Talk:Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway

Comments by Cryptic C62

Here are some comments on the article's prose.

Resolved issues

Because this is a UK-related topic, it may be preferable to place metric units before imperial units, though I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. The relevant guideline is WP:UNIT. Metric-first is inappropriate. Britain is not a metric country, and distances are always expressed in miles/yards/feet, then and now (except in a very few exceptional cases relating to the Channel Tunnel, it's illegal for a British road sign to give a distance in kilometers other than as a supplementary equivalent to the figure in miles). The WP:UNIT guideline explicitly states that "miles for distances" is correct in British English. "By the time the trains reached the outskirts of Manchester the crowd had become hostile and was spilling onto the tracks." Hostile towards whom? Each other? Authorities? How is this different from becoming unruly? Unruly is not a synonym for hostile. The crowd were unruly; they were also hostile to Wellington. "Eventually they arrived at Liverpool Road railway station in Manchester to be met by a hostile crowd," At this point, the reader has been informed more than enough times that the crowd is hostile/unruly. I suggest removing one or two instances to cut down on the redundancy (and length). Disagree. The riots are a key element to what happened that day; which crowds were hostile and which were just unruly is important. "Mechanical failures and an inability to turn the locomotives meant that most of the trains were unable to leave Manchester." More concise: "Mechanical failures prevented most of the trains from leaving Manchester." Might be more concise but it wouldn't be true. Some of the locomotives were unable to return owing to mechanical failure; some were unable to return owing to an inability to turn. Your proposed wording implies that mechanical failure was the sole cause. – iridescent 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC) "Huge crowds lined the track at Liverpool to watch the trains depart for Manchester." In the interest of trimming down what is currently a very large lead, I suggest removing this relatively unimportant sentence. If you think it should stay, I'd change "huge" to "large". The huge crowds are important; without the crowds, there'd not have been the chaos when events didn't go to plan. Not the way I see it. The unruly/hostile crowds in Parkside and Manchester were important because they caused accidents and whatnot, but the crowds that saw the trains off in Liverpool were entirely inconsequential. If a Air Force One were to crash into a crowd upon landing, the fact that there were people standing around watching it take off would be irrelevant, as is the case here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) "The trains left Liverpool on time and without any technical problems, but around 13 miles (21 km) out of Liverpool the first of many problems occurred, when two of the trains collided." This confuses me greatly. How on earth did the two trains manage to collide? Did one stop unexpectedly? The lead is a summary of the article, not a complete rehash of all the details. One train derailed and came to a halt, and the one behind it ran into the back of it. "With no reported injuries or damage, the derailed locomotive was lifted back onto the track and the journey continued." How is it possible that this collision was severe enough to derail a locomotive but not severe enough to cause damage? The collision didn't cause the derailment; the derailment caused the collision. This order of events is not made clear in the article, which led to my confusion on this and the previous point. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) "With local authorities unable to clear the tracks, the trains were obliged to drive at low speed into the crowd, pushing people out of the way with their own momentum." Whose own momentum? This doesn't make sense. I suggest the following rewriting: "With local authorities unable to clear the tracks, the trains were obliged to drive at low speed into the crowd to push people out of the way." Can't see what's unclear about "the trains were obliged to drive at low speed into the crowd, pushing people out of the way with their own momentum". The word order of the current sentence implies that "their own momentum" refers to the crowd rather than to the trains, which makes it confusing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) It is awkward to have entire sentences in parentheses. It is also awkward to have one paragraph of 16 lines followed by two paragraphs of 4 lines. Both of these problems can be solved by making parenthetical text a new paragraph. "transporting raw cotton the 35 miles (56 km) from Liverpool to Manchester was as expensive as the initial cost of shipping it from America to Liverpool" As someone who knows nothing about history or shipping, I'm curious to know what the "initial" in "initial cost" refers to. Also, it seems a bit backwards to compare the Liverpool–Manchester trip with the America–Liverpool trip. I would think that comparing it to the Liverpool–America trip would be more logical. Goods were shipped from America to Liverpool, not from Liverpool to America. The triangular trade in the age of sail was Liverpool→Africa→America→Liverpool, not the other way round. "Initial cost" in this context refers to the cost of shipping from America to Liverpool. