Talk:Merseyrail/Archive 1

Map
I had to remove the map: it could hardly be described as a map showing "the future of Merseyrail", it was a just map of Liverpool from 1888. While some of railway lines mentioned in the "Future" section appear on it, you need to know where to look (if you look really hard, you can spot the Victoria Tunnel). A map showing future possibilities for Merseyrail can be found here (PDF file, see page 33), part of the Merseyside Local Transport Plan.

I've also removed some of the other "proposed" ideas: they appear to be pure speculation. The link to www.downtownliverpool.org (which appears to be the source of some of this material) points to a page where people were invited to send in their own suggestions, and also includes some fairly ludicrous/unworkable schemes (e.g. building a motorway along a disused railway tunnel) and nothing official. I've left in the Canada Dock branch part as it appears in the Local Transport Plan.

Let's stick to including official plans, or at least those which have appeared in the press (e.g. Burscough curves reopening), as this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. --RFBailey 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was being bit light hearted, the Canada Branch as the London And North Western Railway is also on it. The Hospital and University are right next to each other. I think the proposal was to use the cutting for the station.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Merseyrail logo.gif
Image:Merseyrail logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Change of colour
I have changed the color of all mersey rail services to yellow, e.g 1 colour for all services, feel free to revert back Mark999 01:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Feet on Seats
I have edited this section to remove the phrase 'thrown out of Court by Chester Magistrates'. The offender was given an absolute discharge, which simply means that the Magistrates chose to impose no penalty for the offence. It doesn't mean they refused to hear the case, acquitted the defendant, stopped the trial early or any other action that would justify the use of the expression 'thrown out'. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

All plans are acceptable
Let's stick to including official plans, or at least those which have appeared in the press (e.g. Burscough curves reopening), as this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. --RFBailey 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this - at least have links to imaginative plans. MerseyTravel, who come up with official plans, have proven to be inept. They came up with the maligned tram idea when Merseyside is festooned with disused lines, trackbeds, tunnels and stations awaiting re-use and brought onto the Merseyrail metro. The tram plan was suspended (thank God!) and Merseytravel also came up with the white elephant of Liverpool South Parkway Station. The London train was supposed to stop there, however the platform is too short, so they speed by. Those who have come up with the official plans have proven to be inept.

Many official proposals are just tinkering with the edges of Merseyrail, like the Burscough Curve, which is not even in Merseyside. The central core of the system, the underground Liverpool city centre is paramount. Proposals to extend to Preston and Wigan are ludicrous, as these are separate towns outside Merseyside requiring mainline access, not local metro access. Wrexham wants to be on Merseyrail and the Wrexham-Biston line is scheduled to electrified with overhead wires. This would entail duel pick up trains to enter the Merseyrail network and tunnels. If Wrexham wants to be on Merseyrail then fine, let them pay. Money should be directed at Liverpool's underground city centre.

In May 2007, the local media reported, "Liverpool Chamber of Commerce transport spokesman Stephen Pearse welcomed the move and called for imaginative ideas to make full use of the redundant underground routes." The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce were requesting new ideas of how to reuse the Waterloo and Wapping tunnels. 

Here is an excellent realistic proposal, justified to create an underground city centre Circle Line using largely disused tunnels and existing lines. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterspaces (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC) ---

Best not use train buff speak. Acronyms such as PPM, MMA, EMU, etc, should have the correct full words. Waterspaces (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC) ________

I have extensively improved the format and content of this page. It was a jumble of poorly written trainspotter speak with no structure - little more than a waste for time, except for train spotters. People keep playing about and putting train spotter speak back in.....and removing parts they don't find to their "liking". It is written, not quite there yet, so the average person can understand.

The trainspotters can go to dedicated train sites and speak their own language there. Please leave this page alone, unless you have something sensible to contribute. Few have lately. Waterspaces (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has problems with the article being improved, however opinion and speculation is not welcome on this site, nor is incorrect information, and will continue to be removed. There are dozens of references missing and grmmar/spelling is very poor as is Title Case where is it is needed.

507gen (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ---

Please refrain from vandalism!!!! It your opinion what is opinion!!!!!

Speculation? Some are media based. Others maybe constructive suggestion for improvements. This is not an outlet for Merseyrail management to push their line. This system serves the people. It is not a 100% privately "controlled" system. Franchises are awarded by public bodies.

I do not give my personal opinion. I give moves and approach and various interesting and beneficial suggestions to improve the system. Any so-called opinion that you perceive is based on factual observation - James Street station was a filthy dump and put people off the system, not opinion.

If you think thee is personal opinion, specifically pin it down on this discussion page - DO NOT remove content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterspaces (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am no train spotter or work in the rail industry, and see the world from a realistic manner and what this system offers the people of Merseyside - and what it further offers them (to you that is opinion).

The page was an incomprehensible unstructured, poorly written joke until I restructured it. Many comments were the sort see on forum posts. It is an encyclopedia for anyone to read and instantly understand - does the average person really care that Merseyrail a some diesel shunters at one time? They don't do they? The page still need much work.

Keep to noting bogie types. This is not a page for train spotters, with spotter speak, as it was. There are other forums for train spotters and their language, please use one of them.

Waterspaces (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong way round. It is up to you to justify your comments with references. You haven't done that they are therefore likely to be removed as unsubstiated.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"does the average person really care that Merseyrail has some diesel shunters at one time" -- No they don't. And many don't care about its history or future, but facts are facts whether they are of interest to you personally or not.

507gen (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trainspotter, Leave the text alone!!!!! Your idea of a encyclopedia is odd - you have an agenda for sure. If you don't like something get to me on here and pinpoint your concerns. You have already been told this. Waterspaces (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sections violate WP:CRYSTAL
I'm afraid that a good part of this article reads like a rail enthusiast's thinktank, and that is not encyclopedic content. Sections about the future that are unsourced have to go, and even those sections that are sourced have to be reviewed. Wikipedia can't list every proposal for everything, or it'd be full. ninety:one 00:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I appreciate that a lot has been done, but there is still more. ninety:one 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Waterspaces: Undoing legimitate changes is not acceptable wiki behaviour and nor is trying to insult people. Read the rules and come back or have your account deleted, remember everything you do is logged. Your biased opinion will continue to be removed and facts will be updated by everyone. This site is not for publishing your own ideas or suggestions for the future. Find somewhere else to do it. 507gen (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC) - The info in the: "Heavy rail to a medium-capacity system" section is largely from the wiki links, no external verification needed.

