Talk:Liverpool and Manchester Railway

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gundermania.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stations

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)

Wavertree Lane is missing (closed 1836 when Edge Hill opened). I'm currently drafting an entry for it. CastWider (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wavertree Lane railway station now added. There's also a Wavertree Lane added erroneously if anyone knows how to delete it. My apologies -- should have used Move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastWider (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@CastWider: Pick the one that you don't want, and add {{db-author}} to the top. Do it soon, because if somebody else edits it in the meantime, it may become ineligible for speedy deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks CastWider (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

colour of lights

Somebody has put in a bunch of "Citations Needed" on the colour of the various signal lights. I'm not sure where one would find detailed information, but a place to start, believe it or not, is Marvin Harris's (1979) Cultural Materialism, which includes some information on same as part of a discussion of the vagaries of structuralism (pp. 197-200). He cites Frederick Gamst (1975), "Rethinking Leach's Structural Analysis of Color and Instructional Categories in Traffic Control Signals," American Ethnologist 2: 271-96. Doubtless Gamst's original article has better sourcing, but this might be a place to start.24.81.25.127 (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Claim to be the First Steam Hauled Passenger Train in Europe

I have removed the claim, made in one of the picture captions, that the L&MR was the first steam hauled passenger train in Europe. This is incorrect. Both the Stockton and Darlington Railway and the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway ran earlier steam hauled passenger railways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxcvi (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 June 2011

That is correct, S&D opened on 27 September 1825, and the C&W opened on 3 May 1830: both of which predate the L&M. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But the S&D didn't haul their passenger trains by steam until 1833.

• James, Leslie (1983). A Chronology of the Construction of Britain's Railways 1778-1855. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 14. ISBN 0 7110 1277 6. BE/1183. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

which also states "the Liverpool & Manchester Railway ... was the first railway to rely wholly on locomotives for traction" (James 1983, p. 18). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if you don't believe the Wikipedia article about the Stockton and Darlington Railway which clearly states that the first S&DR steam hauled passenger train ran in 1825 ("The official opening of the line was on 27 September 1825; the first steam-hauled passenger train ran and carried up to 600 passengers"), the book I quoted shows that the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway ran steam hauled passenger trains several months before the L&MR opened. Please address the actual issue which is the C&WR use of steam for passenger trains. The only point that the L&MR has in its favour is the claim that it "was the first railway to rely wholly on locomotives for traction" but even this isn't true, since it used rope haulage over part of the route. It simply isn't true that the L&MR was the first steam hauled passenger train in Europe. Mxcvi (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I never believe anything on Wikipedia which is not adequately sourced - and even then, I go to the sources to check the facts, see WP:RESEARCH. The sentence in Stockton and Darlington Railway to which you refer - indeed, the whole paragraph within which it lies - is entirely unsourced. One steam hauled opening-day special does not mean that all passenger trains were steam-hauled from the outset - nor does it imply that there were any subsequent steam-hauled passenger trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Worth a mention

• Liverpool to Manchester monorail worth a mention?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Track spacing

Spectator Magazine, 18 SEPTEMBER 1830, Page 4, refers to a gap of approximately six feet. Accounts of the Huskisson tragedy refer to others as standing firm in the middle of the two tracks and being untouched, and it seems clear that the width of the gap was not the critical factor in the accident. Other sources, which may be urban myths, support the view that the middle was built to guage so that exceptionally wide loads could be moved at quiet times. It is suggested that the whole paragraph relating to width be deleted since there are no supporting citations, and the contemporaneous Spectator report is contradictory. 27.252.141.33 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Illustration

I'm puzzled by the first illustration. It is reproduced the wrong way round, the original wasn't a painting but a lithograph, and the original title says nothing about it showing the "inaugural" train. Clayton's original litho was captioned: "View of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway at the point where it crosses the Bridgewater Canal".

