Talk:Merseyrail/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NEEDS SPLITTING URGENTLY

This needs to follow the same format as every other TOC wiki page. Needs to split to Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd (Abellio/Serco Concession) and Merseyrail (Overall Network). The article is far too large, too much information and creates confusion between operation of Northern/Wirral and City Lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.44.96 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can only describe this idea as silly. Merseyrail is well, er, Merseyrail. The maps tell you where the stations and lines are. Some are diesel and most electric. The user does not care. The diesel lines (City Line) are being electrified right now. Merseyrail is one network, NOT two.94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Urgent need to cleanup

The Merseyrail article is now becoming.. a joke. It could be a fantastic, featured article but instead it's a mess of partly amateur-added random bits of information, some parts poorly or completely unreferenced although largely it seems to read sufficiently well with sufficient info to cover most important aspects.

First and foremost, the sheer size makes it difficult to even know where to start and I propose as a matter of urgency the splitting of the article into 3 parts - fundamentally - the main, the history and the future (although the descriptive terms for those parts is up for discussion).

At the VERY LEAST, the "future" part needs an article of it's own. There would still need to be some introductory content regarding this on the parent article but the bulk needs it's own space - I think only then may it be manageable in terms of a cleanup.

I'll see what responses (if any) are received within the next week. If no response, i'll go ahead and do it and tuff luck if you don't like it (you should have said so). If there is overwhealming support it can be done anytime. If there is mixed view then that may be better, as at least it may initiate some discussion on the matter.

The article is fine and does not need splitting. It needs a bit of refining here and there but the structure is fine. Merseyrail was to be much larger than it ended up - this is covered. Its fascinating history is covered but could be better highlighting some of the world's firsts in the network. The article covers how it is, and how it can be expanded. Many disused lines and tunnels are mothballed ready for incorporation - this is and should be mentioned. All these are vital to the story of the network and how it can be much larger without much effort. A novice reading the article can fully understand how Merseyrail came about, what is was to be, what it is, how it can be expanded with mothballed lines. Where to start? Try the Contents page which is very logical.94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If an article about the future was split away good care would have to be taken with regards to WP:CRYSTAL as I think a separate article would encourage the addition of even more unverifiable speculation (particularly from a certain sock that is known for such edits to this article, amongst others). There are some sections such as The Outer Rail Loop and The Edge Hill Spur which in my opinion should be deleted immediately or at least severely reduced in size due to a lack of verifability. With these removed I think the future section may become manageable once more.

That is all verifiable. The books in which the info was taken was mentioned. Those should stay as they add value. They were to be in the 12970s Merseyrail and are mothballed. The reader need to know this, that Merseyrail was supposed to be much bigger and still can be. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of splitting away the history, I think a lot of the information within this section, such as that regarding the infrastructure and electrification can be covered in depth within the articles for the respective railway lines, i.e. Wirral Line and Northern Line (Merseyrail) where I think it would be more relevant. Of course, the tunnelling and extension projects will still need a mention within this article, but I think a succinct summary would be sufficient with links to the history sections of the railway line articles.

Raywil (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to split the article. the structure is fine. Look at the Contents page.94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re first note from Bungle.....i'm interested in Merseyrail and quite agree this needs cleaning up definately the historical & future sections are just not in keeping with the article.

I just hope Bungle isn't also refering to myself (not just myself obviously) in your first paragraph when mentioning "amateur-added random bits of information"...just that i have tried to intigrate the "City Line" more in to the article as for too long the term Merseyrail has almost just refered to the Northern and Wirral lines....when clearly there is more to that. I personally found it very confusing. Especially reference to the now famous "67" stations. I am no expert on Wiki matters but i've always thought you need a page for Merseyrail Network and one for Merseyrail (Electrics). It was a thought until someone said well it will all be electric in a few years anyway. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to touch on some of those points;

I see the article as being about Merseyrail (the franchise, primarily) with alot of the Merseyside rail history occuring prior to Merseyrail. There is in fact SO MUCH history relating to the network and rails which make up Merseyrail today that I think if much of this was covered (which it should be), it would neither be appropriate nor sensible (size wise) to include this in the Merseyrail article. I see the Merseyrail article primarily relating to the contemporary (late 1970s onwards) rail network Merseyside has, touching on some important historical information but with the rest in its own article. This is my opinion and I would really like some feedback on that.

Future section is a bit of a misnomer really - this is an encylopedia and therefore one may argue that a future section should not exist at all purely based on the fact that it is largely specultative (and/or open to speculation). I touched on this section being given an alternate name, although I think the content should very much stick to what potential the network has that was never realised. You could argue this is also the history as there are events which were discussed/planned but never happened. However, I think there is sufficient "potential in the future" to warrant a section/article on this. I don't feel as strong about this part though as I do the history, purely because justifying it on wikipedia is difficult and as noted above already, is very open to random people coming along and posting their personal wishlists, which can't be allowed to happen.

@Babydoll9799 - no, it wasn't a personal attack on anyone (it wasn't even an attack!) :) I was merely pointing out that there has been content added by people that rather than be checked for validity or even justification for inclusion, it's simply been grammer/spell corrected which has led to the controversies we're seeing now about what should and shouldn't be included.