It is not accepted that people remove whole sections because they don't like it. The removals are not legitimate - except in the mind of the remover. Once again...If you don't like certain parts get back to me and pinpoint your reservations. DO NOT remove whole sections.

People insisting on verifiable links to sections that clearly do not need them will be ignored. Common sense has to prevail.

Re: the future. Well what sources do you want? Official sources? Er, er, er, no. The "official" Merseytravel/Merseyrail have been proven to be inept. The average intelligent person can see where expansion or changes are needed, media reports also back this up. A lay person reading can see these sections and make their minds up.

I do not insult and it is clear those who have contributed are rail enthusiasts and write in rail-speak - who see matters different from the general public. It is frustrating when whole sections are removed because they think they know it all. Waterspaces (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If "media reports back this up", please cite them; that would be a start. Meanwhile, please read WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Those are in addition to the core policies to which you have already been referred on numerous previous occasions. Rodhull  andemu  15:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to cite Merseyrail, but you do have to cite reliable sources of some sort – reports in reputable media, government documents, or something of the like. So far, what you've been posting is personal opinion, and Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Links to other Wikipedia articles do not constitute citations, as this site cannot be the proof of its own assertions. David Arthur (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now attempted to clear up some of the mess. The article was littered with far too many lists, far too much repetition, inaccurate references to "Merseyrail Metro" (it isn't a metro!) and far too much general nonsense. It's still far from perfect - most of the future expansion needs to go, but I'll leave that to those in the know as to which bits can stay. Certainly there's some truth in the Burscough Curves, but tram trains? News to me. L1v3rp00l (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in question
L1v3rp00l, a link to tram-trains was given. New to you, however in the frame. I would not call what you removed a mess at all.

The page looks like it is written by rail enthusiasts for rail-enthusiasts. It reads like PR from Merseyrail. Far too much rail-speak is in the text, confusing non-rail enthusiast readers. Far too much of only MerseyTravel/Merseyrail's ideas matters for expansion on the page - the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce asked for ideas from anyone on how to use the tunnels (this part was removed including press link). A non-Merseytravel/Merseyrail proposal was linked to on how to re-use existing line and tunnels in Liverpool centre, where expansion is needed for city regeneration. This brings into question the neutrality of contributors and the article itself.

The average person should be capable of understanding anything written - the idea behind an encyclopedia.

The reader needs to know:


 * What Merseyrail is: a hybrid metro system (yes it is), which is heading for full metro if the disused lines & tunnels are re-commissioned.
 * Where it is: Merseyside with Liverpool as the core.
 * Its history
 * How it came about: merging different rail systems into one metro.
 * Its good points
 * It bad points: Poor ticketing, poor signage, does not serve Liverpool centre very well despite disused infrastructure available, etc. The reader needs to know that.
 * The future: Expansion. The system can easily be expanded onto disused lines, trackbed and tunnels. The reader needs to know that to assess its future and impact to the city and towns it services. Can the system be economically modernised by introducing cheaper light-rail or medium-rail carriages as done in Continental Europe?  The reader needs to know, if the system will progress.  The Expansion parts are very important to a city that is quickly regenerating.
 * The speculation, proposals and suggestions of MerseyTravel/Merseyrail are to expand the system on it periphery. The reader needs to know that. The reader also needs to know that the system can be expanded at its core: Liverpool & Birkenhead centres and inner-city. Press articles were pointed to but taken away. The readers can make their minds up to what is important to expansion. They need to know - and the proposals and suggestions with links are there.

The neutrality of this article is seriously in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.109.28 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been constant attempts to suppress legitimate views. This is an open forum and encyclopedia. The person doing this should move away from wiki and to a closed web site with passwords. (unsigned)

This is your problem - this site is not for 'views' or opinion or suggestion.507gen (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to give examples of "rail speak" in the article? I'm struggling to understand your meaning of this. As 507gen suggests, speculation or opinion is not the purpose of Wikipedia. It's here to present the facts. Most of the text I removed was either just that - speculation - or repetition.

I will state again. It is not a metro system. Capacities and frequencies are just not high enough for it to be classified as such. It is a commuter rail system, nothing more. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor will be unable to reply to your questions as he is the indefinitely-blocked User:Waterspaces; any edits he makes as an IP will be therefore reverted on sight unless and until he successfully appeals this block. Rodhull  andemu  16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
I have removed the following paragraph: As with London's Underground, the system is made up of a collection of separate railways. London created the London Underground metro system in the 1930s, while Liverpool created Merseyrail in the 1970s, merging the railways at Liverpool city centre. The system is still not fully merged as there is no electrified Merseyrail link from the city centre to the important Edge Hill rail junction. This curtails expansion onto the extensive disused Liverpool rail infrastructure. In response to this revert: yes, it hasn't been electrified, but "it" doesn't really exist (the planned connecttion fron the 1970s was never built. So I think it is better to avoid simplifying something which is better explained elsewhere.  Besides, the whole paragraph seems to display a lacxk of understanding of how the system is, or has been, run.  --RFBailey (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I though the paragraph was fine, explaining that Merseyrail is a merging of differing railways. The differing railways were not fully merged, which is useful information on its history. How can you object to that?   A little adaptation was needed, not removal. Here goes.

''As with London's Underground, the system is made up of a collection of separate railways. London created the London Underground metro system in the 1930s, while Liverpool created Merseyrail in the 1970s, merging the railways at Liverpool city centre. The separate railways are still not fully merged into the system as there is no electrified Merseyrail link from the city centre to the important Edge Hill rail junction. The railway to St. Helens is not merged physically into Merseyrail, remaining a diesel line. This lack of link also curtails expansion onto the extensive disused Liverpool rail infrastructure.'' That is better and worthy on inclusion. - cheers 79.65.119.190 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fleet Renewal
I feel some consistancy or cites are needed. Currently the following are ALL in the article (four different years):

LiverpoolRob (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Merseyrail fleet is due for renewal in 2013
 * In about 2013 the current Merseyrail fleet will need to be replaced
 * Merseyrail's fleet is due for replacement in 2011 (according to the Local Transport Plan for Merseyside), while the lease on the Class 507/508 fleet ends in 2014

System Definition
In the opening line it states commuter-rail. It says further down: "The system is one of the most frequent metro-style British commuter systems outside London, transporting over 100,000 passengers a day."

