can this really be true?

Also I am uncomfortable with the list of ships. The problem is that is only a list with almost no narrative or explanatory information. It unbalances the article, and I propose to temporarily remove it. If someone knows more about the marine issues than I do, could they in due course reinstate the list but make it more explanatory, please? There are several "marine" sections in Dow's three volumes as well as the source cited. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of any historic railway which had the word "limited" in the name. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed "Limited". I'm not really sure "defunct" is an apt word, either, but life is too short.
 * Let me emphasise that the removal of the list of ships is (I hope) temporary. Anyone who knows about these matters could retrieve the list, but would, I urge, provide a narrative saying where the ships operated and on what traffic (cattle boat? Humber ferry? Antwerp mail packet?) and why they were replaced. Afterbrunel (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you know about ships, I think. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - many railway companies worldwide operated ships. If it is felt that a list of ships is getting too dominant, then the usual way to deal with the issue is to split them out. See shipping services of the London and South Western Railway for an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I considered that, and fwiw I think that is the right thing to do. (Also the main MS&LR article is already long enough.) My discomfort is that the "ships" article wouldn't be very encyclopaedic; it would just be a list. So it needs someone to flesh it out into a viable article. Afterbrunel (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)