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) "Although horse and human powered railways had existed for centuries" I have no idea what "human powered railways" might be, though my first guess would be handcars. A wikilink would be helpful here. We have a perfectly good article on the history of railways at railway for anyone who cares. I am not going to give a full description of 3000 years of railway history on this article, just to make it clear that the L&M wasn't the first one. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) "two years of lobbying necessary to get the railway authorised" Authorized by whom? Some readers might assume that there was some sort of Planning and Zoning or transportation board already in place, some might assume this refers to the parliament, others might assume it refers to the individual land owners. All three. Again, if this is to be explained in detail anywhere it should be at Liverpool and Manchester Railway, not here. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I think the paragraph about cost would benefit from a conversion to modern-day euros/dollars just for comparison. I think the average laborer's wage is most in need of it, as it's not clear if the number is high or low by today's standards. Absolutely not, and if you're going to oppose over this than so be it. If I saw a conversion from an early form of one currency to a modern form of another currency on any featured article, I'd consider it ground for immediate FAR. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) "Although the Marquess had initially feared the potential impact of railways on the income from his canal and had been strongly opposed to the railway," Here's a more concise version: "Although the Marquess had initially opposed the railway for fear that it would reduce the revenues of his canal," though you're welcome to tweak the phrasing as needed. As I've already told you above, I'm not going to rewrite facts just because you think it looks neater. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) "Huskisson persuaded him to allow the railway to use his lands and to invest in the scheme" The phrasing implies that the railway invested in the scheme rather than the Marquess. Also, why is it a scheme? Scheme usually has a negative connotation. Suggestion: "Huskisson persuaded him to invest in the railway and to allow it to use his lands." Just noting here that "scheme" doesn't usually have a negative connotation. Though possibly this is a cultural thing: In the US, generally has devious connotations, while in the UK, frequently used as a neutral term for projects (Wiktionary, though I'm sure this can be confirmed elsewhere). To me, in this context, a scheme is simply a plan - no negative connotations at all. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Interesting point, thanks for that tidbit. I suppose in this case, either "railway" or "scheme" would be fine, though I still recommend rearranging the sentence for greater clarity. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC) "He also felt that, by having the rails this close together," How close together were they? The paragraph explains that they were equally spaced, but never mentions what the spacing actually was. That paragraph doesn't give the gauge, because at this point in the narrative it's not an issue; I don't think Stephenson had even yet decided what it would be. The 56.5 gauge is given when the distance does become relevant. "He drove through the restructuring..." Odd verb choice which I am unable to decipher. Perhaps "spearheaded"? "He drove through the restructuring" is absolutely standard English. I don't see what your issue is here. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) "Huskisson remained in Parliament as MP for Liverpool" What does this abbreviation mean? Unless I am mistaken, its meaning has not been explained earlier in the article. There's no need to assume stupidity of our readers, or to spell out every acronym when it's immediately obvious. I find it hard to imagine any reader of this article not knowing what "MP" stands for in the context of a paragraph about Members of Parliament. Nonetheless, have spelled it out. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I am of the opinion that the William Huskisson section can and should be shortened by removing some of the earlier details of his career. I suspect that the average reader will see no connection between Huskisson's life and the title of this article. A more astute reader may realize that the article has been written as a combination of the opening of the railway and the death of Huskisson, but even so, many of the details presented here are irrelevant to either topic. The explanation of Huskisson's connection to the Duke of Wellington is most certainly relevant, and I have no objection to keeping that as it is. Some of the earlier factoids, such as where he lived after marrying Emily, just seem to be taking up space. Totally disagree. Huskisson's connection to Liverpool, his connection to Wellington, and his significance to British politics all need to be explained; the first explains why he was there in the first place, the second explains why he would walk across a live railway line to shake Wellington's hand, and the third explains why his death provoked such a reaction. That he lived at the other end of the country, but still managed to provoke such an outpouring of grief in Liverpool, is entirely relevant; in this period most MPs would rarely if ever even visit their constituencies, let alone be popular among their constituents. – iridescent 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