I don't even know if there is an article relating specifically to the history of rail transport/rail network on Merseyside? Maybe this would be a good place to start, to move the info which doesn't specifically relate to Merseyrail?

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the split tag (on the future section) because there appears to be no concensus emerging and the issue is far wider than the tag implies. If I have misread this then please comment here and I will happily split the section off ASAP Op47 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to split it yourself, go right ahead.. it's not as if any opposers could argue against it; this discussion was started back in September and all this time has been available for opinion voicing. I guess sometimes, it just needs SOMEONE to do something and only then maybe you can get a proper idea of real opinions and concensus. Besides, it can easily be reverted if it proves unpopular.. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My edits have been mainly aimed at removing duplications and reducing some of the wording. I don't understand why the fact that Merseyrail is one of the busiest train services outside of London and that it has so many stations and miles of track has to be repeated. The article is also confusing in the way that it describes the City Line (e.g. it is already partially electrified).

I have reduced the sections on the Edge Hill Spur and Outer Rail Loop as, whilst these are worthy projects, they are not current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mann Island (talk • contribs) 09:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

wiki is an encyclopaedia and should give history and potential improvements. It is not a description of just the current system, a Mersyrail web site gives that. Because of the historical and future sections this article was put forward for a wiki award. With more needed diagrams the article would win an award. People are coming in and gradually stripping it down to a mundane lifeless me-too article. I can only assume some have vested interests is downgrading the network in the public's eyes to second rate for vested interest purposes. Far too many historical snippets were removed. I recall reading on the article an interesting snippet that the oldest section of any urban railway in the world is on Merseyrail - this has now been removed for some inexplicable reason. I reverted many of these extractions.

Today I have smartened up the Outer Loop section, which should remain as it was a major part of the original plan and still is mothballed for future use. On good authority I have gleened that Liverpool South Parkway Stn was a "political" lever to get the full Outer Loop and Edge Hill Spur tunnel project brought back to life. South Parkway was one of the parkways station on the Outer Loop in the original plan, the other being Rocket at Broad Green. The electrification of the Liverpool to St.Helens and Wigan lines, and the potential to reopen the Bootle Branch line to passengers to serve the football clubs and suburbs, and releasing needed platform space at Lime St mainline station (for HS2 and others) will give great impetus to revive the Edge Hill Spur alone when DfT has enough money. The Edge Hill Spurs kills many birds with one stone - Lime St will not need extending and then eastern and some southern sections of Merseyside can access the underground city centre section. Politicians all over are griping to HMG for funds after London has had billions spent on its rail, so expect some decent funds in the near future (Credit Crunch permitting) to be spent on the provincial cities including Liverpool. The city of Liverpool, and Merseyside in general is expected to expand in population. Liverpool's urban rail can be greatly expanded at minimal cost to other networks and conform to the current eco ethos. These points cannot be put into the article as there are no direct references. Hence the historical and future section should remain.188.222.175.12 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats

This is a very nice infromative article. A pleasure to read. The history and future parts really make it, rescuing the article from a boring drone as some are. A few more maps and pictures would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.145.6 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dual-fuel electric/Ethanol engines trains

Dual-fuel trains were precluded from running in the electric tunnels as a train full of diesel fuel was flammable in the case of crashes inside tunnels. Ethanol has a LOWER flashpoint that normal Diesel, so more volatile. I cannot see these ethanol trains running in passenger tunnels with stations. Ethanol is just better on emissions into the atmosphere.

It has been suggested that diesel/electric trains hitch onto an electric train as it runs off the electrified lines onto the non-electrified line sections, which can be a simple auto operation. An e.g., is a an electric train running up to Bidston station it can auto hitch onto a diesel carriage at the station which will pull it to Wrexham and auto-hitch coming back. I am not sure of the writer means this. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Mersey railway tunnel was designed for steam engines. A separate vent tunnel was built to extract the smoke. Diesel trains using low emission fuel, could enter from Wrexham and through the tunnels. Conway park in Birkenhead is in a deep cutting open to atmosphere. Trains could easily terminate at James Street station and go no further. The ventilation on the 1970s Loop tunnel is not good enough. The safety of the carried fuel on-board a train in a tunnel is then the only concern. If the fuel carried is deemed safe enough, then duel fuel electric/diesel trains could be used with the diesel engines off in the tunnels. Then it could travel the complete Loop Line. Using ultracapacitors and brake regeneration, faster acceleration is gained at all stations using diesel electric. Special locos would need to be built. The container nuclear fuel is carried can withstand major train collisions. These could hold the fuel. When in a tunnel valves would close tight any fuel lines from the tank. 78.105.237.135 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Merseyrail's status within route/service boxes

I'd like to make an observation and proposal about Merseyrail's status. Whilst it is a part of the Nation Rail Network, unlike the London Underground, Merseyrail is not just another run of the mill regional franchise. It is a metro-like franchise, like London Overground. Like London Overground, the franchise is not specified or awarded by the Department of Transport but by Merseytravel (London Overground - Transport for London). It is my opinion that it is treated similar to London Overground on here and like London Overground, the service boxes should be separate, saying 'Merseyrail', as opposed to 'National Rail' and having both the Merseyrail 'M' and the national rail symbol in the box. I am proposing something not too disimilar to this Moorfields example...