Merseyrail is clearly a metro system. It meets all the criteria: rapid transit, frequent services, underground in the centres (Liverpool & Birkenhead), separate system, separate identity, dedicated urban railway, etc. The Merseytravel chief says that the Merseyrail system is "creaking" is it used so much. Central station suffers from overcrowding, so much a new station is being contemplated at Lord St for Liverpool ONE. - cheers 79.65.119.190 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * aren't you blobked?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Skem
I had a word with Merseytravel about the reuse of the Skelmersdale Branch from Ormskirk as suggested by ATOC and they said never heard of it. They have now but it might be worth noting that the chair of the Commons Transport Select comittee, Liverpool MP and out and out advocate for Manchester, one Louise Ellman lives in Skem.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is, the reasons for opposition (quite rightly) are that the ATOC report suggested citing the station close to where the old station was, on the outskirts of the town; they'd have to come closer to the centre of the town. I'm amazed though they didn't have a clue about the fact there used to be a line there(!) Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they had heard of the line just not ATOC suggestion. It would still be close than mos of the other suggestions that just put a station on the Kirkby Wigan lines. I have suggested that they consider a propsal with the Parry People Mover.
 * Firstly – some apologies for a slow response to your email of the 13th May 2010
 * The ATOC report on “Connecting Communities” is public document (and can be downloaded off the website) – it represents a scoping document based on a combination of desktop and on site research. It represents a discussion document of possible options.
 * We examined (within England) – settlements above 15,000 population which did not have a direct rail link as a first stage methodology as to whether reinstatement was an option.
 * Our findings were that an option could exist of reinstating 3 miles of the former Ormskirk – Rainford Junction line – as a single, electrified track , and the extension of the existing 4 tph service to a new station on the north west corner of the Skelmersdale Ring Road. Cost estimates are around £31m and the project would have a benefit cost ratio of approximately parity when operating costs are put in, or just over 3 if these costs are excluded. We have a fairly simple model of estimating potential usage of any new facility , based on passenger trip rates of comparable towns , and cost estimates based on known industry figures (for example for traincrew, rolling stock hire and traction current per train mile)
 * Some on site options showed that the original route was to the west of the existing town, (the original alignment being lost under a road) – so that a new route would be required, and probably the acquisition of some commercial property - we understand that some of the route is now a cycle way route.
 * There is very little more detail to add in this case, as this is very much a high level study.
 * In terms of local support, we have a letter on file from the West Lancashire Local Support Partnership based in Ormskirk, which was very supportive of the Ormskirk extension option as mentioned in the ATOC report.  A study was carried out in 2002 (funded by Lancs County Council and WLC) of a scheme to extend the Kirkby line to Skelmersdale – which effectively recommended a park and ride station at West Pimbo on the existing line as the most cost effective solution. This letter – from Martin Forshaw, was copied to Alan Stilwell , Director of Operations at Merseytravel in Liverpool.
 * I hope this assists your query
 * Yours sincerely
 * Railway Planning Manager ATOC

--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merseytravel had never heard of it? Typical. They are so out of touch with most things.81.178.161.227 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Outer Loop and Edge Hill Spur
This has been simplified explaining the original postponed schemes which are now mothballed.81.178.161.227 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A big thanks to those who recently contributed to the Outer Loop and Edge Hill Spur sections. How wiki should operate.88.109.13.195 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC).