As mentioned at the FAC review, I'm putting some extended comments on the lead section here:

• Why condense the injury and death of Huskisson into "He fell onto the tracks in front of the train, suffering serious leg injuries and dying later that night", but then give equal space of a single sentence to describe the incident involving Phoenix?
• "Distracted by the Duke" seems to be only present in the lead section, not the main article.
• "By 1840 1,775 miles (2,857 km) of track had been laid in Britain." - this bit from the main article is used in the lead, but I can't find a source supplied for this in the text of the main article.
• Do you have a date for the Peter Parker quote?

The lead section I would use, edited down, is this:

The opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&M) took place on 15 September 1830. Work had begun in the 1820s on this railway line, which was built to connect Manchester with the Port of Liverpool, 35 miles (56 km) away. It was the first locomotive-hauled railway to connect two major industrial cities, and the first to provide a scheduled passenger service. The opening day was a major public event, attracting huge crowds. Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, the Prime Minister, rode on one of the eight inaugural trains, as did many other dignitaries and notable figures of the day.

The Duke of Wellington's train and its carriages ran on one track, and the other trains ran on a closely adjacent and parallel track, sometimes ahead of and sometimes behind the Duke's train. Just before mid-day, near the midpoint of the line, the Duke's train made a scheduled stop to take on water. Among many dignitaries who alighted from the carriages to the tracks was William Huskisson, former cabinet minister and Member of Parliament for Liverpool. Huskisson had fallen out with Wellington in 1828 over the issue of parliamentary reform and had resigned from the cabinet. Hoping to be reconciled with the Duke (who had remained on the train), Huskisson walked along the adjacent track to the Duke's carriage and exchanged greetings. Warned of an approaching locomotive, Stephenson's Rocket, Huskisson panicked and tried to clamber into the carriage, but the door swung open and he fell onto the tracks in front of the oncoming Rocket, suffering serious leg injuries and dying later that evening.

The Duke of Wellington felt that the remainder of the day's events should be cancelled following the accident, and proposed to return to Liverpool. However, the large crowd gathered in Manchester to see the trains arrive was beginning to become unruly, and Wellington was persuaded to continue. Eventually the trains arrived at Liverpool Road railway station in Manchester to be met by a hostile crowd. Wellington refused to alight, and ordered that the trains return to Liverpool. While the Duke of Wellington's train left successfully, only three of the remaining seven locomotives were usable. These three locomotives slowly hauled a single long train of 24 carriages back to Liverpool, eventually arriving 61⁄2 hours late after having been pelted with objects thrown from bridges by the drunken crowds lining the track.

The death and funeral of William Huskisson caused the opening of the railway to be widely reported, and people around the world became aware for the first time that cheap and rapid long-distance transport was now possible. The L&M became extremely successful, and within a month of its opening plans were put forward to connect Liverpool and Manchester with the other major cities of England. Within ten years, 1,775 miles (2,857 km) of railways had been built in Britain, and within 20 years of the L&M's opening over 6,200 miles (10,000 km) were in place. The L&M remains in operation, and its opening is now considered the start of the age of mechanised transport; in the words of industrialist and former British Rail chairman Peter Parker, "the world is a branch line of the pioneering Liverpool–Manchester run".

The current lead, for reference, is here. The easiest way to show the changes made would be to add the above to the article and provide a diff here, but it is possible to summarise the proposed change here as well (1st para: mainly tightening up of prose; 2nd para: excess details removed and left for later in article; 3rd para: tightening of prose and removal of some detail; 4th para: unchanged). Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Parker quote is from his introduction to Liverpool & Manchester Railway, 1830-1980 by Frank Ferneyhough, published in 1980. I'm working from Wolmar-quoting-Ferneyhough rather than from Ferneyhough direct, so haven't provided a direct citation as it's long out of print and I dislike citing books unless I've seen the wording for myself.

The "1,775 miles..." shares a citation with the following sentence (Garfield, p.209) so isn't cited separately.

