Talk:History of Merseyrail

Forwarding from Talk:Merseyrail

Just looking over the history draft, I reckon we could/should cut down the future section by quite the amount, as half the talking points are redundant. For example, Battery_train_trials and Extending the network via battery/electrification make eachother redundant, as it is repeating the exact same thing, Perhaps we could split the future section like this to try and stop the redundancy/repetition of the exact same points.

Future - Past Proposals (Older proposals that have no obvious work done to them, for example, tram-trains)

- Expansions

- Additions to the current network (ie, Maghull North before it was built, not stations that expand the distance of the network, but just fill in the network)

- Expansions to the network (ie: headbolt lane, wigan, preston, etc)

Obviously these can be changed to see fit, but I really don't think the current format is completely necessary as it is heavily redundant. Its also all over the place imo, which again, this format could help fix. If agreed that this how it should go, or if you just want a draft of this version, I can work on writing one up. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 00:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bungle @DankJae, think your the main two who are working on the merseyrail stuff, feel free to ping any others you know are involved or would be involved in this discussion. I've created a rough and dirty draft of my suggestion on my Sandbox, obviously it needs a lot of work still, but I think it might be a good way forward if we can clean it up and remove any major repetitiveness (Such as how I removed the whole battery train stuff as it was getting pretty redundant, probably next going to work on cleaning that up and adding it in.) --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 20:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@NeoJade, the whole "future" element I think needs to be condensed quite significantly, rather than being tidied up. If this were a fan site wiki, then it'd be a fairly solid article on speculation and what not, but I think here we really need to be quite strict about how much we're covering about an aspect of the network that broadly speaking, doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we have other articles which could absorb the bulk of the existing future stuff (namely Borderlands Line, Canada Dock Branch and Skelmersdale Branch to name but a few); the main article would then just be a summary, rather than a fully detailed overview. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree, honestly I'd say just a paragraph about all the proposed stuff, and a majority, like at most 2 paragraphs more, about the near future. It's in my opinion, really not in the scope of wikipedia, or the UK railways project, to be going on about proposed projects, especially those that havent had media coverage for over 10 years... --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 02:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think its obvious, but we should definitely keep historical proposals that are notable, or ones that seem pretty major, and the main current proposals, so borderlands and skelm/wigan. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 02:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@NeoJade @DankJae, what are the thoughts now around working towards making the draft live and removing the current history/future prose on the main Merseyrail article? My thoughts are that we could ideally still do with condensing this further (I have made some prose improvements today on a few sections), and see whether any citation-less statements can be backed up with a source. I think it's then a case of putting a brief summary on the main article, perhaps over 2-3 paragraphs, with a hatnote link to this article.

From what I can see, there hasn't really been any objection to history/future splitting proposal, and many months have been afforded for discussion on the matter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bungle, it doesn't need to be perfect, although that would be nice, but it seems fine now. In the end, the main goal was to split rather than improve although further work on it live would be nice, but still quite a lot. So okay with it being made live or further work here. Yes the discussion has been open for a while and no concerns raised. Hope such a split allows more people to assist and make the original article more manageable and clearer. DankJae 22:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be made live in its current state, the draft is coming along nicely however, obviously, I still think it needs a lot of work, I can't remember how far I got along on it but, some sections probably need a complete rewrite. Jade • Talk • Contributions 23:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's sounds workable to me - after all, the "History" split proposal was expected to be the least difficult to implement out of the original proposed, and I haven't seen any objection to it.

@A.D.Hope, seems fair to invite your view too as the other person involved in the original discussion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Per length of this proposal, and the lack of any objection in that time, I have proceeded with the split and making live of this article. I have added tags here too, as it does need further copyediting and reliable citations added to much of the prose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuity Issues

Currently spending a bit of time copy-editing a majority of the history, and came across a few continuity issues, that someone with more knowledge, is probably better off trying to fix.

Firstly, we start the Creation of Merseyrail (1960s - 1977) section by talking about how Liverpool Exchange railway station and Liverpool Central High Level railway station closed. Yet we talk about how they are to be used in the 1969 proposal by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority "At that time, the lines out of Liverpool Exchange, Liverpool Central Low Level, Liverpool Central High Level and Liverpool Lime Street stations were separate. The existing electric and diesel hauled lines identified to become the new Merseyrail lines, the first stage of Merseyrail's creation, were named the 'Northern Line' (from Exchange and Central High Level), 'Wirral Line' (from Central Low Level) and 'City Line' (from Lime Street station) respectively."