Preceding station	Merseyrail			Following station
Liverpool Central		Merseyrail		Sandhills
James Street		Merseyrail		Lime Street

This would also clear up the anomaly of Merseyrail being the only 'normal' TOC where the line colours are used instead of a a single colour for the TOC. Really, if it's to be considered a normal TOC then the colour should be yellow and not green or blue depending on which line the service is on. However, I feel the London Overground convention is more appropriate.

Of course, the 'City Line' would not be included, as it isn't really Merseyrail. The boxes would remain as they are currently.

Kai (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The local rail systems around Cardiff, Edinburgh and Glasgow also use line colours in the station routeboxes, but they're presented differently. See for example the routeboxes in Cardiff Queen Street railway station, Edinburgh Waverley railway station, and Glasgow Central station. We can move the line colours to a similar position very easily:

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Liverpool Central		Merseyrail Northern Line		Sandhills
James Street		Merseyrail Wirral Line		Liverpool Lime Street

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, that would be better than the status-quo, though the TOC colour should naturally be yellow. Still, I prefer the London Overground style. Merseyrail is closer to London Overground than the SPT or Valley Lines. 92.28.91.119 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yellow is simple enough too. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, that's certainly an improvement but a still feel something akin to the London Overground convention would be more fitting. Unless someone has a decent arguement for why London Overground is sufficiently different from Merseyrail. 92.28.91.119 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of stations

It states 67. That is the stations only on the Northern & Wirral lines. The stations inside Merseyside on the City Line have Merseyrail branding, ticketing and the Logo outside the stations and the City Line is on the official Merseyrail map. These stations should be added. which would add about another 10 or so onto the network.188.223.113.142 (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No they shouldn't, absolutely not. They aren't Merseyrail operated stations - they are operated by Northern Rail. A different train operating company.L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rapid transit or commuter network?

Opening line

Because this article covers both the train operating company and the commuter railway network (note - not 'rapid transit' or 'metro') known as Merseyrail, references to both are required in the opening sentence. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

They are NOT, the operating company is way down the list. The layman does not care a hoot about who runs a network. There is a whole section of who runs Merseyrail in The franchise. That is where is should stay!!! and nowhere else in the article. 188.223.113.142 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The latest user who persistently claims ownership of the page bears a striking similarity in demeanour to those we have had before. Referring to the TOC has nothing whatsoever to do with being a 'train buff', and if we're talking layman's terms, it's pretty obvious you need to get across what the article covers straight off the bat. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki is geared for the layman to read - NOT just for train buffs!! The article is about Merseyrail the physical system not the operating company. The first opening words first mentioned the operating company. Do you work for them? What is Merseyrail?

• Rapid-transit
• Partially underground.
• Commuter-Rail

The open sentence should state this, as it gives an all round initial view of what Merseyrail is. That is simple. That is how writers write. The operating company is very secondary, I would say way down the list in importance. You have form of being antagonistic and vandalism. You reverted links I put right. 94.194.18.224 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just following the discussion. I agree with the last note, i think Merseyrail (the operating company) should have a seperate link/page. There is another problem is that while the phrase Merseyrail Electrics is not used anymore - it still conjours up the image of a seperate single network (Wirral and Northern Lines) which remain seperated. Because of this, you have to have two articles one for Merseyrail as in the network and then one for the seperate operator. I give up! Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To have two separate articles would risk increasing confusion further, in my view. I have sought to deal with the problem by rewriting the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

However there are two separate articles for the Valley Lines: Valley Lines and Valley Lines (train operating company). Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 20:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Valley Lines, the TOC is defunct. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

They were originally one until a split discussion took place on the talk page, whilst I am the first one on that page, I was not the original one who suggested the split. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 22:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What constitutes a metro system?

There are many National Rail systems around the UK with metro-style sections. They are however still only commuter networks and not specialised systems specifically for this. These include Birmingham, Glasgow (SPT), London (all three of the Northern City Line, Thameslink and London Overground) and Liverpool (Merseyrail). Merseyrail is no different. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 17:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what counts on wikipedia is whether there are reliable sources referring to it as a 'metro' or 'rapid transit' or whatever. If not then people's opinions really count for nothing on here as we're not allowed to use original research. G-13114 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is stating Merseyrail is a metro!!! The article states that in the central section it has metro like frequencies - the only mention of the word metro. Parts of Merseyrail are used as a metro by the population. Birmingham has NO Commuter rail network, only individual lines. Tyne and Wear Metro is clearly commuter-rail. Look at the map. all radial lines with few interchanges. Who classed this as a metro?