I'd say this version of the lead focuses too much on Huskisson and Wellington. Although Huskisson's death was what was most widely reported at the time—and its significance, both in terms of gaining publicity for the experiment and of the potential legal implications had the coroner declared the railway deodand can't be overstated—it wasn't the sole event of the day, and I want very much for this article not to become Death of William Huskisson. The likeliest readers of this are those interested in engineering history, and from the railway-history perspective the Phoenix collision—as the first ever train-on-train collision—is very significant (possibly even more so than Huskisson, who wasn't even the first casualty on the L&M, let alone the first railway casualty, whatever the DNB may say to the contrary). I do agree that the present lead is very long, but it's summarising multiple narratives; cutting any of the events out means making a value judgement as to which are more significant, but there were so many notable events that day that it's very hard to decide what's important and what isn't. – iridescent 17:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Evasive and misleading statement

" Although horse and human powered railways had existed for centuries, and steam power was beginning to be used in some experimental industrial railways, the L&M was to be the first steam powered railway to provide an inter-city passenger service, and would be the most expensive engineering project yet undertaken in Britain"

Although this railway company was established in 1823, its actual railway was not completed until 1830. The Stockton and Darlington Railway was built by a corporation to provide passenger and freight services and it openned in 1825. It was not "an experimental industrial railway". The sentence quoted above seems to have been deliberated crafted to create the impression among the unknowleadgable that the Liverpool and Manchester railway was the first proper railway, that impression would appear to be false.`Eregli bob (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Stockton & Darlington pre-1832 was very much an experimental railway, (their first coach was even named Experiment in recognition of this), using a mixture of horses and steam locomotives. It had no passenger stations (people just jumped on and off when the trains stopped), and it certainly didn't offer an inter-city service of any kind—there wasn't a single major town along the route, let alone a city. (Darlington was a tiny market town at the time, Stockton was starting to grow but still only had a population of around 5000, Shildon had a population of a few hundred while Middlesbrough was a village with a population in double figures.) I stand 100% behind "the L&M was to be the first steam powered railway to provide an inter-city passenger service", and I'm not sure who you think we're trying to mislead and why—do you think Wikipedia is trying to drum up support for the Eccles Tourist Board or something? – iridescent 22:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Stockton & Darlington connected two towns. One called Stockton, the other called Darlington. The Liverpool & Manchester also connected two towns, Liverpool and Manchester. The difference between the two was the fact that the Liverpool and Manchester was fully steam-powered and ran a 'scheduled' service. Neither was 'inter-city', both were 'inter-town'. The Liverpool & Manchester didn't even go from Liverpool to Manchester. Dress them up as much as you want, but they both were 'experimental' at that time, if not 'ramshackle'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.89.178 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Story of stranded spectators