In other words, at Patricroft. Looking east towards Manchester, despite the shadows presumably added for artistic effect. The direction is shown by the towpath on the west side of the canal, and by an isolated house in the background which is visible (on an omitted part of this reproduction) and is recognisable on early maps. (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Hyjack7 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of artistic license. Scaling against the height of the people, the rails are too far apart and the wheels are too small. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's a pity the picture is the wrong way round. How did that happen? Hyjack7 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessarily the wrong way around? The convention of keeping to the left was not universal in the early days of railways; for example, the Manchester and Bolton Railway, which connected with the Liverpool & Manchester at Salford (and shared the lines between Salford and Manchester Victoria from 1 January 1844), ran its trains on the right-hand track until 28 September 1846. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

L&MR regulations quoted in Whishaw's 1842 review state that running on the wrong line should only takes place in exceptional circumstances and that special arrangements needed to be in place. CastWider (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's about a fifth of the way down page 211. But for a train to be running on the wrong line there needs to be a regulation specifying which that is; alternatively, one which specifies which is the correct line. Whishaw (pp. 210-1) states this for the Liverpool & Manchester: "no locomotive steam-engine shall pass along the wrong line of road, that is, along the south line of the railway in going towards Manchester, or along the north line of railway in going towards Liverpool". In the case of the pre-1846 Manchester & Bolton, running on the wrong line would mean a train that was running forwards on the left-hand line. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, all the earlier repros I've seen (in R.H.G.Thomas, C.F.Dendy Marshall etc) show a wider picture, presumably the complete plate, printed the other way round, with that notice board on the left of the railway. The L&MR ran its trains on the left-hand track; the view has to be eastwards because of the canal towpath; the background house was south of the line. Hyjack7 (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Example in opposite orientation http://www.rareoldprints.com/p/11621 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastWider (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the title of the image is Inaugural journey of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which side the trains ran on is moot; on the opening day, the trains ran west-to-east on both tracks, with Northumbrian drawing a train containing most important guests on the northern track, and Stevenson's seven other locomotives in procession on the southern track. ‑ Iridescent 13:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Garfield the Ducal Carriage was on the southern track. The most recent example link posted makes no mention of "Inaugural". CastWider (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that the image is reversed, I believe it is looking westwards, i.e. the Bridgewater Foundry would eventually be to the right just before the bridge. Thomas describes the location as just to the west of Patricroft. CastWider (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I changed my mind. As stated earlier, the towpath was on the west bank and hence this is indeed looking east. CastWider (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

But shouldn't Patricroft Tavern (1828) be there? CastWider (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess this may be an early instance of "airbrushing" as the railway company did its best to discourage alcohol consumption at trackside inns

The Tavern notwithstandng, as others have mentioned, the cottage matches the one on detailed maps of Green Lane (which follows the hedgerows). Close inspection also shows a large building and smoking chimney on the horizon -- not many of those on Chat Moss. It's possible Clayton had some moral issues depicting the proximity of the Tavern to the railway? I'm pretty much convinced that the image looks east. CastWider (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The image by H. West in the Padorama booklet shows the signpost as being on the northern side of the tracks along with the Tavern. While there is considerable compression in the sketch, it strongly supports the view that the image presently used here is reversed and that the signpost should be on the left and policeman on the right. CastWider (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Navvy