Citations template
I have added this because the article is a complete mess and becoming a bit of a joke. We seem to have waves of users adding original research and either uncited or incorrectly cited material. The fact the highly speculative "future" section is by far the biggest is alarming - the future section should be little more than a few sentences in my opinion. I will try to make some changes in the next few days. L1v3rp00l (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You stated, "in my opinion". That is all it is. The Future sections are spattered with references supporting the section. There is no original research, as it is all referenced, apart from a para which requests a citation. There are, and have been, from official bodies many proposals to expand the network. The reader needs to know this.  The history and future sections add value for the reader.  The wiki is not an outlet for Merseyrail or Merseytravel giving bare minimum information for passengers.  L1v3rp00l has openly stated his dislike for Merseyrail overtly showing prejudice. I suggest his edits are undone as a matter of course as we need objectivity and he has shown none.81.178.171.50 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of the thirteen paragraphs you added, only one had any sources. Content about history and future plans is worth having; twelve paragraphs of unverified content is not. Add in the negative unsourced content about Anthony Steen and it becomes a WP:BLP violation as well. Future plans should be covered, but do we really need to talk about every possible development that might have been tangentially mentioned in a press release? Alzarian16 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Outer Loop section was written by a number of people. The souces were given at the end of the section. Anthony Steen's involvment in its demise is in the book given.  Most of the info for the section came from the comprehensive published book, rewritten for wiki. The section is valid. Do you want the same reference at each par?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.227.185 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Futher source references added to this section.81.137.227.185 (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Outer Loop is history but many proposals for reuse and it is protected, so in the future section 81.137.227.185 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with objectivity or the so-called "prejudice" you mention, so let's put that to bed. Go back and read the comment again: I stated that if anything, I have a negative opinion of the network. Simply an opinion - a world away from openly showing "prejudice". By your logic almost no one would be able to edit almost any page on Wikipedia, since we all have opinions on most things. I also realise Wikipedia is not a place for the opinions of just one individual, nor is it a place, as you need to be aware, to provide 12 paragraphs of almost entirely unsourced material about a trivial and far-fetched idea for further expansion. This page becoming rather like the Liverpool Wiki article again: a mess of unresearched, unrealistic dreams about extending Merseyrail. Extensions that are so fanciful they are irrelevant and readers would neither know nor care about them. L1v3rp00l (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You did show prejudice and ripped out sourced material on your "opinion". The page is not a mess at all. It is well structured. Look at the index. 81.178.172.145 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional: I own a copy of Merseyrail Electrics: The Inside Story, given as the source of the entire Outer Rail Loop section. No page numbers were offered in the reference given, but there are four mentions of it in the book (pp 11, 19, 56, 70). Little more than a casual mention is given each time - far from enough to justify 12 paragraphs! The first reference to the Outer Rail Loop includes: "Mallin's scheme was understandably not taken seriously and no more was heard of it." I could also find no mention in the book of the track sections being safeguarded for future use. The other reference, the Liverpool City Council PDF, does mention safeguarding, but only suggests that the sections of rail should be safeguarded, not whether or not they actually are. So in short, I think much of the veracity of the Outer Rail Loop section has to be questioned. Not sure what others think, but unless we can cut it to just a couple of paragraphs at the most, it should be removed completely. The article could also be protected if necessary. L1v3rp00l (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The protection source was given. It is clear you did not look and just ripped out stuff that does not appeal to you. 81.178.172.145 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's untrue. You seem to suggest I have some sort of agenda against you. What nonsense - I just want this article improving, and wow, does it need improving. The facts are your sources don't agree with what you're saying, and we don't need a long-winded history lesson of a far-fetched possible improvement of questionable relevance to Merseyrail itself. If people want the future section longer than a few sentences as I suggested, then fine, I'm all for it if that's the consensus. What we don't need is a section dealing largely with speculation that takes up nearly two-thirds of the entire article. I don't see other TOC's pages filled with this sort of waffle. L1v3rp00l (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposals, from political and official bodies, to expand the easily expanded network, with parts of it protected, is not speculation. You appear to have a clear agenda. Thats is why I state that your edits be reversed as a matter of course, and put to the talk page. 88.109.15.131 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Outer rail loop" section, whilst very informative and in my opinion justified for inclusion, certainly needs shrinking. I just made a quick edit in removing some unecessary sections and bolding the name in the paragraph, and removing some text from one paragraph that is already mentioned in the article. I agree this entire section of the Merseyrail article is too long and needs condensing, but to suggest it should only be a couple of lines at most is ridiculous. Portions of this text are repeated elsewhere in the article and I think at the moment it's taking the long-winded approach when it can and should be significantly shorter. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to duplicate some information to make a coherent complete and understandable section. The east, west, north and south section of the proposed loop were given their own sections by a writer for ease of understanding. The Outer loop was a "postponed" project with a section protected and works ready, the header tunnels, to restart work. There has been countless mentions of reopening and many of the links are in the article in other sections.81.178.172.145 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying every duplicated text needs to be removed - that would be a daft move and certainly make some parts difficult to follow. I am saying there are some, even if small, sections of this larger section where information is needlessly duplicated (such as a part I removed) and removal of such info doesn't detract from the section as a whole. I can see when something needs condensing, though as I am guilty of doing quite the opposite myself most of the time, I wouldn't fancy trying to do it!
 * FWIW, I would like to see this article as a FA and every bit of relavant, interesting and uniquely mentioned information should be part of it - I agree history like this deserves inclusion, but there comes a point when you need to take a step back and just see when it's getting too long. Remembering what the purpose of it all is, who is going to read it, and realising at what point readers are "put-off" when it just doesn't get to the point soon enough or even at all (in the case of some recent additions). The references serve as a means to "read more", as is the option to include such links in the article itself, but this article doesn't need to be a combination of every single scrap of information and history relating to Merseyrail. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure of the article is fine. The index shows that. Look back about 3 or 4 years and the article was a disjointed mess full of railspeak, being no use to an intefested reader, and none to the casual reader. The reader needs to know how it is (now), how it was (history) and how it may be (future).  How it may be (future) is highly relevant in an expanding city.  The network has expanded over 30 years, with the last being South Parkway station.  A small section on the historical firsts of the network was ripped out by someone, which merits reinclusion with some refs and a rewrite. The Merseyrail network has many world firts. Does the section on the franchise need to be in?  Does the average person need or want to know that?  You must bare in mind there is politics at play here.  Merseytravel are still pursuing a tram network, after it was cancelled, while those against, like Councillor Monkcom, highlight the potential of expanding Merseyrail rapid-transit.  Those who aim to keep the article as little more than an explanation of how it is, and expansion of the timetable, I am weary about. Those who rip out a whole sections because they do not like it, without going to the talk page I have no time for and just reinstate and direct them to these pages.  All future expansion proposals are referenced.88.109.15.131 (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)88.109.15.131 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of "railspeak" is very revealing. Are you familiar with the term 'sockpuppet'? As far as this post goes, a trivial list about historical "firsts" does not merit inclusion at all. Wikipedia is not the place for trivia. Of course the franchise section needs to be in: this is a page about a train operating company. This is not an advert for Merseyrail: it is an unbiased encyclopaedia entry for it. Your extensive track record for reverting edits which go against what you and you alone think is right is why I would tar you with the same brush as you have tarred me: revert your edits as a matter of course. L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Historical firsts is not trivia. Wiki is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain relevant factual information. Historical firsts is not how many tennis balls can fit into Central underground station, which is trivia.   Understand what trivia is.  You at all opportunities attempt to suppress the Merseyrail article by ripping out whole sections because of your opinion, and not even taking it to the talk page, which leads me to conclude you have an agenda.88.109.15.131 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Future
I propose that the Future section is moved to a new article called Merseyrail Plans. In which past, current and future plans can be described. Leaving the current article to contain only what current exits. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would go along with that. As long as the history and future sections remain in the Merseyrail article.88.109.15.131 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er no the idea would be to remove the Plans and leave a link.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines too for a separate article, and liking the idea of including historical/present plans too so the entirely new "proposed" article wouldn't just be speculation. As the "Future" section takes up over half of the overall content, I think it seems entirely justified and logical to break this off into an article on its own. I understand the whole concept of "future" on an enclyclopedia is controversial and it'd still certainly need a major cleanup (a cut and paste in the current state wouldn't suffice). In the main (current) article, a link to this new article, with a VERY brief paragraph of the key points is all that is needed. Bungle (talk • contribs) (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with it as it stands. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail has so much easy expansion using disued infrastructure that maybe the "future" needs an article of its own. No othe network is so easily expanded in the UK using existing disused infrastructure. BUT! The main article must have a section on the future, and the ease of expansion of the netork, in a concise form. The reader of the main article must know that it is an easily expanded network and that proposals have been put forwards.  Then the new article goes into this in more detail.88.109.3.115 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the stuff in the plans actually belongs in the history section, a vast amount is unreferenced and I'm not sure it all refers to Merseyrail, which itself has only existed for the past couple of decades. Also as mentioned above, quite a bit is just speculation. I oppose but might reconsider if it is tidied. Simply south...... 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent Expasnion
This is a vague title needing a meaningful title. Although the content is condensed and appropriate. It does need trimming, referencing and written in no-rail talk, which is not difficult. All new stations since opening of Merseyrail are in one section which is nice.88.109.3.115 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

''This section was added under the history section following one on the loop and link scheme of the 70s and therefore I thought it right to call it 'Subsequent Expansion'. I did intend to add referencing to it - although the only reference would have been the TB Maund book referenced elsewhere as this gives all dates for station openings etc. I'm not too sure which 'rail talk' is referred to - I did mention 'diesel multiple units' at one stage which I guess could be changed to 'diesel trains' or 'diesel services'.

