Talk:Merseyrail/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Comments: From just looking at these two issues, that is enough to say that this article does not meet the GA criteria. Therefore, I will have to fail it. The article may be renominated if better sourcing can be added. Dough4872 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead of the article is short and does not adequately summarize the article.
 * 2) There are several sections of the article that are entirely uncited.

Merseyrail Creation
The initial idea was that "ALL" of Merseysdie would use Lime St mainline using Merseyrail electrics. The abandonment of the Link Tunnel, via Wapping Tunnel, meat that the east of the city was on the electric service. St. Helns was supposed to access mainline services via Lime St. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I've had to revert the edit you made, as this is a misconception, and no references were given. The Beeching Axe, which was at its peak during the early 1960s was not directly linked to the creation of the Merseyrail network, which occurred over a decade later as an afterthought.  On the contrary to what you mentioned above, the Link tunnel was not abandoned - it wasn't even built until the 1970s, and is still in use today for the Northern Line services.  I agree that the line to St Helens was due to be electrified, but this was decided after the Beeching Axe, and not before it.  Lime Street is not the only mainline station that serves what has now become Merseyside.  It never has been, as although not being in Merseyside itself, Warrington Bank Quay, and Chester stations have also continuously existed to serve longer distance destinations, from before the Beeching Axe. Raywil (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear very confused. It is clear he meant the branch into the link tunnel to Edge Hill. Work started on it and abandoned.  It was to electrify St, Helens to Liverpool Central using the Wapping Tunnel.  The tunnel could take other lines, e.g., from the Outer Loop which was to branch into the St Helens Line at Broad Green - a large multi-platform station was to be built at the junction.  St. Helens was to use Lime St as their mainline station as the Beeching Axe wanted. After the closure of Central, Exchange, Riverside and Woodside mainline stations, Merseyside had no other mainline station, except Lime St.  The fact that currently St, Helens can use Warrington, does not dissolve the fact that St. Helens was to use Lime St via fast electric Merseyrail. Cuts in the Wapping tunnel branch at the 11th hour did not cut St.Helens off, as Merseyrail diesel (City Line) can access Lime St, it does it slower.  Chester, in Cheshire, only recently has been on Merseyrail and was not originally to be on the Network.  Those in Merseyside on Merseyrail were to use Lime St. For e.g., Lime St served London far better than Chester.  The Beeching Axe stated that only Lime St serves Merseyside. What Chester served prior to the Beeching Axe is totally irrelevant; as relevant as what Exchange station served prior to Beeching. The Beeching Axe was beneficial to Merseyside. The area got a metro/commuter rail system out of it. Not that I am a fan of the Beeching Axe. It is best you put back what he wrote as it made sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.66.222 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I was confused and would have understood what he was trying to say better, if he had said the 'planned tunnel, due to connect the Link tunnel and the Wapping tunnel'. By calling it the 'link tunnel', I immediately connected that phrase to the tunnel that is officially named the 'link tunnel'.  I agree with what you say, regarding the fact that what was to be Merseyside, only had/still has one mainline railway station follwing the Beeching Axe.  Even if Dr Beeching wanted every single person in Merseyside to use Lime Street for their long distance train journeys, this has transpired to not be the case.  St Helens is served by both Lime Street and Warrington Bank Quay, in the same way that several places on the Wirral are served by both Lime Street and Chester.  Lime Street does not serve London better than Chester for some people on the Wirral - the train frequencies are the same, and the journey time including connections from the Merseyrail network are roughly the same - although Lime Street is the only mainline station in Merseyside, it does not exclusively serve Merseyside, as inferred by the phrase 'Merseyside would only be served by one mainline station'.  Even if that phrase makes sense (so does mine), it implies the wrong information, and Wikipedia is not supposed be misleading. Raywil (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This section has been re-structured.The info is still the same but easier to understand, as it was rather mixed up. It starts with a background and then what was to be achieved, which was: Then how this was achieved, with the Link and Loop tunnels. The tunnels have been given their own sub sections for ease of reading, explaining briefly their function and how they knit the three separate railways into one urban network. 79.65.81.206 (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To give superior access to the remaining terminal station at Lime Street from the surrounding area.
 * To create one large urban network by the merging of three separate urban railways.