Geographically accurate map of the T&W Metro system

94.194.18.224 (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A pretty significant difference, is that with the London Underground, Tyne and Wear Metro etc. The infrastructure is owned and managed separately, and is not part of nor compatible with (except on a few stretches) the National Rail network. They are almost entirely self contained systems. Whereas Merseyrail's infrastructure is owned and maintained by Network Rail as part of the National Rail network. In principle its tracks could be used by other services. The terms 'Metro' or 'rapid transit' etc generally denote an entirely separate, self contained system for the exclusive purpose of urban passenger transport, using signalling, rolling stock etc, which is incompatible with that of the standard rail network, that does not apply to Merseyrail. Merseyrail's status is comparable to that of Thameslink or Crossrail, albeit on a much smaller scale, and no-one calls them anything other than commuter rail. G-13114 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Who owns or runs a network means diddly-squat. If lines are shared means diddly-squat. The yardstick is the service given. For your info: Merseyrail's electric side, Wirral & Northern Lines are totally segregated, which means diddly-squat.188.223.113.142 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because the Tyne and Wear system calls itself "Metro" does not make it one, just as the Birmingham tramway calls itself "Midland Metro" but is plainly a tramway and not a metro. Anyway, Merseyrail is surely an S-Bahn, i.e. a hybrid system consisting of metro-like characteristics in the city centre (trains every few minutes, stations close together) with radial lines fanning out to different suburbs. In particular, it is very similar in many respects to the Copenhagen S-train system, whose article does, however, describe that system as an urban rapid transit network! Perhaps the terminology and definitions are not as clear as one would wish; at the least, there is clearly some overlap. Rather than argue about whether or not Merseyrail counts as a metro or rapid-transit system, which is sort of partly is but then again isn't really, maybe we should just stick to calling it "commuter rail". -- Alarics (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Danish S-tog which supposed to be similar to Merseyrail (sort of which only has a ONE underground station to Merseyrail's many) does class itself as "rapid-transit". Merseyrail is as well. Merseyrail is not slow-transit like trams, for sure is is RAPID. Tyne & Wear Metro is NOT a metro - only in name. It is commuter rail using light-rail rolling stock. The proposed reopening of St James station in Liverpool will make Liverpool even more metro like. Commuter rail is supposed to bring in people from the outskirts "rapidly". This means few stations on the outer parts to speed into the centre. London's Met line does this. Merseyrail does not. It is close stations on every lines as metros have.188.223.113.142 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, the use of the Class 507 and Class 508 stock - which (electrical system aside) are very similar to the Class 313, Class 314 and Class 315 stock - makes this a heavy-rail system. Both types of train may be used elsewhere in the National Rail system, and indeed some trains of Class 508 stock are now operating in Kent and north-west London. Granted, the Wirral and Northern Lines are largely self-contained, but then so was the Manchester-Bury line before conversion to Manchester Metrolink. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Merseyrail is heavy rail like LU - what type of rolling stock is pretty irrelevant, apart from that dual-voltage trains are designed to run on Merseyrail 3rd-rail electric track, which means to me that Merseyrail will eventually have them and run them as a part of Merseyrail when and if the Edge Hill Spur is completed.188.223.113.142 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly maybe Birmingham wasn't the best example but London Overground and Glasgow have stations extremely close together with metro-style frequencies, all partially underground. For Glasgow this applies to the North Clyde Line between High Street and Partick stations and the Argyle Line between Ruthersglen and Partick and for the London Overground, the East London Line between Highbury and Surrey Quays. They are National Rail lines. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Glasgow is not in integrated network like LU, Merseyrail, T&W. Great potential but not there yet.94.194.21.227 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of banner

A banners states: This article needs additional citations for verification.

I have read the article and all is verified, unless someone can tell us where there is no verification. The banner now needs removing.BigScribe (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