I don't have a copy of Garfield's book but the rendition here is unlikely to be accurate as there were no air shafts in the "little tunnel" which was not worked by locomotives. I don't recall where but I have also seen the story told that the people stranded were from the engineering department and that the platform was a large chimney, presumably in the adjacent Millfield station. Such a chimney can be seen in a panoramic view of Liverpool dated 1847 published by Ackermann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastWider (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll double-check when I get the chance as I don't have the book to hand, but I'm fairly certain Garfield explicitly says "air shaft"; I'll check when I get the chance, and also confirm which sources he used for this. An air-shaft high enough to provide a better vantage point than (for instance) church towers wouldn't make any sense in the context of the time, anyway; I suspect that the structure in question will actually be one of the chimneys of the Edge Hill winding engines (which wouldn't have been operational at this moment, since every train was running west-to-east and thus would have been operating under gravity), but that's pure speculation. (Although every source seems to concur that the trains left from Crown Street, and thus that's what we say in the article, I'm not entirely convinced; certainly the lead image appears to show the passengers boarding at Edge Hill, and I'm not sure the original Crown Street terminus even had space to accommodate seven trains on the same track simultaneously.) ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Garfield's website has a copy of the intro to the 2005 edition which makes no mention of chimney or air shaft (can't rule out that it is a condensed version though) . The tunnel was 291 yards distant from the Pillars of Hercules so the view obtained must surely have been of the Edge Hill cutting in that case -- which wouldn't have been any better than just standing on the sides or bridge there. All sources I've seen cite Crown St as the start point although I agree about the space for trains -- access to the station must have been awkward as well though they had a one-way system in operation for coaches. Getting that number of people down the steps at Edge Hill cutting would have been risky as well, however. My working hypothesis is that they must have used additional track in either or both the coalyard and the adjacent Millfield station although there's no support from the Bury prints for either. On the other hand that begs the question as to how carriages and wagons actually got to the tracks. Even so, the logistics involved in getting eight trains through the tunnel and underway at the other end do make one wonder. Two other stories currently missing: the starting cannon and severely damaged eye incident (likely lethal), the backing out of Wellington's carriages from the tunnel (which would have been a grand coup de theatre). CastWider (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as the image is concerned a reverse image search will show versions with better attribution (I Shaw, Liverpool, 1831) although the text is hard to read on many. I think it not unreasonable to assume that the people there are privileged spectators rather than passengers. The position of the ducal train suggests that it has just come out of the Crown St tunnel (as expected if that's the starting point). The distribution of the other engines seems a little odd if you think that they are blocking the track for subsequent trains. Another logistical conundrum although maybe there is an arrangement of turnplates or points that we are missing. Also, some artistic licence must be allowed given the non-availability of photography at the time. CastWider (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checked a map and there were indeed 4 tracks just beyond the Moorish Arch (at least at the time the map was made some years later) so it seems entirely in order that the engines were waiting there. No conundrum. CastWider (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Picton's version of the stranded engineers and the chimney (although I haven't checked the Memorials themselves) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastWider (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Annoyingly, almost every library appears to have cleared out their copy of Garfield so it might take a while to check what source he used for this story (it can't be Picton, as Picton doesn't name John Harrison and the name must have come from somewhere). I'm going to change it to "chimney" for the moment and be a bit vague about where exactly it was, as "chimney on railway ground" is definitely citable. (The basics of the anecdote—"a bunch of people climbed up something tall to watch and then got stuck up there"—isn't in dispute, and I'd like to keep it in if at all possible, as it adds some human colour to the narrative.) ‑ Iridescent 08:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, panic not. I managed to track down a copy of Garfield's book and he says that it is "a circular chimney on the roof of the large tunnel entrance", as you surmised and presumably as shown in an early Bury print not, alas, in Wikimedia Commons. My original concern regarding the "air shaft" was at least justified even if Garfield's source is obscure (there is a bibliography but no citations). I'm just a little suspicious that an employee would put his job on the line -- L&MR staff were forbidden to take gratuities. More likely it was an internal affair as per Picton or that it involved a contractor rather than a direct employee. I stll have doubts regarding the two instances of named individuals, viz "Harding's grandstand at the William the Fourth Hotel" as well as "John Harrison, professor of gymnastics". It could be that the latter was associated with one of the scholarly institutions around the Liverpool Royal Institution. On the other hand it does seem like a local paper engaging in a bit of early "product placement". Presumably Harrison could easily have shinned down the rope and then lowered the others in the standard manner? of course, there is no reason Wikipedia should share my doubts :) CastWider (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dinner at Wellington Rooms

Worth adding to the Adelphi section? According to a report in the Salopian Journal dated 22/8/1830 , the Board of Directors hosted a grand dinner at the Wellington Rooms but the events of the day meant that attendance was lower than expected (47) and dignitaries such as Wellington notably absent. CastWider (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Rocket collision

Carlson (p.233) asserts that the distance between tracks was 4 feet and that the ducal carriage had a 24 inch overhang and Rocket 6 inch. The resulting 18 inch clearance sufficed for some such as William Holmes. No mention is made of the appealing notion that separation by the equivalent of standard gauge would permit running wide loads. Garfield (p.157) is slightly more vague on the matter and states that the clearance was 2 feet. Neither cites any source but I suspect the info will lie in one of the Parliamentary Bills or amendments although sadly I don't have access to these. The transcript for the inquest would be another possibility.CastWider (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

On an earlier page (p.104) Garfield states that the spacing was originally going to be 4 feet 4.5 inches but was revised to 4 feet 8.5 inches to enable running of wide loads. No source is given. CastWider (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Carlson's source may be the article in the Annual Register http://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433006400331?urlappend=%3Bseq=478 CastWider (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Subsequently Whishaw reported quite definitively in 1842 that the spacing was 5 feet 2 inches, the track presumably having been replaced in ~1836-7. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021124311?urlappend=%3Bseq=225 CastWider (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wolmar (who cites Ferneyhough a lot) goes for 4 feet 8.5 inches for reasons of economy of land purchase. CastWider (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ferneyhough actually goes for 4 feet 4.5 inches