The article could be trimmed, although given the scale of the projects, I thought it appropriate to give some space to Conway Park and Liverpool South Parkway.

I would point out that the electrification and new stations projects were not only official projects of Merseytravel but ones which were delivered. Even though I added to it myself, I think we have gone over the top on the Outer Rail Loop, which is a project which has not been official policy since the early 1980s.''
 * I think by electrification, you mean the creation of a separate rapid-transit hybrid urban metro. Old hands still talk about Merseyrail as if it is still apart of BR.  It is important to maintain the structure of the article. The index shows that.  There is a section on electrification of the various railways that made up Merseyrail. A sub-section on new stations since initial opening is good. It has to be in the correct section.  The article does go into what Merseyrail initially was to be and what it was when opened. The line extensions are noted: Chester, Kirkby, etc. The future section does go into proposals from political and transport sources. The Outer Loop was to be a major part in the initial metro and is "protected", for future use. Over half was completed.  Work started on the Edge Hill Spur. Every now and then some proposal is put forward to to re-introduce these two projects.  They are rife for re-introduction as two football clubs are building stadia which needs rapid-transit. LFC are reconsidering their smallish stadium as they put it on hold and EFC have not fixed a site - the success of Arsenal (which is down to 27 rapid-transit rail platforms around it) is making clubs look hard again.212.139.124.215 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

''I've reintroduced the 'Subsequent Expansion' section but retitled 'Expanding the Network (1977- Present). I believe it is in the right place as the expansion followed on from the integration and increased capacity provided by the Loop and Link project - and it would be wrong to put it under 'Future' as these are now historic projects. Not all the expansion projects were electrifications - Garston - Hunts Cross was a line reopening. The aim was to create a rapid transit system across the whole metropolitan county - an aim that was partially realised.

''Whilst it is true to say that the route of the Outer Rail Loop is 'protected', the same is true of a lot of disused formations and there is no current plan by Merseytravel to revive the project.

''Enabling works were carried out for the Edge Hill Spur as part of the Link Line project and the project was authorised by the Merseyside Metropolitan Railway Act, no project works were undertaken. There have been proposals from several sources to revive this scheme but it has not been adopted as official policy by Merseytravel.''

History
I've now twice undone the reverts on this. The history section is now in chronological order. Any history of Merseyrail is bound to start with the Mersey Railway system from which it got its name and which introduced the underground system. This system was then extended in LMS days but it was not until the 70s that the other railways were integrated by means of the Loop and Link scheme. There is then a section on the extensions and new stations since the completion of the Loop and Link.

It does not duplicate the information about electrification as that is contained in the Future section and lists proposed electrification schemes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.226.237 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Add to that the text I reverted is inaccurate as the railways that formed Merseyrail were the Mersey Railway, Great Western Railway, Cheshire Lines Railway, Wirral Railway and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway i.e. five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.226.237 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a rail ethusiats article. It is not for those in the know. It for anyone to read and understand.  Too much railspeak.  The stucture was changed.  The History section goes straight into the Mersey Railway.  The uninformed reader previously read that Merseyrail was a collection of separate railways merged into one rapid-transit urban network - RIGHT AT THE TOP, where it should be.  Then it went on to say what they were.  They can be expanded for any detail. But great detail is not needed.  That section has been removed adding confusion. It is best to have the previous structure and embelish it.  The article is about "MERSEYRAIL", we do not need a detailed history of the separate railways before the merger. They are linked to if the reader wants more detail.  It is best to read the whole article as much was duplicated.81.178.171.15 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure up till now but your last posting is clearly the work of the same person as User:Waterspaces. Your expansion of the article has all the same attributes as this users work.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It cleary is not.81.178.171.15 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh it is, your use of language is very distinctive, your mode of defence similarly so. I even has to revert one of your OR regardingthe city boundaries. I think WP:DUCK--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, hence my mentioning sockpuppets in an earlier message. L1v3rp00l (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He has mellow a bit but not much.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, also further proof can be seen in the Glasgow Subway article - again arguing completely erroneously that Merseyrail is a "Metro" and thus one of the first in the world. L1v3rp00l (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pity. A few of his changes looked quite constructive this time, but the most recent stuff is just too obvious. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is back again as User:Babydoll9799 his edits of City Center Template and Liverpool City Centre and City Council give it away.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reproted it at Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces‎.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken on board the comment about 'collection of separate lines' and retained this title but I have edited the content to add the Great Western Lines and also modified the text to make it more readable.

I have rearranged the sections to bring all content related to the current system to the top, then followed by history and then future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.128.196 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When the above user Kitchen Knife has said "hes back" i feel backed in to a corner as this is very unfair of the user to critisise my edits based on his previous disagreements with myself. I have tried to discuss with Kitchen Knife what his concerns are as he has been quite negative in his course of action including reporting me as a Sockpuppet etc. There is this about Merseyrail and edits on the Liverpool city centre template, neither or which are wrong but the above user has sought to make my edits as bad edits. I have tried to explain and discuss this but the user does not want to discuss and has preferred to take a hard lined stance based on the assumption my edits are bad. It is quite defamatory to be honest. Just because i have made edits, with there being a pattern, does not make them bad edits. He has not looked at what i have done just decided that my edits are bad edits. He has been very unreasonable. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On reflection i have nothing to do with previous edits in this discussion page. I just thought about editing on Merseyrail today to add a City Line template. Surely users cannot accuse another user in this manner? Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have with drawn the request as I have made of mistake this user is a sockpuppet of User:Dmcm2008 who was a some what trouble some user but was only blocked for a short period. For information compare Dmcm2008 and BabyDoll. Oh and the reason I can accuse you is because at the time I believed it to be true, and given the history of your old user ID it was not unreasonable, you are actually a sock puppet, just not one of a banned user. Keep in mind the only thing that actually happened was you where accused noone took any action, it is you reaction which is both OTT and similar to your previous behaviour as User:Dmcm2008.