City Line

I think we need to sort out the ambiguity of the 'City Line'. Technically, it doesn't exist. If you like, there are two 'Merseyrails'. One's the TOC/franchise (Wirral & Northern Lines) and the other is the informal network that Merseytravel refers to (i.e. Wirral, Northern and 'City' Lines). The latter type is no different to 'Metro' services in Leeds, whereas the former is an actual metro-like network. It is my opinion that the article should be about Merseyrail proper and whilst some reference of the 'City Line' should be made, the impression should not be given that it is just another integral part of Merseyrail like the other two lines. Kai (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The City Line does exist, it has trains and all that. When you look at a map it says City Line within Merseyrail. The ticketing is the same as is the branding. St.Helens station is on the City Line with the Merseyrail "M" all over the station. Also the lines are being electrified right now, so may well be a full part of Merseyrail. The article should stay as it is. The City Line actually exists, there are trains on it. The lay person gives not a hoot who runs what underneath.188.222.174.87 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether the lay person gives "a hoot" or not, this is an encyclopaedia, not a one-man vanity project, so it's perfectly relevant and indeed essential to reference who runs what. It's also completely obvious to the layman that the City Line is not part of the Merseyrail system in the sense that the trains look wholly different (different livery, different seating, different length, different noise). Having lived in Liverpool all my life, I've not once heard a person refer to the trains out of Liverpool Lime Steet as being part of Merseyrail. The "City Line" branches which are to be electrified will still be operated by Northern Rail once the works are complete so no, it won't become a full part of Merseyrail. What Kai said is effectively correct in that the line doesn't exist in an operational sense. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Vanity? You have strange logic. The one who wanted to have the operating company before Merseyrail the network in the article - the first words of the article. That is vanity, or company loyalty. It is right to reference who runs Merseyrail, but not in the first words of an article. Itb is clear you have no ability to write structurally. LU has very different trains on each line so your observations are irrelevant. The City Line does exist, unless when I went to Huyton I was on a flying carpet. You must work from Merseyrail. Whether the new electrified track is run by Northern Rail or not again is again irrelevant. What ref do you have on Northern running the trains. They are dual-voltage (3rd-rail) so must run on Merseyrail tracks, which means they will eventually go to Merseyrail. A rumour (a pinch of salt) was that the reason the Lord Mayor of Liverpool was quiet on the omittance of Liverpool from HS2 was that he was told on the side that the Edge Hill Spur will get the go ahead and a few stations brought back to life, like St.James, which Liverpool Vision is pushing and funding for a Liverpool Waters station.188.223.113.142 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the old "You work for Merseyrail" chestnut again. I'll give you this, Waterspaces, you are persistent. Huyton station is a Northern Rail station with sponsorship from Merseytravel (note, nothing to do with Merseyrail). It is on the Liverpool - Manchester and Liverpool - Wigan lines if you want names. The City Line is a creation of Merseytravel's doing, not a railway in the real sense as the Northern Line and Wirral Line are. The electrified track is to be operated by refurbished trains from Thameslink (Class 319, but that's "rail buff" speak, so naturally verboten from any Wikipedia article). They are certainly not Merseyrail trains and won't be operating on Merseyrail tracks either - the tracks are and will remain Network Rail tracks. Northern will be running the trains - it's their region, their stations and ultimately their trains. And no, I don't work for Merseyrail by the way, not that it really matters. L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So you work for them. Who the eff is this Warterapaces? You are some sort of nut! You can't write either with no idea of structured writing. STOP VANDALISING THE ARTICLE. The article is about Merseyrail the network not the company who pay your wages. There is a whole section on your paymasters titled The Franchise. You tell can the rail workers a mile off by the rail-buff talk and terminology which no one else understands.94.194.21.227 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism, eh? That's a new slant on it. I doubt you'll get a consensus for that view. Unfortunately I don't work for Merseyrail, which is a shame in a way because your comments suggesting that I do are great fun to read. L1v3rp00l (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is not about a train operating company. You want the opening words to mention the operating company. You have no idea of how to write, so leave the article alone and stop vandalizing it. You clearly work in the rail industry, probably greasing axles.94.194.21.227 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Huyton station is a Northern Rail station with sponsorship from Merseytravel (note, nothing to do with Merseyrail). It is on the Liverpool - Manchester and Liverpool - Wigan lines if you want names.

I know exactly where and what Huyton is. It is on the City Line of Merseyrail. It is on the maps and ticketing with logos, etc. Only railway workers make an issue of the City Line, because they do not work on it.94.194.21.227 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Afraid not. I really don't see why a railway worker would take exception any more or less than anyone else, but that's irrelevant anyway. The fact of the matter is, the City Line is not part of Merseyrail and is an entirely separate affair. It is Merseytravel's name for the Liverpool - Wigan and the two forms of the Liverpool - Manchester lines. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's true. If the official and indisputable name for these routes is indeed the City Line, why doesn't Transport for Greater Manchester refer to them as such as well? No one does except Merseytravel. L1v3rp00l (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The City Line is a part of Merseyrail. Fact! Look at the Merseyrail map. Some people here are so dumb.94.194.21.227 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The City Line is a creation of Merseytravel's doing, not a railway in the real sense as the Northern Line and Wirral Line are. The electrified track is to be operated by refurbished trains from Thameslink (Class 319, but that's "rail buff" speak, so naturally verboten from any Wikipedia article). They are certainly not Merseyrail trains and won't be operating on Merseyrail tracks either - the tracks are and will remain Network Rail tracks.

The trains have A 3rd rail pickup. The only tracks around with a 3rd rail is Merseyrail.94.194.21.227 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and your point is? They won't be going anywhere near the Northern/Wirral Lines because they are not compatible with the current rolling stock and will be refurbished to different standards (i.e. those of Northern Rail, who will be operating them). L1v3rp00l (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Northern will be running the trains - it's their region, their stations and ultimately their trains. And no, I don't work for Merseyrail by the way, not that it really matters. L1v3rp00l (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You work in the rail industry that is clear. What is even more clear is that you can't write.94.194.21.227 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No matter what anyone's point of view is, or the fact that the City Line is different, it is clearly identified on the Merseyrail Map & at stations, and of course in timetables. Sure, if you're on board a train you may not think that you are on a Merseyrail train, and few have Merseyrail logo's. But this is a local network which brands the line City Line so it does exist and it may be less of an issue when the lines are electrified. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Merseyrail to the user is line . It is on the Merseyrail map, has real, seamless ticketing, Merseyrail logos outside the stations and also has real trains. No one gives a hoot if Merseyrail rent the line and trains from someone else. The only people who care are trainspotters. This is an encyclopaedia not an article for train buffs. The average reader must comprehend all immediately, not be confused by train-buff talk. It is not article for a train operating company either. Those who think so can make their own separate article on that.94.194.21.227 (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct. The end user doe not view the City Line differently. It is seamless to them.94.194.21.227 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it isn't seamless. No one in their right mind would get on a Northern Rail train at Liverpool Lime Street and think this is exactly the same as Merseyrail. One is clearly Merseyrail and one clearly isn't. L1v3rp00l (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The City Line is seamless. read above.94.194.21.227 (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