Walker writing in 1831 describes "four equi-distant rails, four feet eight inches apart" https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oiM4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false CastWider (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CastWider (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Parkside

At present there is no mention of how the trains were marshalled at Parkside. Several accounts, including Rolt's history of the Stephensons, suggest that replenishment of the engines took place at locations remote from the station and that the leading engine Phoenix received water and fuel some half mile further on after passing through Parkside where Northumbrian was already waiting. The passage through Parkside was by way of a review or parade conducted at slow speed. Presumably this was primarily for the benefit of the crowds as something similar had already taken place at Rainhill. Brandreth (a doctor who would later tend Huskisson) was on Phoenix and, looking back, saw two further trains (presumably North Star and Rocket) pass through Parkside and a third one (presumably Dart) paused opposite the ducal train. This was indicative of a problem and Brandreth immediately started to walk back to Parkside. Whether the engines behind Dart were intended to pickup water prior to entering Parkside is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastWider (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is potentially misleading as it suggests that the travellers were given a leaflet that said Parkside had five lines. I think Garfield is quoting Lacey's Guide. The earliest edition I can find is 1832 and it is likely that the layout had changed significantly by then. Prints and sketches dating from 1830-1831 show the boiler and engine on the south side as being under construction. It is not improbable therefore that only the hovel was present on the opening day. Indeed, a rough sketch accompanying a letter from Littleton to Palmerston (reproduced in the book by Thomas) indicates that there was water on both sides of the track as a consequence of quarrying and only two tracks at the time and site of the accident. CastWider (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate illustrations

Although the article text specifies that the track was standard-gauge (4 feet, 81⁄2 inches), the contemporary illustrations showing the track, with one possible exception, all show rails that are clearly much farther apart, often substantially farther than a person standing by them is tall (the trains are often enormous as well). The obvious question is: why? If all of the illustrators were not present, poor observers, or inclined to exaggeration (for example, paid by the company to make their trains look more impressive), this should be mentioned. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Both illustrators associated with early pictures of the L&MR were young and relatively inexperienced although more experienced artists also found the subject challenging at first. Thomas Talbot Bury was a student of architecture which may explain his accentuation of the built environment while the generally more proficient Isaac Shaw trained as a lithographer. While Bury improved somewhat with his later efforts, both were eclipsed by the work of John Cooke Bourne who sadly never sketched the L&MR as far as I'm aware. CastWider (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Illustrators of the period rarely troubled themselves with such technical details. The chances are that their target audience didn't particularly care (a periodical of some sort perhaps?). Note particularly that in most of the illustrations that the 'rails' are portrayed as just a line on the ground without any detail about how the rails would, in fact, be raised from the ground level. 86.168.83.171 (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the image of the Stephenson tunnel is mislabelled in Geograph -- this is the third tunnel from the cutting and constructed after Crown Street ceased to take passengers and swapped to coal and other goods. The Stephenson tunnel can be seen on the disused stations site and is now buried at the western end. CastWider (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The unattributed image of the Moorish Arch and ducal train on opening day is by Isaac Shaw. CastWider (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605235726/http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search/extract?id=MackoeUluj to http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search/extract?id=MackoeUluj

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Memorial

There's no picture of the memorial at the site? Do any exist?Halbared (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No free-use ones that I'm aware of, and it's on a live railway line so not easily photographed. In any case, I'd say the limited space is better served by the photo of the original memorial that's now in the NRM rather than the replica at Parkside, as the wording is more important than the (uninteresting) design. (The new memorial is fairly boxy and dull.) ‑ Iridescent 21:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I always liked it. I drive by it regularly. :)Halbared (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If you can find (or take!) a decent quality free use photo of it, it might be an idea to give the original tablet now in the NRM and the Newton-le-Willows monument the same side-by-side treatment currently given to the close-up and long-distance shots of Huskisson's grave in the Funeral section. As I say, the issue is getting a photo; because Parkside station is long-since demolished and the site is closed to the public, unless one works for Network Rail it would be almost impossible to get into a position to photograph it face-on. (Flickr has a few photos, but none are free-use and most of them are taken from the bridge and thus show it at an extreme angle and from a long distance. It's sometimes possible to persuade Flickr photographers to release photos into the public domain on a promise that we'll be using their work on The Sixth Most Viewed Website In The World and consequently it's in their interest to release it as it will serve as an advert for their other work, but I don't think any of these are good enough to make the effort that would take worthwhile.) ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington by John Jackson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Inter-city railway?

