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)