94.194.21.227, the Class 319 trains (if that is indeed what end up operating the City Line) happen to be dual voltage because they will be ex-Thameslink, but there is no expectation that they will operate in third-rail mode on Merseyside, indeed they will probably have the pickup shoes removed. Also, please stop this silly speculation about who another editor works for, it is nonsense and irrelevant. -- Alarics (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The essence of the problem being somewhat intemperately discussed above is, as Kai pointed out in the first place, that "Merseyrail" means two different things. I have somewhat rewritten the lead to try and make this clearer. -- Alarics (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your edits entirely Alarics, which make things a lot clearer. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To complicate things further, isn't 'Merseyrail' also simply the branding for local rail services within the Merseyside PTE area? So a better opening paragraph might be:

Merseyrail is the brand name of local rail services within Merseyside, centred on the city of Liverpool, England. The name is used by a train operating company (TOC) which operates two lines, the Northern Line and Wirral Line, which interconnect in central Liverpool and are electrified on the 750 v DC third-rail system. Local services on other lines in Merseyside are also branded as 'Merseyrail' but are operated by the Northern Rail train operating company, these routes are known as the City Line, and are largely diesel operated.

G-13114 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is wrong!!!! The article is about Merseyrail the physical system not a train operating company. Make your own article on that. The first words are about a train operating company. The network is partially underground, which a reader needs to know in the opening para. The above is also introducing acronyms. Good writers avoid these. The above a poor, very poor.94.194.21.227 (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article most certainly is about the train operating company. You don't have the power to decide what it is and isn't about, and there is nothing more encyclopaedic about the network than the operating company. On the contrary, if you want an article exclusively about the system itself then I suggest you should make a case for creating one, not demanding others do without even joining Wikipedia yourself. I think the time for your utterly redundant speculation about who I work for should be wound up. I find it amusing to be honest but the fact is it is getting in the way of the discussion. The last word is that I don't work for Merseyrail or in the rail industry as a whole. The opening paragraph should stay as it is as it clears up most, if not all, potential ambiguity. L1v3rp00l (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is not about a train operating company it is about the physical network. Go and make an article about a train operating company and leave the article alone. You are some sort of obsessed nut. BigScribe (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Writing in bold doesn't add any veracity to your views. You've repeatedly ignored what I've made clear to you, so let's wrap this intemperate discussion up by making it clear the article absolutely is about the train operating company and, again, you have no power to decide what it is and isn't about. L1v3rp00l (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This L1v3rp00l man is going too far. The insertion in bold above was not written by me and he changed it and put my name in. He is obsessed with getting the first word of the article mention a train operating company. The history shows that. I came to add some impartiality, however he keeps vandalizing the opening paragraph. He is not fit to write in the article. Will those in charge please sort him out.BigScribe (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(REVERTED: I stepped in to get some sense in to this bun fight. L1v3rp00l is obsessed at having the operating company be the first words in the article. This is ridiculous. Mersey separate from the national network - dedicated network, apart from BigScribe (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly was written by you; see the evidence here. Please see also WP:TPG and WP:TPO. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Chaps. The opening I amended now satisfies all. So stop the bickering over a trivial matter. BigScribe (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

it was not written by me. I do know about IP addresses having a degree in computing. BigScribe (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence proves you wrong: this talk page's history says it was written by you. You've also broken multiple Wikipedia guidelines on here, not least name calling. "Obsessed nut", "dumb", accusing people of vandalism, working for the rail industry and writing other people's comments for them is not acceptable. You also do not have any sort of consensus for the edits and reversions you keep making, so if anyone's actually carrying out 'vandalism', it's you. L1v3rp00l (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by user L1verp00l

This man is constantly vandalizing the article, yet the mods are doing nothing to stop him. He has just stripped out large parts of the article to put his POV. I have read the talk page and edits and concluded he works for Northern Rail and has a beef about local company Merseyrail. He has an obsession with rail operating companies when the article is not about these companies it is about Merseyrail the network. He is free to start an article about Merseyrail the operating company, but he will not and continues to vandalize giving HIS POV is in rail buff language, which is not Wiki is about. It is for uninitiated to. He ignores raw raw facts. Why aren't the moderator doing something about him?BigScribe (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Franchising in England and Wales

I hope this is an appropriate place to suggest a change, as I notice that editing is currently locked. At present, there is a line reading "...rather than the Department for Transport which issues all other rail franchises in Great Britain". Bearing in mind that the ScotRail franchise is awarded by the Scottish government, not the DfT, could I suggest that this line is adjusted to read "which issues all other rail franchises in England and Wales"? ClivePIA (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a full prot on this article pending the outcome of WP:DRN#Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Merseyrail main article City Line