I personally detest the term inter-city currently used in the article, especially if it is to be used as a featured article. The L&M did not run between two cities. The term was 1980s? British Rail branding and not present at the time. The L&M was a model railway operation for those that followed and was the initiator of many of the practices of a modern scheduled railway. I think the term got banded around at the 150yr celebrations and it stuck, but its probably more unhelpful than helpful. I propose it is removed, even if cited in the given source. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: As a marketing term used for long-distance trains in Britain, it goes back to 1966 and the introduction of the blue livery for locos (blue and grey for coaches) to replace the previous green for locos and maroon for coaches. But the term is older than that: see The Inter-City. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've kind of given up of people insisting on labelling the L&M with inter-city, a passenger only term. The reality of the L&M significance of the L&M, was, roughly per the jacket cover of Dawson(2020), which I don't have beside me currently, was that it was the first line to be operated in a form akin to a modern main line railway, with scheduled passenger services interleaving with freight. Its signalling, operational practices, and procedures were adopted nationally in 1841; and it served as the model for subsequent main line and commuter services. "inter-city" covers only a part of that and distracts from the other aspects. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

L&M or L&MR

The lede says "Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&M)", but the linked article opens with "Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&MR)". (L&M) or (L&MR) needs resolving. (And the effect in here) -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In the Beginning (2003) there was Arwel Parry Old revision of Liverpool and Manchester Railway who used "LMR" ... then came Birdhurst (2006) [1] (L&MR) and finally new kid Iridescent (2010) on the block Old revision of Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Authors (Thomas,2020,p9) & (Murray,1981,p228) go with L&MR; (Carlson,1969), (Donaghy,1972) & (Dawson,2021) like L&M. The grandfather rights here seem to be with L&MR. And I !vote !L&MR. Djm-leighpark (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 19 May 2021‎

I don't really think the slight lack of consistency between articles is a big deal, it's not likely to confuse readers and sources are split. Since this involves multiple articles discussion may best be suited for WT:TRAINS anyway. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What's it all about? IABot

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I am concerned your good faith use of the old IAbot at [2] may have been impotent and on practice not helpful. reformating the cites and Havarding with use of the doi parameter might have been more helpful. Just in case I've got it wrong was someone else review this but I think the created webarchive links fail verification ... its the sort of a rescue that turns a drama into a crisis. Can GWL or elseone please check the change and revert if necessary. Apolgoies if I've missed something. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, hi there, I apologise. It's just a common thing I do to archive today's featured articles. If the archives are not needed, feel free to revert some or all of them. If you look at the diff, the ones with "|archive-url" is successful mainly, and the {{Webarchive}} needs to be changed to the layout "|archive-url" renders: "Archived from the original." I apologise, I am currently busy and unable to edit. GeraldWL 10:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for you quick response. Actually simultaneous(edit conflict) with this I determined on reflection while dealing with vandalism best bet was to revert it early as may not have been as easy to do so later as a simple undo may have been impossible. IABot is usually brilliant but it has its moments, and I think this was one of them! Thankyou again for your good faith repsonse. (ooh ... I see some of these were useful .... sorry .... I have to watch TV for a bit WRT one of my articles ... maybe I've harvard them for my sins .... ) Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had a glance down at the changed cites and I haven't spotted any archive-url= set in that change where url-status=live is not also set, there may be some use cases where this assists national firewall circumvention but dont think thats the case here. More danger of a mess in trying to sort this, and really should go to havard form anyway in most cases and tricky to do errorless while FA. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Chas Francis Adams

• Not that there's necessarily any new facts therein, but Adams writes so felicitously that there might be something worth using in [3] (see p.4). EEng 04:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  I must be losing my mind. I just came here to make pretty much the same comment as I did just 6 short months ago, having no recollection of already having posted above. Oh well. EEng 07:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)