The mistake re: Babydoll9799 is fine, but what about the variety of different IP addresses Waterspaces has clearly been using over recent weeks? This should not have been closed, as is the current situation. There can be little doubt that the recent edits from unregistered IP addresses are from anyone but Waterspaces. L1v3rp00l (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that while i am not taking out of context you response saying "The mistake re: Babydoll9799 is fine", it somewhat glosses over the fact that the other user has accused me of not only being another user but also accused me of being a sockpuppet of my previous account. It had been used in a negative term i certainly object to being called a sockpuppet. Good luck on your investigations Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry that happened. I was referring specifically to IP addresses which have been repeatedly adding unsourced material and speculation to this particular article - not accusing you of anything. L1v3rp00l (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to stop you creating a new report if you can get enough evidence together.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What is Merseyrail?
I recently added a sentence in the introduction referring to the other underground systems in the UK (only fair as I have been editing them to refer to Merseyrail) but this was reverted by Signalhead on the grounds that Merseyrail is not a rapid transit system. The idea that 'rapid transit' and 'metro' are synonymous is, I believe, incorrect. All metros are rapid transit systems but not all rapid transit systems are metros. The reason that Merseyrail is not a metro is that in main it is not used as a means of getting around an urban area as, for example, the Glasgow Subway and is more a means of getting from inner and outer suburbs to the central area. However, any centralised passenger system that has high frequency, closely spaced stations, electric traction (meaning fast acceleration), and a fully segregated route will normally qualify for the term 'rapid transit'. (Maximum speed is seldom that high due to the spacing of stations). Whilst I accept it is arguable, we are dealing with a somewhat vague term and to exclude Merseyrail from the definition is not justified.

Obviously we can get pretty pedantic about this but what concerns me is how these definitions are being applied in a way that seems to be designed to ensure that Merseyrail is ignored when Britain's underground systems are being discussed. Comment added by Mann Island
 * Merseyrail is generally defined as a suburban rail system with an underground section.
 * Merseyrail is a Rapid-transit Commuter-rail network. It is underground under ventral Liverpool and Birkenhead.


 * Its generally not considered either a true underground in the same way T&W isnt, its not truly segregated from the general rail network, uses the same vehicles that are used elsewhere not specifically customised vehicles nor is it sadly considered a rapid transit system as trains lack the expected capacity due to short length even though it is very high frequency in the centre.
 * That is just total bitter Mancunian tripe!
 * It kind of slips through the gaps between the standard definitions of what a Underground, Metro or Rapid Transit is failing to fall into any of them. It could consider Thameslink and Crossrail to be in a similar position and perhaps some day there would be a name for a high frequency suburban rail system partly utilising tunnels. WatcherZero (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Watcher Zero is from Manchester. He is on Manchester forums and is clearly anti-Liverpool in his posts. Please undo anything this man does on Merseyrail or anything Liverpool on wiki. LOndon Undergound is mainly overground.
 * Watcher,

I have decided to delete the sentence about underground systems as similar deletions have been made on the Glasgow Subway and Tyne and Wear Metro threads. There is no need to refer to these other systems but, if we are listing underground systems outside of London, then all three cities with undergrounds should be mentioned or none at all.

I accept that Merseyrail is not in entirety an underground system but it incorporates an underground system, as does the Tyne and Wear Metro. There is a name for a high frequency suburban rail system partially using tunnels, although it is not used in Britain - that is an S-Bahn and Merseyrail is one of the best examples of such a system.

Total segregation from the national rail network and specially customised vehicles are hardly essential characteristics of either a metro or a rapid transit system. Merseyrail vehicles sometimes have to be hauled beyond the network for major repairs or overhauls (as do London Underground vehicles) otherwise, to all intents and purposes, the system is segregated (apart from the City Line which is part of a separate franchise).

As for train length, the minimum train set used on Merseyrail is a three car 507/8, which, since refurbishment, has 192 seats (it used to be more). Many services run two three-car units and all platforms of the underground and above ground networks (with one or two exceptions) can accommodate these six car formations.

Compare that to the Glasgow Subway, which can only accommodate single three car sets (to a much smaller loading gauge) with only 112 seats. Even the Tyne and Wear Metro can only run double two car units at present with a combined seating capacity of only 136 seats.

The definition of 'rapid transit' is vague but Merseyrail ticks a large number of boxes and it is hard to argue convincingly that the system cannot be classed as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mann Island (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another major difference between Merseyrail and the other systems (which are metro systems) is that Merseyrail is part of the National Rail network. FCC incorporates underground sections - City Widened Lines (Thameslink) and the Northern City Line (Great Northern) and these are part of the National Rail network. The Glasgow Subway, London Underground and Tyne & Wear Metro are separate systems. Even usage on Merseyrail is counted within ORR. Simply south...... 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How does being part of the national rail network or having usage counted by the ORR affect how the user experiences the system? I think that these technical definitions get in the way of common sense. I don't argue that Merseyrail is a metro and I am not that bothered that some people don't think it is a rapid transit system - what concerns me is that statements have been made such as 'The Tyne and Wear Metro is one of only two metro-type underground systems outside London - the other being the Glasgow Subway'. You may argue that this is technically correct but to the average reader, not versed in the niceties of transport terminology, it obviously implies that no other city has an underground rail system, which is just not correct.Mann Island (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Argyle Line in Glasgow is also an underground railway, but I have never heard that described as either "rapid transit" or "metro".
 * The Argyle line is nothing like 68 station Merseyrail (only on the electric section). The Argyle line is NOT a network!94.194.102.190 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That line is very similar to Merseyrail both in terms of frequencies and types of stock used.
 * It is nothing like Merseyrail, which is a Rapid-transit Commuter-rail network!94.194.102.190 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is generally agreed that Merseyrail is neither metro nor rapid transit, but rather urban rail or commuter rail.
 * Only agreed by YOU, you mean.94.194.102.190 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, I have heard it referred to on a local historical video concerning Merseyside's railways as a rapid transit system, but I would consider this a loose usage and more erroneous than anything else. The fact it is a National Rail network route is significant, as it means it is not completely self-contained as virtually all true metros are. 94.0.18.234 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are confusing me with another contributor - as I wrote yesterday, I don't argue that Merseyrail is a metro and I'm even prepared to concede that it is not a rapid transit system. From your definition, presumably Merseyside will gain a metro if and when the rail infrastructure comes under local control - as Merseytravel have been urging for several years.