I had a re read i like the way the Merseyrail article has been rewritten. I had one query rather than correcting i wanted to make sure i was right. In the City Line bit it says 3 branches to Wigan, Manchester and Crewe. Should this not be 4 as there is the line to Manchester via Warrington? As this section of the article clearly omits Warrington. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The City Line is when external lines enter Merseyside - these are mainly diesel but some electric. The line inside Merseyside is regarded as being Merseyrail. The stations have the same branding, Merseyrail logo, and ticketing, etc, as Merseyrail electric trains. The City Line ends at the Merseyside borders. In effect all stations within Merseyside are Merseyrail stations - I "think" an exception is Wigan station which is in Gtr Manchester. St. Helens station is on the City Line which is run by Northern Rail. The station is full of Merseyrail "M"s. Who runs the City Line doesn't matter. Some rail fanatics will have you belive the City LIne is not on Merseyrail, which ludicrous..BigScribe (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsbalfour-beatty-wins-second-phase-electrification-contract

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandhills text

I am curious to know if there is an error on the info of Sandhills station. I am referring to the mention of "Waterloo" which redirects to Waterloo Station, London. I don't know enough of the historical rail lines to be sure if this meant something in Liverpool rather than London. I think it means Waterloo L22. Can anyone check this? Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

By 1816, every town in England had a "Waterloo" somewhere. This is probably a ref to the 1840s(?) Waterloo Tunnel and the Waterloo Goods station, itself (AFAIR) a reference to the earlier (1830s?) Waterloo Dock. Waterloo was a temporary terminus for one of the early lines (Liverpool, Crosby and Southport Railway), before Tithebarn Street / Exchange station was built. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through this article carefully. There are just four mentions of Waterloo; only one of those is linked - Waterloo/Victoria Tunnel - and it doesn't end up at London Waterloo station at all. Further, although there are five mentions of Sandhills, only one of them occurs in the same section as a mention of Waterloo - it's in Merseyrail#The Outer Rail Loop, but in different paragraphs - Sandhills is in para. 6, whereas Waterloo is in para. 9. So I really don't understand what the problem is. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already changed the link Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Eh? The last edit was on 10 October - a week ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

[1] Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh. So not this article at all. It would have helped on the wild goose chase if the original post had stated that the problem was actually at Sandhills railway station, or (even better) if it had been posted at Talk:Sandhills railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the "original post" was pretty clear myself, i said the info of Sandhills station, the other user understood, it would help if you actually looked on the page rather than calling it a wild goose chaseBabydoll9799 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In an article about Merseyrail, it is quite probable that Sandhills would be mentioned at least once: so when I saw "the info of Sandhills station" in a post on the talk page for the article entitled Merseyrail, I naturally assumed that it meant "the info concerning Sandhills station which is in this article", and I did "actually" look on the page - this page. As I said almost six months ago, if you had wanted us to look at Sandhills railway station, you should either have said so, or posted to the talk page of that article, not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

This is the para:

Merseyrail is both a British train operating company (TOC) and also the name of a commuter rail network, centred on the city of Liverpool, England. It is part of the National Rail network. The Merseyrail TOC operates two lines, the Northern Line and Wirral Line, which interconnect in central Liverpool and are electrified on the 750 v DC third-rail system. A third line is described for publicity purposes by governing body Merseytravel as the Merseyrail City Line, comprising diesel suburban passenger rail services operating out of Liverpool Lime Street, but these latter are not operated by the Merseyrail TOC but by the Northern Rail train operating company.

The bold is a POV and should be removed ASAP. The whole para is amateurish using acronyms. It is more concerned about the train operating company that the physical network.94.194.21.227 (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I see two acronyms: the first is TOC and its usage satisfies MOS:ACRO. The other is DC which is commonly understood to mean direct current. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The average reader who is not a rail-head read would know what DC is as it is a common Acronym that has fallen intro acceptance world-wide, like IBM has. TOC is rail-head language and should be removed, as most readers do not know what it is. It may state what it is at the top but readers forget when reading further down. Writing in acronyms is lazy writing.BigScribe (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The opening, "Merseyrail is both a train operating company (TOC) and a commuter rail network, in Merseyside, England". This article is about Merseyrail, the network. The train operating company should be way down the article not in the opening sentence. The uninitiated care nothing of the company and only the network, that is why they looked at the page, hence only the network should be mentioned at this point. It looks very amateurish. In 2009 the article was nominated for a good article award. The article has expanded since then, but the August 24, 2009, click the link above, opening para was far superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.105.51 (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, "A third line, separate from the electrified network". The City Line is now largely electrified, so this is inaccurate. The opening paragraph is a mess and confusing for those not familiar with Merseyrail, which will be most people reading the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.105.51 (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Walton to Kirby subsection

In the Walton to Kirkby subsection the last two sentences read "The Merseyrail electric and the Northern Rail diesel services use opposite ends of the same platform at Kirkby. Merseyrail and Northern Line trains are generally timed to meet there for ease of interchange." I think the reference to "Northern Line trains" should read "Northern Rail trains" or, more concisely, the two sentences could be rewritten as "The Merseyrail electric and the Northern Rail diesel services use opposite ends of the same platform at Kirkby, where the two operators generally time their services to meet for ease of interchange." A citation would help qualify the point. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Take out the Electric as it over-complicates, just say Merseyrail and Northern Rail. Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

Frequencies of these services are required 80.1.134.116 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Furthermore you did not request a specific change; please make requests in the form "please change X to Y". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

All is electrified

All the City Line is now electrified. All references to diesel trains should be removed, apart from it being previously run by diesel trains. 2.223.58.156 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

City Line

The City Line is where other lines run through Merseyside. The stations have Merseyrail logos and ticketing. The City Line has Merseyrail branding. This is not mentioned. A poor article. It was but it was taken away for some inexplicable reason.