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § L&M

 – Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If you haven't already, can you (and any TPSs who know the early history of the railways) watchlist Liverpool and Manchester Railway? It looks like this is the subject of a class project, and you're probably more diplomatic than me when it comes to explaining why such things as "it was built by navvies" aren't appropriate. (I wait with bated breath for "pikeys" to make an appearance.) ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So why shouldn't navvies be linked? Or is this between-editors chat just to make sure that "pikey" editors don't get a look in? This is the sort of thing for which we have projects, and it's better to use those than individual messages. Also this is still "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and it would do well to avoid becoming the closed cabal of the aircraft project. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, "navvy" is a derogatory term (marginally less offensive than its modern form "pikey", but still not appropriate on Wikipedia other than in the article discussing the term and in direct quotations), and "the railway was built by navvies" is roughly equivalent to "the cotton was picked by darkies"; secondly, even if one accepts it in its 19th-century usage as a legitimate term for "railway builder", "the railway was built by navvies" parses as "the railway was built by people who built railways"; thirdly, saying "the L&M railway was built by navvies" is technically incorrect, since although there was certainly an element of unskilled labour involved, the L&M was arguably the most groundbreaking engineering achievement in British history, and many of those working on it were among the world's most gifted engineers, masons, tunnelling specialists and demolition/explosive experts, not the unskilled rabble implied by "navvies". I'm not sure how aircraft comes into it; the L&M predated aircraft by a century. ‑ Iridescent 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think "navvy" is such a problematic term, then you'll be wanting AfD/Navvy, not reverting GF editors on the L&M article. Nor do I think your comments have any etymological or technical merit to them. The origin of navvy is not "railway builder". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Navvy" is a contraction of "navigator", and its origin is in the canal-building period. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As Redrose says, the origin of "navvy" is from "navigator" (e.g. canals), and while 'navvy' was once in normal usage as a term for any unskilled labourer working on the railways (only about 30–40% of whom were Irish), in modern usage "navvy" is a derogatory terms for the Irish, and in particular Irish Travellers. "It was acceptable British English usage at the time" is not a legitimate reason to use racist language in Wikipedia outside of direct quotations, unless you think it would be acceptable to say "The Second Battle of the Marne resulted in the surrender of the Boche". That Wikipedia has an article on an offensive term doesn't mean an endorsement of the term's use in article space outside of articles on racism or linguistic development—we have a wide variety of articles with offensive titles, ranging from Fag hag to Pickaninny to Gopnik (and of course, the now-notorious Cunt), but "we shouldn't be using these terms to refer to people unless doing so can be justified" doesn't equate to "all these articles should be deleted". As explained already above, even if the term wasn't offensive it would still be inappropriate to say "The L&M was built by navvies", as it implies that a workforce which in fact contained large numbers of highly skilled specialists was in fact an unskilled rabble. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Iridescent: If what you say is true, why is there not a sourced statement in navvy to that effect? That would help editors understand the nuance of the word's usage.

When I look at the article, I see a whole section called "Contemporary use of the term 'navvy'". None of the uses mention that they are derogatory, as you state above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a quick one to start with (although not particularly RS). I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that whatever its original meaning, "navvy" is now a mildly derogatory term for the Irish, and in particular Irish travellers (just google "Irish navvies"); regardless of this, whatever the meaning it's not an appropriate term for the L&M article as even if one takes it in its original "unskilled labourer working on a transport infrastructure project" sense it doesn't describe the specialised workforce Stevenson assembled. ‑ Iridescent 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It describes precisely the team of manual workers assembled for this work. This is the term in widespread and general use for it, without any other comparable term with the same specialist meaning. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the use of the word providing it is done properly, but the way it was just slipped into the middle of a sentence was wrong, i.e. "The line was laid by navvies using 15 feet (4.57 m) fish-belly rails at 35 lb/yd (17.4 kg/m)". The labourers did a lot more than just lay the rails. If it is to go in somewhere it should say something like "the project employed a large workforce of manual labourers know as navvies". Richerman (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent, Andy Dingley, Jonesey95, and Richerman: Did any of you see Canals: The Making of a Nation episode 4: "The Workers" on BBC Four last week? Worth watching, and still available in BBC iPlayer. It seems that the term "navvy" pre-dates even the canals. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a write-up of the episode concerned, from the Manchester Evening News. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Station sequence

Shouldn't Earlestown come above Newton-le-Willows given the location of the stations? CastWider (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC); seems fixed now CastWider (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20061008183818/http://www.n-le-w.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=27 to http://www.n-le-w.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=27

