Talk:Manchester Central (Conference Centre)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject. | |
[edit] Midland Pullman
Mention of this service seems to be split into two parts which should really be merged, but before I think that can happen satisfactorily, the conflict between the two quoted journey times needs to be resolved. Anyone? Guy Hatton 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Initially it ran two prestige expresses, (The Palatine and the Peaks).
These as far as I know began in 1938, hence the second paragraph is correct.
Later, in the twentieth century, it was the terminus of the The Midland Pullman, which made the journey in four and a quarter hours.
Suggest moving this to after the second paragraph
Later it added more services, a total of nine daily, with two on Sundays, including an overnight Pullman sleeper.
Not sure about this
In LMS days, there were two named expresses the "Palatine" and The "Peaks", the former making the trip in three hours and fifty five minutes, with stops at Chinley, Millers Dale, Matlock, Derby and Leicester.
True, though I cant confirm the timings or stops. If correct it seems curious that it was considerably faster than the Midland Pullman.
See also The Palatine Chevin 13:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the journey times should be removed entirely (at least for the time being)? Having dates for the Palatine and Peaks services is very helpful - for instance, it becomes immediately clear that 'Later, in the twetieth century' should read 'Later in the twentieth century' or perhaps even be replaced entirely by 'Between 1960 and 1966'. Let me see if I can make some sense of this! Guy Hatton 14:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go - I think I've clarified the chronology, but the journey time thing is still in need of confirmation. Also, I'm not clear as to whether the 1960-66 dates refer to the total lifespan of the Midland Pullman service, or whether they refer only the service as operated by specific types of locomotive and/or rolling stock that was previously mentioned. Is 1960 the correct starting date for the Pullman service? If not, some previous material may need to be reinserted in some form, or some new clarification written. Guy Hatton 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's better, but I think we should remove the journey timings. The article The Midland Pullman is also suspect. I can't believe the later Pullman (one of the two Blue Pullmans British Rail Class 251) was slower than a steam train - especially making a number of stops.
- The words Later, more services were added; a total of nine daily, with two on Sundays, including an overnight Pullman sleeper. should definitely be removed pro tem, I think. The line always had nine or more services and every day. It was after all, the Midland's premier line, and one of the LMS's Chevin 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Manchester Central station: new article?
I suggest a new article Manchester Central station be split off from this one.
By the word count, this is the main subject of Manchester Central (Conference Centre) anyway. I've done the first step & created a redirect page, which may later become a 'real' article. I'll get round to writing something in future (no promises as to the date), but if anybody beats me to it, that's even better. --Jotel (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a tricky one as the article should be about the building not the usage. I have no opposition about splitting off that part of the article provided more indepth information about the old station is given in it but I'm not sure everybody will agree. I also have no doubt there is plenty of information about it as it was a huge and significan station back in't day. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- And-Rew: when you say "the article should be about the building not the usage" do you mean the existing (Conf. Centre) article or the proposed new (station) one? Could you clarify, please? --Jotel (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. That's what I've had in mind. If I were to write it now, I'd include ± the whole 'history' section of the present article, plus more details about tracks, turntables, platforms &c, and finish off with a short 'Present usage' section, with a {{main}} link to what's left of the current article. Of course if anybody else starts writing it, (s)he may have another ideas. --Jotel (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