I agree that acronyms like TOC should not be used. This is confusing to the ordinary person, which wiki is aimed at. 2.223.58.156 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The acronym TOC is defined in the very first sentence, and its definition is in accordance with MOS:ACRO. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

TOC is in an railway acronym and should be removed. Wiki is not for railways enthusiasts who use "in" words and "in" acronyms. I agree that the City Line section is a joke. It is way out of date and inaccurate. Stations on the City Line, where it enters Merseyside, and even into Gtr Manchester, are branded "MERSEYRAIL", with "MERSEYRAIL" ticketing and "MERSEYRAIL" singage. This section is amateurish. 90.205.139.217 (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read MOS:ACRO, and also WP:DAW. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The article states " A third line, separate from the electrified network, is known as the City Line, ". The City Line IS electrified. 90.205.139.217 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is only partially electrified: the section between Hunts Cross and Deansgate (via Warrington Central) is not electrified. But the essential difference is that the electrified portions of the City line all use 25 kV AC overhead electrification, whereas the Northern and Wirral lines use 750 V DC third-rail electrification. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

City Line and Ownership

Firstly determine what MERSEYRAIL is. Merseyrail is a rail network under the responsibility of the transport authority Merseytravel. MERSEYRAIL, the network, is formed by lines operated by TWO companies on behalf of Merseytravel: Merseyrail Electrics and Northern Rail. Both companies are owned by Serco-Abellio. Northern Rail is to transfer ownership to Arriva Rail North in April 2016 but still using the name Northern Rail. So Merseyrail is the network and two companies run the trains on it. That is now determined.

Now determine if there is a City Line. The Merseyrail (lines run by Merseyrail Electrics) web site does not have the City Line on its map. Yet the regional transport authority, Merseytravel, does have the City Line on its web site and calls it the "Merseyrail City Line". Here is tghe Merseytravel map: http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/Site%20Documents/MerseyrailNetworkMap.pdf So there "is" a City Line, with trains operated by Northern Rail. It runs from:

• Lime St to Manchester via the 1830 line. This has recently been electrified.
• Lime St to Wigan and St.Helens on the 1830 line. This has recently been electrified.
• Lime St to Crewe, via Liverpool South Parkway, and Runcorn. Electrified.
• Lime St to Manchester via Warrington and Hunts Cross. Diesel run.

Of the four branches of the line, three are electrified. This needs to be in the article.

The Merseyrail web site states:

"Merseyrail Electrics (2002) is a 50/50 joint venture company between Serco and Abellio, which has a 25 year concession agreement with Merseytravel, the transport authority in Merseyside. The concession started on 20 July 2003, with review dates every five years. 1,200 people work at Merseyrail."

The above is clear a company named Merseyrail Electrics operates a part of the network. Northern Rail is owned by Serco Abellio, is to be owned by Arriva Rail North in April 2016.

The City Line, shown in red on the Merseyrail map, is an informal term used by local transport authority Merseytravel 

The above is wrong a point of view. The term City Line is quite formal. It exsists and run by Northern Rail.

Also the start of the article is wrong. It states:

"Merseyrail is both a train operating company (TOC) and a commuter rail network, in Merseyside, England."

Merseyrail is NOT a train operating company, it is a rail network. Merseyrail Electrics is a train operating company, who run a part of Merseyrail. Merseyrail is a rail network operated by two train operating companies, Merseyrail Electrics and Northern Rail. People are confusing Merseyrail Electrics with Merseyrail. They are conflating them both. The article is about Merseyrail "the network", not Merseyrail Electrics which is a company. The article is confusing. Much of the article needs rewriting to clarify all the above points. I will rewrite parts of the article to reflect the above. Redburn1849 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2015

I aim to edit what I highlighted in the Talk page of the article. The article is out of date on a few points. The points I intend to edit are in the talk page. Redburn1849 (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Redburn1849 (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Merseyrail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108201554/http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news/local-wirral-news/heswall-news/2008/11/05/merseytravel-fury-over-207m-price-tag-for-bidston-wrexham-rail-link-80491-22191908/ to http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news/local-wirral-news/heswall-news/2008/11/05/merseytravel-fury-over-207m-price-tag-for-bidston-wrexham-rail-link-80491-22191908/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Edge Hill Spur

In the Liverpool Echo Article Wirral line upgrade: why will passengers face six months of misery? the picture toward the bottom with the train passing through may show the tunnel prepared for the spur leaving to the left. Should anyone have doubted it's existance.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Well spotted. The two header tunnels (they are about 30 foot in length with dead ends ready to continue) for the Edge Hill Spur were completed and the junction south of Central completed all ready to roll. 90.212.242.167 (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)