Halton Curve
Merseyrail have shown interest in taking ownership of the curve. This means Merseyrail track will circle the river. No need for a source, just look at a rail map. The sources given say Merseyrail are interested. What they intent to do with Merseyrail routes using the Curve Merseyrail have not decided. I have not speculated at all at what will happen, I gave some glaringly obvious options open to Merseyrail - examples - adding value for the reader. The reader knows what is happening, and how the reinstatement and Merseyrail ownership can affect the network as a whole. No one said this "should" happen or "that" will happen or "I" would like "this" to happen. I gave some glaring options open to Merseyrail - there may be more. I asserted that nothing has been decided.

The piece is clunky and doesn't say much. The reader needs to know what the impact will be by reinstating the Curve. That was not given. I rewrote impartially. The Curve offers much more that a line from Chester to South Parkway. Bit by bit this article has been whittled down from a rail enthusiast article to one the uninitiated can read an understand - that is the idea of wiki and all should have this in mind. The article still has a way to go. I corrected glaring incorrect facts. The article stated that 3 railways merged to form Merseyrail, when four merged. Articles like this give wiki a bad name. At work I dare do not say I obtained info from wiki, as I get laughed at.79.65.36.48 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

John, either cite it or add it to your fantasy extending Merseyrail page elsewhere on the Internet LiverpoolRob (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

--- You have the wrong man...or page. 79.66.116.52 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oldest urban rail in the world
This section was added79.66.48.54 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * will this Raywill please leave the text alone. It is referenced. Raywill in the Canada Dock Branch article inserted none referenced material which I undid. It seems he now has an attitude, which is unnecessary. Also he deleting text as "opinionated", when it clearly is not.  Who runs this wiki?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.48.54 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone has put a banner stating. Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. The bulleted list is parts of the network that are the oldest in the world, highlighting historical firsts for the network. The section heading clearly states that with no ambiguity. What section should they be under? The banner should be removed as the list is appropriate.79.66.19.113 (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Banner removed. WatcherZero, who was on about the oldest road tunnel, the Via Flamina tunnel built in 76AD which is still in use for road traffic, when the the heading clearly has rail in it. He also put in the unnecessary banner, which is now removed.79.66.38.225 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its in a relevant section but its not addressing the underlying problem that its a bullet list of (tivia like) information, if you incorporated it into a couple of paragraphs of prose, e.g. (This is rough) "The route of the present day City Line of the Merseyrail network was originally built as the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, opening on 15 September 1830 (ref). This was the first Intercity Railway in the world when it opened principally to speed the transport of goods from the Port of Liverpool and the mills of Manchester however it became an instant sucess with the public carrying tens of thousands of passengers a year from the start and did not carry its first freight train until December of the year when more powerful engines such as Planet arrived. The line was extended in tunnels under Liverpool several times from its original terminus at Edge Hill to Crown Street via the Wapping Tunnel, 2111 yards long due to the steep incline it was originally cable operated, locomotives took over in May 1896 however it closed in 1965 when the Park Lane good yard it served was closed. The decision to divert passenger traffic, by means of a new tunnel to Lime Street Station from Edge Hill resulted in the construction of a new station further north at Edge Hill at the tunnel portal. Both Crown Street and the old station then became goods stations. Crown Street was used as a coal and agricultural goods terminal. The new station was opened in 1836. Trains descended to Lime Street by gravity, being rope-hauled by a winding engine back up to Edge Hill. However, this practice soon became redundant.The Edge Hill Terminus buildings now hold the honour of being the oldest working passenger rail buildings in use in the world today (ref).
 * The bullet list is NOT trivia. It is historical information - world first's. What you are asking me to do is write poorly written and laid out waffle, with all the points rolled into a few paragraphs.  That method is difficult to read and clunky. The bullet point easily show what the oldest/original points are and then expands on the points. The points are NOT miscellaneous in any what whatsoever, they are not trivia - they are points that highlight the world's oldest section of rail and its infrastructure on Merseyrail.


 * See what I did there incorporating 3 of the bullet points into readable prose?


 * You never, you made it difficult to read and extract the prime points - the oldest sections of the Network. It looks unstructured and amateurish and written like a who done it with the point revealed at the end.