Also, we just randomly include the fact that "Riverside Terminal Station at the Pier Head closed in 1971 due to the demise of the transatlantic liner trade." in the middle of explaining the Beeching Axe and talking about the implications of it, thats something I've tried to fix, but think it still needs some look into. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Future Development

Think we are at a point in the article, and also the relevant related articles, where we should just start giving a short prose and then linking off to the relevent article. Instead of trying to practically contain the full article in here, as I've so far done for the Skelmersdale Branch, amongst others. Also think the significance and notability of some of the future developments needs to be thought about. I've went pretty bold with some of my edits already while cleaning this up, but I feel like more of a discussion is needed, especially surrounding the likes of the expansion from Hunts Cross to Warrington, Southport to Wigan, Ormskirk to Preston, and Bidston to Wrexham as these can all just be linked in as one "Rotherham wants to have his trains operating more services outside of the region" type comment, not really necessary for the full discussion here - perhaps if anything it should be in the Northern line (Merseyrail) or Wirral line articles respectively as "expansion plans" and just "see also'ed" here?

I should really split this into multiple sections, but, I also think the name "History of Merseyrail" perhaps needs to be changed to "History and Future of Merseyrail" or "Future of Merseyrail" needs to be redirected and linked in to the future section, as on its own, it sounds like the article in its current state is just about the past, which could perhaps confuse readers or newer editors to believe there isn't a article for the future of the network. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 03:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@NeoJade, your edits are indeed somewhat more significant than previous ones. I made initial efforts to mostly polish up and remove minor prose, although I see you have gone a little further. I guess ultimately we need to work towards ensuring all the prose is appropriately sourced, where large parts have previously felt like original research (especially before the split). I noted further up that this should not present like a "fan wiki", which you would typically expect to go into specific detail, but rather just a general broad overview of the key elements.

I'm open to reviewing the article name, although "history" encompasses evolution as well up to the present day, not just "historical" over 50 years ago etc. With the future section, I already made efforts to condense it but this was merely a starting point and I think it still could be condensed much more. We could perhaps look to expand the respective articles associated with potential future plans (Burscough Curves, Canada Dock Line etc) with the future aspirational prose, and leave this article with just a brief introduction on each. Outer rail loop and Edge Hill spur sections I don't think have their own article as such, though these sections are also questionably sourced and still look bloaty. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's my current plan personally, just ensure the respective articles are of a sufficient standard, and then just give a brief link to them in the main article. That's pretty much the main reason why I've left so many citations in, so we can just grab the citations and move them over if they aren't already on the relevant article, also because I'm not exactly sure which citations are the most worthy of staying here.

While yes we aren't a fan wiki, if there is any in detail plans, we should at least mention it, but given the lack of citations across Merseyside transport articles. It's perhaps time to start boldly cutting things, if we can't find anything in terms of citations.

With the likes of Outer rail loop and Edge Hill spur, I've been researching them for a little bit, just for personal reasons, and there really isn't much on them outside of a few brief proposal drawings or people just suggesting they could be used. So, I think it might come down to writing a short section about Speculative additions to the network or perhaps moving them elsewhere, as I'm not exactly sure how involved in Merseyrail those portions would be either. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 12:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking more about it, I'm going to make a sandboxed article for each, Burscough Curves and Edge Hill spur. Primarily so we can actually see if its worth pushing the drafts to mainspace or just merging the information elsewhere.

Also, realised Burscough Curves just links to Burscough Junction so, could be good to split them two apart pending if we can get a decent article written for it. Further, the Outer Rail Loop can fall under North Liverpool Extension Line if the article gets work done to it, as its the same line just different name +/- a bit. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 16:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there could be merit in separate articles for some of these former lines or junctions, providing that we can find sufficient sources that discuss them specifically and in enough detail to assert notability. I think it needs to be beyond the sporadic news reports over the years which merely say "we could reopen this and it would be great etc etc". The Edge Hill spur was more a concept than a former line in its own right, so I am unsure if there is merit for an article on that once it's trimmed of bloat (though there may be plenty waiting to be researched!).

On the subject of name, I am floating Evolution of Merseyrail as a potential alternate to the current, if there is any interest in changing it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

On the Edge Hill Spur, its something that's still discussed here and there to this day, so perhaps there will be enough at least for a decent article on it.

I would agree with a rename of such, think it more accurately describes the article. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 19:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just split off the future section? Merseyrail expansion? Per History of Bay Area Rapid Transit and Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion? "Evolution" sounds off imo for a transport topic? Or split/merge the future proposals into their own articles as already suggested? DankJae 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We are still gonna have a bit to talk about for the future section no matter what we do, and I think a lot of the future is dependent on the history, especially for merseyrail, so in my opinion, renaming to Evolution of Merseyrail works the best. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 19:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Especially as Merseyrail has "evolved" over the years, without outright "expanding". All the future suggestions are just repurposing old stuff, its not exactly "expanding" IMO. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 19:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)