Talk:Merseyrail

Merseyrail vs Merseyrail Network

I was just reading the page and i wanted to ask others if they are as muddled up as me on a couple of things. I first think the page could be seperated as on one hand you got Merseyrail (Electrics, to simplify) and the other the Merseyrail (Network, as branded, with the City Line and everything else rolled in). Because reading up made me realise some articles appear to suggest Merseyrail is just about these two lines. They should be seperated. The other thing i am muddled up with is what is the network see earlier talk. I mean so many terms, commuter rail, rapid transit, suburban rail, metrol. What exactly is ours? There are differing terms in different articles (about Merseyrail that is) Babydoll9799 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Merseyrail is a commuter-rail, rapid-transit urban rail network. Parts of it run like a metro in the centre of Liverpool and Birkenhead, rather like London's Underground. The electrified part of Merseyrail and LU are similar with Merseyrail being a scaled down version - to be enlarged with City LIne electrification. The initial writers were clearly rail enthusiast in the rail business. They pretended that the diesel City Line never existed and only wrote of the electrified part. 75 miles of "electrified track". There are more taking into account the City Line. The City line is where other lines run through Merseyside with stations and ticketing branded so inside Merseyside. 67 stations? There are more counting the City Line stations. The City Line is being electrified right now, so all will be one. You are right it needs some simple rewriting to make matters clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.102.190 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Merseyrail does appear to be used to define two different things, and the article's somewhat large and diverse at present. Maybe a split into Merseyrail (network) (about the network itself and its history and creation) and Merseyrail (franchise) (about the TOC and its operations) would be beneficial? Alzarian16 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to treat Merseyrail as "one" network. It does at the top state that the City Line is different to the others. It does state that the City Line is being electrified right now. A bit clearer at the top is all that is needed, and when the City Line is mentioned in the article. It does not need to be split into two separate articles - the CIty LIne is being electrified so making a lot of this rather redundant.

The first lines of the articles state: Merseyrail is a train operating company and commuter rail network in the United Kingdom, centred on Liverpool, Merseyside. The network is predominantly electric with diesel trains running on the City Line. Two of the City Line branches are being electrified with completion planned for 2016, making Merseyrail 100% electric traction. That is clear enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.102.190 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad i wasn't the only one wondering about this. I kind of agree with the last point but it is that there are parts, not just on this page, that only refer to Merseyrail as the Wirral/Northern lines per se, and that's what needs to be looked at. Merseyrail (Electrics) maybe should be seperated because it is a diffent company to Northern Rail. When we refer to Merseyrail there is no direct distinction at the moment between the one or the other. Most people know Merseyrail as the brand. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This wiki is for lay people to read. They see Merseyrail as the brand and care not a hoot about who runs or owns what. Why should they! The two companies running parts of it of course should be mentioned. I will run through it and see if it is too biased towards the electrics, although all will be electric soon enough. :-) 94.194.102.190 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is the brand, the network. But even the info box is focused on ME. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made one or two subtle changes myself to give "Merseyrail Network" more prominence, as i've noticed others have. Hope this helps. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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

When British Railways was privatised, the DC lines fell naturally under one TOC, which took the name 'Merseyrail Electrics' whereas the City Line services came under Northern Rail, which serves an area much larger than Merseyside. Consequently, the name 'Merseyrail' has, in more recent years, been associated primarily with the DC network due it being practically autonomous from the rest of the network, almost completely within Merseyside using DC traction and clearly branded. Mann Island (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The City Line was the section of out of region lines passing through Merseyside. The stations had the Merseyrail branding, tickets, Merseyrail maps on walls, etc. The trains would not necessarily have Merseyrail livery. Two branches were diesel and one electric. The full electrification of the City Line is going ahead. The Liverpool-Wigan branch to Wigan via St.Helens can be 100% on Merseyrail electrics with train going no further. Where the Liverpool to Manchester line ends at the Merseyside border can also be 100% on Merseyrail with Merseyrail train going no further, although a turn-around siding would be needed. The Lime St to South Parkways is a little difficult, as this is the WCML spur. Urban trains can run on this section, but again turn-around is needed near South Parkway. Unless Merseyrail is extedned to Ditton, which is proposed for reopening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is really getting cryptic now, essentially people are confusing the 'City Line' which is a branded part of Merseytravels PTE area rail service map with the Merseyrail franchise and the actual physical rail lines and the half a dozen different franchises and destinations far beyond the Mersey area which they serve. The 'City Line' isnt the same as the other two its essentially just a branding excercise, formally with branded trains though now just confined to the stations and literature published within the PTE area. As far as the wider rail network is concerned its just a mix of intercity and regional services along the Liverpool-Manchester Rail Line. WatcherZero (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Does a user care if the City Line is run by another operator? I doubt it. They look at the rail map and see it. The stations have Merseyrail signs outside. Are you saying remove mention of The City Line and if it doesn't exist? The City Line in Merseyside is to be a full part of Merseyrail when electrified. 78.159.111.164 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No im saying treat it like it actually is, a marketing excercise not a part of the Merseyrail franchise or a rail line in its own right! WatcherZero (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to give my twopennies worth..I must agree that the City Line is a branding thing but "marketing exercise" ? That is something different. I don't even use the trains thesedays but whether or not the trains are operated by others is surely immaterial, as when in the Merseyside area the MPTE, being Merseytravel, have branded all stations & lines in to this network.....just because the Wirral & Northern lines are electric and run as Merseyrail alone does not alter that it is still this 3 line network that has been around for some time now. There is a need to simplify things on the page but don't disregard the City Line simply because it is run differently. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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)