How I look at it is like this. If someone arrives at Newcastle Central station, they can get on a frequent T&WM service that will take them to Gateshead underground station or maybe well out past the suburbs to Whitley Bay or Cullercoats. That same person, arriving at Liverpool Lime Street station can get on a frequent Merseyrail service that will take them to Birkenhead Hamilton Square or well out to New Brighton or West Kirby. How do you explain to that person that Tyneside has a 'metro-type underground system' whereas Merseyside doesn't?Mann Island (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple: you don't. The Tyne & Wear uses "Metro" in its title, but is really a light-rail system. It is perhaps only referred to as a metro system because the title says so. The same applies to many London suburban services: Southern call theirs metro, but they are not even close to a true metro system like the London Underground. The Liverpool Street - Shenfield service is also called the "metro", but again it is nothing more than a suburban rail service like Merseyrail. That service even uses the 315 trains, which are very similar to Merseyrail except they have 4 carriages because they handle much, much higher loads in peak times than Merseyrail. In general, the word "metro" is used by some train companies to describe their services with the highest frequencies that service the local destinations. It is not the same as we are dealing with here: a completely self-contained, very high frequency service with specialised trains geared for short-distance travel and high standing loads. You can't put Merseyrail in the same league as this. It does suffer from severe overcrowding both on and off-peak to Southport particularly, but that's because of small 3-car trains being used at the wrong times. "Metro-like underground system" is an extremely clunky way to describe a railway, even if it were a correct description of Merseyrail. There is no shame in being a suburban rail system, so why all this insistence on it being described a "rapid transit" or "metro"? 94.0.18.234 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "Metro" should be avoided, as it is not well-defined or used consistently, even (or perhaps especially) in a UK context. While it is often used to describe public transport systems, these vary in nature. Compare Paris Metro, Washington Metro, Tyne & Wear Metro, Midland Metro, Swansea Metro, Metro (West Yorkshire), King County Metro, etc. (Not to mention Austin Metro.) Each of these systems has different characteristics, yet each has "Metro" in its name. --RFBailey (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever technical term you use, there is a clear distinction between a suburban service such as the Shenfield to Liverpool Street route and the sort of service that Merseyrail provides (at least on the Wirral and Northern lines). In the former case, passengers arriving at the terminus will most often need to access a second form of transport (bus, taxi, underground) to take them to their destination, whereas in the latter case, passengers are far more likely to be within walking distance of their destination. That isn't just because of the size difference between London and Liverpool but the fact that Merseyrail, in the centre of Liverpool acts like a metro - running underground to distribute passengers around the city. It is a hybrid system and, as such, is similar to the Tyne and Wear Metro, Glasgow's Argyle Line, Thameslink and, in the future, Crossrail. We really need an English language term to describe these systems - similar to the German term 'S-Bahn'. How about Sub-Metro?Mann Island (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We already have one, Suburban Rail. Whether or not people have to use further transport following their train journey has absolutely nothing to do with being a metro or otherwise. L1v3rp00l (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, urban passenger transport has two functions - one to get you from the inner or outer suburbs into the city centre and the other to take you to your destination within the city centre. The first function is what we call 'suburban rail' and would include lines such as the City Line from St Helens into Lime Street via Prescot, Huyton etc. The second function is what we call a 'metro' and is something that we don't have in Liverpool but one of the best examples is the Glasgow Subway. A line such as the Wirral Line performs both functions and is, therefore, a hybrid - neither one nor the other. I think the Northern Line would be best described as a 'crossrail', a line from the suburbs on one side of the city to those on the other via the city centre and as such is very similar in function to London Crossrail, Thameslink and the Argyle Line. The term 'rapid transit' is generic and could be used to describe any high capacity, fast and frequent service in an urban area. I think that it would not be stretching the definition too much to call the Runcorn Busway service 'rapid transit' as it has the segregation that enables it to maintain faster speeds than conventional bus routes. Merseyrail is, arguably, rapid transit as it mainly serves an urban area, is fully segregated and runs at fairly high frequency over the whole system (a fifteen minute interval service is not London Underground frequency but would be termed a 'walk on service' where it is unnecessary to use a timetable because services are so frequent. Mann Island (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail is a "Rapid-Transit" "Commuter-Rail" urban rail network. The transit is rapid :)  Elements of it are metro to be sure.  It can be a comprehensive metro if many of the tunnels and mothballed lines are reused.  London Underground is mainly Commuter-Rail but clearly metro in the centre, so has many similarities to Merseyrail, except in size.  Mann Island was right. It appears Merseyrail has been stripped of all its definitions so is ignore nationally.94.194.102.190 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just like to add re above about the tunnels etc not used, i have just browsed the Glasgow Subway and did not realise Glasgow had so many underground stations.
 * With the Waterloo-Victoria Tunnel & the Wapping Tunnel the potential to expand is massive. The lines of the network should be electrified and expanded to their true potential aswell (ie Northern line to Preston or Warrington). Light transit could and should be used - I know the Merseytram failed but that is only one avenue, what about the disused railway lines? In New York they have a Shuttle train between some stations. Why not have a light transit shuttle in the disused tunnels? There also has to be a link to the airport..Even if it is just from South Parkway.
 * I do think Manchester gets everything whether it is politics or our leaders not pulling their weight; we just continue to be the poor mans PTA. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Before this goes too off-topic, just a quick reminder that discussion of what could happen the future is beyond the scope of this article and is not really appropriate for Wikipedia. (Please bear in mind WP:FORUM and WP:CRYSTAL.) Raywil (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The future is within the wiki scope. Merseyrail was designed to be bigger than what it is now - cutbacks prevented many lines being commissioned. This is mentioned and rightly so.  Many are mothballed for later use.  There are disused (and used) lines and tunnels that can make the network much larger and more comprehensive.  These get mentioned in RUS's, by politicians, newspaper reports, etc.  An e.g., is the recent Transport debate in parliament regarding the Halton and Burscough Curves.  These are in the article as they are action to enlarge the network. The reader needs to know all this giving a full picture of the constantly expanding network.
 * Sorry more like a rant! Babydoll9799 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Merseyrail vs Merseyrail Network
I was just reading the page and i wanted to ask others if they are as muddled up as me on a couple of things. I first think the page could be seperated as on one hand you got Merseyrail (Electrics, to simplify) and the other the Merseyrail (Network, as branded, with the City Line and everything else rolled in). Because reading up made me realise some articles appear to suggest Merseyrail is just about these two lines. They should be seperated. The other thing i am muddled up with is what is the network see earlier talk. I mean so many terms, commuter rail, rapid transit, suburban rail, metrol. What exactly is ours? There are differing terms in different articles (about Merseyrail that is) Babydoll9799 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail is a commuter-rail, rapid-transit urban rail network. Parts of it run like a metro in the centre of Liverpool and Birkenhead, rather like London's Underground. The electrified part of Merseyrail and LU are similar with Merseyrail being a scaled down version - to be enlarged with City LIne electrification. The initial writers were clearly rail enthusiast in the rail business. They pretended that the diesel City Line never existed and only wrote of the electrified part. 75 miles of "electrified track".  There are more taking into account the City Line. The City line is where other lines run through Merseyside with stations and ticketing branded so inside Merseyside.  67 stations? There are more counting the City Line stations. The City Line is being electrified right now, so all will be one.  You are right it needs some simple rewriting to make matters clearer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.102.190 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Merseyrail does appear to be used to define two different things, and the article's somewhat large and diverse at present. Maybe a split into Merseyrail (network) (about the network itself and its history and creation) and Merseyrail (franchise) (about the TOC and its operations) would be beneficial? Alzarian16 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs to treat Merseyrail as "one" network. It does at the top state that the City Line is different to the others.  It does state that the City Line is being electrified right now.  A bit clearer at the top is all that is needed, and when the City Line is mentioned in the article. It does not need to be split into two separate articles - the CIty LIne is being electrified so making a lot of this rather redundant.
 * The first lines of the articles state: Merseyrail is a train operating company and commuter rail network in the United Kingdom, centred on Liverpool, Merseyside. The network is predominantly electric with diesel trains running on the City Line. Two of the City Line branches are being electrified with completion planned for 2016, making Merseyrail 100% electric traction. That is clear enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.102.190 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad i wasn't the only one wondering about this. I kind of agree with the last point but it is that there are parts, not just on this page, that only refer to Merseyrail as the Wirral/Northern lines per se, and that's what needs to be looked at. Merseyrail (Electrics) maybe should be seperated because it is a diffent company to Northern Rail. When we refer to Merseyrail there is no direct distinction at the moment between the one or the other. Most people know Merseyrail as the brand. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This wiki is for lay people to read. They see Merseyrail as the brand and care not a hoot about who runs or owns what.  Why should they!  The two companies running parts of it of course should be mentioned. I will run through it and see if it is too biased towards the electrics, although all will be electric soon enough. :-) 94.194.102.190 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is the brand, the network. But even the info box is focused on ME. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made one or two subtle changes myself to give "Merseyrail Network" more prominence, as i've noticed others have. Hope this helps. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The confusion about the term 'Merseyrail' is a historic legacy. When the Merseyside Passenger Transport Network was formed in 1969, they named the local commuter rail network 'Merseyrail' and divided it up into three areas - the Wirral, Northern and City lines, of which the first two were DC electrified and the City Line mainly diesel but with one AC electrified line - to Runcorn and Crewe. The Merseyrail project of the 1970s integrated the two DC areas by means of tunnels and underground interchange stations but a scheme to integrate the City Line this way was not implemented and the City Line still consists of the diesel and electric services terminating at Lime Street - and often travelling far beyond the Merseytravel network. An effort to extend the Merseyrail branding to City Line services ended up with Merseyrail branded rolling stock being found in places such as Huddersfield, which tended to dilute the impact of the brand.

