Talk:Liverpool and Manchester Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
 |
Liverpool and Manchester Railway was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: February 4, 2007 |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Greater Manchester WikiProject. | |
Why is Huyton Junction in the station list? Nessuno834 21:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- It certainly shouldn't be listed as a currently-open station, and I don't think it was ever a station (it's very close to Huyton), so I've removed it. --RFBailey 19:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- According to Whishaw in 1840 the intermediate stations were Broad Green, Roby Lane, Huyton Lane, Huyton Quarry (where one would expect a junction?), Kendrick's Cross, Lea Green, St. Helen's Junction, Collin's Green, Parkside, Kenyon Junction, Bury Lane, Flow Moss, Lamb's Cottage, Barton Moss, Patricroft, Eccles, Cross Lane Bridge. It is not however known when these opened. In early railways there were not such stations, generally the train would be stopped and boarded at a level crossing, adminstered by a crossing-keeper. Chevin (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Merger proposal
I propose that the article on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company should be merged here. It's a fairly short article which contains very little content, which could be included here because it's all relevant. --RFBailey 21:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Support: good idea, they fit together well. Shrew 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support: Nessuno834 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support: I completely agree Ed Podesta 10:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support: How much did the shares cost? Tabletop 06:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support: I support such a proposal. DonBarton 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support: Agree; The new article should, however include details of rolling stock, particularly locomotives. See eg Edge Hill railway works: "by 1845 some twenty-eight engines were built ..." Peter Shearan 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Completed merger today. --Michael Johnson 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Review
This article is currently under Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 23:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- delisted GA per above.Sumoeagle179 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Parallel rail
The Opening section says "By 1840, the track seems to have been largely replaced by parallel rail". What is this supposed to mean? That the pre-1840 track had non-parallel rails? --Jotel (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Booth's parallel rail": Top and bottom edges of the rail were parallel so it could be turned over and re-used when worn. It didn't work, because of the wear on the underside from the chairs made the intended new surface bumpy. Stephenson had used fish-belly rail. If nobody else gets to it I'll change this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fishbelly rails were castings. The parallel rails came in when it was possible to roll wrought iron. Whishaw describes five different classes of rail, in 1840, the fishbelly mostly superceded by "double parallel" form in various weights, what would in later years become "Bullhead" Chevin (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
