Talk:Williamson's tunnels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is now also the headquarters of the Liverpool Stagecoach Company who keep two of their horses in stable here throughout the year. looks very much like a troll. In modern times Stagecoach Group is a bus and rail company that is not known for its horse-drawn buses! Unless anyone with better local knowledge knows otherwise?--JBellis 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'Liverpool Stagecoach Company' is in no-way connected to the Stagecoach Group who run the bus-service. It is a private company run by a local businessman which uses a horse and carriage to take tourists around Liverpool, especially in the summer season. I feel it is worth merit as it was the first horse back in the stableyard for ten years. --R Mac 21:56, 24 January 2006 (GMT)

I have removed the following because it is entirely POV ... unless someone can cite evidence for the public's apathy towards the tunnels, I beleive it should stay removed ... any comments ??? David Humphreys 05:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Public Opinion

The majority of the population of Liverpool don't care about the tunnels existence and any attempts to raise awareness and interest are largely met with indifference. The occasional small article on the tunnels will appear in the local paper, the Liverpool Echo, once or twice a year and fail to have any impact at all. It seems that the tunnels will remain a curiosity for now.

The above was re-instated by user 195.188.216.131 Please note that Wikipedea is an encyclopedea containing fact not opinion David Humphreys 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I live in Liverpool and from talking to friends, family and workmates some may have heard of the tunnels but none of them even know the location of them. This apathy is also obvious in the local press as any news on the tunnels isn’t reported to a large degree. It is a fact that there is a small group of people supporting the tunnels, but it is also a fact that the population of the city don't think of them as a real feature of the city.Revision as of 14:50, 17 May 2006 195.188.216.131

Unfortunately heresay is not what Wikipedea classes as citation ... in order for it not to be Point of View articles need to have a solid reference point. David Humphreys 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no real way to judge public apathy towards the tunnels if any exists. I can give you some facts such as 'The Williamson Tunnels Heritage Centre'. A charity funded museum built with a loan from the European Heritage Fund. The Centre has been open for 4 years and generates sufficient interest (both national and international) to merit being open 5 days a week nearly every week of the year. Surely a feat unaccomplishable by something that invites apathy.

(How could it be possible to generate apathy?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.157.200 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only has the centre been open it has hosted numerous art and music events, including the Liverpool Biennianal whilst in the tunnels themselves over 300 tonnes of spoil have been removed discovering a previously unseen tunnel.--Rjm 20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be inacurate to suggest that land reclaimation was the only reason williamson had the tunnels built. If land reclaimation was the only reason then it is logical to assume that the tunnels would be of a regular construction. They are not...there are tunnels far deeper than is necessary, far smaller than would be useful for structural support and they would only cover the quarry. As the tunnels do NOT just provide support for the gardens and buildings of mason street, it is logical to assume that this theory is absolute rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noslen090 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awful photo caption

"Plates from 1830s onwards are a small proportion of artefacts from many contributing factors that led to much rubbish accumulating in the tunnels after Williamson's death" is clearly an awful caption. I am going to "be bold" and change it.
138.243.195.136 10:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Williamson's Tunnels, not the Corporation's stables!

I cut the following because it doesn't seem to be on topic.

The stableyard came into the possession of Liverpool Corporation in 1858 and in 1867, with
the appointment of a veterinary surgeon and shire horse enthusiast, Richard Reynolds became
one of several 'stud' stables owned by the Corporation, Reynolds having persuaded the city fathers that keeping and breeding their own horses was cheaper and more efficient than
relying on private contractors.
The Central Stables at one time accommodated upwards of 50 horses, ranging from ponies to the magnificent shires for which the City Of Liverpool was justly famous in the early years
of the 20th century. The duties of these horses covered everything from transporting mail and Corporation personnel around the city to moving the heaviest of loads.
In 1924 two horses belonging to Liverpool Corporation, 'Vesuvius' and 'Umber' appeared at the British Empire exhibition at Wembley and from a standing start pulled a load estimated
at 50 tons. This record has never been equaled or beaten and the two geldings received a heroes welcome when they returned to Liverpool.
(Edward N. Clark, The Cart Horse on the Quay. Countryside Publications. ISBN 0-86157-289-0)
The Central Stables was home to some of Liverpool's mightiest horses until 1960 when the last of the working horses were 'phased out'. From this time onwards the yard was home to the
motorised bin wagons of the Corporation Cleansing department and just a few reminders of the past - the proud horses which were retained to haul the City of Liverpool State Coach on
grand civic occasions.
The Central Stables were finally closed in 1993 and put on the market as a prime development opportunity but they had not seen their last horse - in late April 2000 they were used
briefly to house overnighting horses from around Britain for the Millennium Liverpool May Horse Parade.

Sweavo 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could at least make a stub for it? I'll do that now.Rjm 08:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)