When British Railways was privatised, the DC lines fell naturally under one TOC, which took the name 'Merseyrail Electrics' whereas the City Line services came under Northern Rail, which serves an area much larger than Merseyside. Consequently, the name 'Merseyrail' has, in more recent years, been associated primarily with the DC network due it being practically autonomous from the rest of the network, almost completely within Merseyside using DC traction and clearly branded. Mann Island (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The City Line was the section of out of region lines passing through Merseyside. The stations had the Merseyrail branding, tickets, Merseyrail maps on walls, etc. The trains would not necessarily have Merseyrail livery. Two branches were diesel and one electric. The full electrification of the City Line is going ahead. The Liverpool-Wigan branch to Wigan via St.Helens can be 100% on Merseyrail electrics with train going no further. Where the Liverpool to Manchester line ends at the Merseyside border can also be 100% on Merseyrail with Merseyrail train going no further, although a turn-around siding would be needed. The Lime St to South Parkways is a little difficult, as this is the WCML spur. Urban trains can run on this section, but again turn-around is needed near South Parkway. Unless Merseyrail is extedned to Ditton, which is proposed for reopening.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is really getting cryptic now, essentially people are confusing the 'City Line' which is a branded part of Merseytravels PTE area rail service map with the Merseyrail franchise and the actual physical rail lines and the half a dozen different franchises and destinations far beyond the Mersey area which they serve. The 'City Line' isnt the same as the other two its essentially just a branding excercise, formally with branded trains though now just confined to the stations and literature published within the PTE area. As far as the wider rail network is concerned its just a mix of intercity and regional services along the Liverpool-Manchester Rail Line. WatcherZero (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does a user care if the City Line is run by another operator? I doubt it. They look at the rail map and see it. The stations have Merseyrail signs outside. Are you saying remove mention of The City Line and if it doesn't exist? The City Line in Merseyside is to be a full part of Merseyrail when electrified. 78.159.111.164 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No im saying treat it like it actually is, a marketing excercise not a part of the Merseyrail franchise or a rail line in its own right! WatcherZero (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are saying split the article up because in YOUR OPINION Merseyrail is not all one network. Merseyrail is ONE NETWORK whether two companies run it or it, or is a mixture of diesel and electric trains. Look at a Merseyrail map. I notice someone has reduced the number of Merseyrail stations, only counting those that are electric. I will put that back again to the full station count.94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to give my twopennies worth..I must agree that the City Line is a branding thing but "marketing exercise" ? That is something different. I don't even use the trains thesedays but whether or not the trains are operated by others is surely immaterial, as when in the Merseyside area the MPTE, being Merseytravel, have branded all stations & lines in to this network.....just because the Wirral & Northern lines are electric and run as Merseyrail alone does not alter that it is still this 3 line network that has been around for some time now. There is a need to simplify things on the page but don't disregard the City Line simply because it is run differently. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just edited the Edge Hill Spur Outer Rail Loop articles as I think that they are far too long for schemes that are not part of Merseytravel's current proposals for the Merseyrail network. I hope that they are more readable without removing too much information. Mann Island (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether something is the current Merseytravel proposals or not is IRRELEVANT. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)