 * Now im not 100% on the facts as Liverpool tunnels arent an area of specalist knowledge for me but you can see how it should look. WatcherZero (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)WatcherZero (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikis says:
 * Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. A number of articles contain lists of isolated information, which are often grouped into their own section, labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc. This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia.
 * Trivia sections should be avoided.
 * "Oldest urban rail in the world" section is not miscellaneous or Trivia. It is historical information putting the network into perspective and pioneering, showing it is not like a new metro network like Shanghai. Removed banner from article. 79.65.49.116 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, Merseyrail is *not* a Metro system. It is a commuter railway. There is a big difference there. London Underground and the Moscow Metro are examples of real Metro systems: extremely frequent and long trains such that a timetable need not be known. With only 4 tph on each line, Merseyrail is a long way off being a Metro. Why on earth can't you accept this? L1v3rp00l (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. I gave a link that it is metro-like. Parts are clearly metro, as in Birkenhead, with close stations. The plan for Merseyrail was to be a metro.  The link to Edge Hill via the Wapping Tunnel and the Outer Loop to Aintree would have made the network a full more comprehensive metro.  These were all planned but cut.  The frequency in central Liverpool at peak hours is clearly metro at all times - 12 tph through Central Birkenhead and Liverpool. London Underground hardly touches the south of the city and the tph on the outskirts is about 4 tph in off-peak time.79.66.57.109 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is not my opinion at all. It's fact. Firstly, close stations do not make it a metro - most commuter railways in the world have them. It's hardly surprising. Proposals that never came into fruition do not make a network a metro, and neither does a small area of high frequency trains. London Overground has very high frequency trains on the East London Line, but is it a metro? No, again it's a commuter railway, urban rail, S-Bahn, call it what you will. As for London Underground "hardly touching the south of the city", what has that got to do with anything? If you want to push your fantasies of a utopian Merseyrail further (the truth is far from it, but that's "opinion"), try this link: http://www.liverpoolwiki.org/Merseyrail. 12:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A nice link. It all your opinion.  It said:


 * The creation and amendment of these tunnels, was one of the UK's largest railway infrastructure projects of the 1970s. These tunnels had two prime functions:


 * Access to Lime Street Terminal Station - To give superior access to the remaining terminal station at Lime Street from the surrounding area.
 * Create a Comprehensive hybrid commuter rail/metro network - To create one large comprehensive urban network by the merging of separate urban railways.


 * The link says metro-like. I said it is a hybrid, which it is.  It is also what was envisaged in design to have a metro. That is what the tunnels were to do. The Wapping trunnel or Waterloo Tunnels were to be used with a station and the Outer Loop with stations.  Clearly a metro.  Commuter rail is a star with all the lines serving the centre to get people to work. Your opinion doesn't matter. 79.66.38.49 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Like talking to a brick wall. Re-read my previous comment - I really don't have anything more to add. You don't know the differences between a commuter railway and a metro, of which there are many. As for "Commuter rail is a star with all the lines serving the centre to get people to work.", that's total bunkum. L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only brick is YOU and your opinionated clap-trap.
 * Defintion from: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Metro
 * One definition of a "true" metro system is as follows:
 * an urban, electric mass transit system
 * totally independent from other traffic
 * with high service frequency
 * Merseyrail falls into all three above. In other words IT IS A METRO. Merseyrail was designed to be a more comprehensive metro, but cutbacks entailed a smaller metro.
 * The lock on the edit should unlocked and the article REVERTED.WritingStuff (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice how you seem to be the only one insistent on this - other people than myself have reverted your edits. The Merseyrail system is not urban - it's suburban - and, yet again, I stress it does not have high enough frequencies. Therefore it fails to meet two of those points. Just like London Overground, which has much more frequent trains on the ELL, it is not a metro, rather commuter rail. I have nothing more to say on this issue, as you repeatedly ignore or fail to read my posts. The general consensus here seems to be that we are dealing with a suburban commuter railway, not a metro. So references to "metro" are irrelevant, erroneous and liable to be removed. There's nothing 'opinionated' about that. L1v3rp00l (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read this and looked the article's history. It is clear user L1v3rp00l has an attitude. He removed a whole relevant historical section because he didn't like it. Enough evidence was presented to prove Merseyrail is a metro and frequencies are high enough in the Liverpool centre section.  Who the hell does he think he is. Why do other editors put up with this?  I guarantee he works for Merseyrail or Merseytravel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingStuff (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Work for Merseyrail? Not likely, considering I've done my best to remove the sickening pro-Merseyrail POV you have repeatedly posted. I am merely an outsider who, if anything, has a negative opinion of the network. The difference is, I don't blurt it out on Wikipedia articles like you. (And now you've got an indefinite ban to show for it.) L1v3rp00l (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed this comment "if anything, has a negative opinion of the network". We need objective people writing, not those openly biased in some way.  I suggest L1v3rp001 does not contribute in any way.88.109.4.168 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this deleted history section. I see nothing wrong with it. It adds value and interest and should be reinserted, maybe with the odd tweak here and there.81.178.161.227 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)