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Date of formation

I've changed the date of formation to reflect that shown in ref 12 which comes from Booth's account. The new date marks the decision to form a Joint Stock Company, to restrcuture the hitherto provisional committee, and to replace James with Stephenson. The significance of the previously cited date is unclear other than its being cited by Grace's Guide. Arguably the new date is also somewhat arbitrary as no permission had been granted by Parliament at this stage to build a line.CastWider (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Excessive profits

There is no support for these claim. The railway was largly finaced by Liverpool, The MSC was built by Manchester to bypass Liverpool., it lfailed economally as ship size increased before it was finished, but the rate payers of manchester are still paying for it to be built.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Huskisson memorial photo

The caption to the photo suggests that the memorial was unveiled in 1913. While the photo indicates some ceremony is in progress, the Grade II-listed memorial was, in fact, unveiled in May 1831. The tablet was been replaced twice (in 1831 after frost damage and in 2001 after damage by vandals). The "original" is now located in the National Railway Museum at York with replicas at Parkside and Newton-le-Willows.CastWider (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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/20130603074339/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAchat.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAchat.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150309092746/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Better-rail-services-become-a-reality-between-Liverpool-Lime-Street-and-Manchester-Airport-station-22b0.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Better-rail-services-become-a-reality-between-Liverpool-Lime-Street-and-Manchester-Airport-station-22b0.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603060408/http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/lhol/ to http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/lhol/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Was Vignoles resident surveyor or Engineer?

It says in the Construction section "In place of George Stephenson, the railway promoters appointed George and John Rennie as engineers, who chose Charles Blacker Vignoles as their surveyor". In the next but one paragraph it goes on to say "The Rennies insisted that the company should appoint a resident engineer, recommending either Josias Jessop or Thomas Telford, but would not consider George Stephenson except in an advisory capacity towards locomotive design.[34] The board rejected their terms and re-appointed Stephenson as engineer with his assistant Joseph Locke.[35] He clashed with Vignoles, leading to the latter resigning as resident engineer". So at what point did Vignoles become the resident engineer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richerman (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

'Lively reception' ?

The somewhat subdued party proceeded to Manchester, where, the Duke being deeply unpopular with the weavers and mill workers, they were given a lively reception, and returned to Liverpool without alighting.

This doesn't immediately make sense. A 'lively reception' would normally mean an enthusiastic welcome. Or does it refer to a noisy protest? Valetude (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be a typical euphemism of the time. Also they didn't get off the train. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

First Inter-city railway?

"First Inter-city railway"? Yet it was between 2 towns? The Stockton & Darlington line was the world's first passenger carrying railway, built several years earlier and which infact gave the idea to Manchester-Liverpool. It was however the first 'purpose built' passenger railway. AntCairns (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please make a specific point. The term "inter-city" is a bit geeky here anyway. From memory I think its quotable the L&MR was the first to introduce a scheduled passenger service between two cities. From memory the major or key aim might have been freight but passengers came to dominate. The key question is waht can be sourced.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The L&M was the first public railway to use locomotives for all traffic. The S&D, also a public railway, allowed private operators to run trains and choose whatever motive power they wanted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking not true, then more strictly speaking true (If I read it right Wapping Tunnel was stationary engine worked ... stationary engine at Edge hill until nearly 1900 (Ferneyhough,1980,p.37)). But I have a real problem with in my problem the undue weight of Inter-city in the first lead sentence. The term "inter-city" to me conjures images of a class 47 with a rake of blue-grey coaches which was a British Rail branding term. The offending source on the article page is [1], which I think uses "Inter-city" to mean "between cities", was introduced on [2] by Nampa DC, subsequently disputed by an IP but moved to the first sentence at [3] by Ritchie333. To quote (Carlson,1969,IFC) "From every point of view—in its service to users and the surrounding area, in monetary return to its stockholders and operationally—the L&M set the standard for the railway age". Rolling through wikipedia's various articles relating to inter-city, a 1950's term, I think it is most inappropriate in this article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that the S&D was planned and operated much like the canals were. A canal company provided the waterway, but the boats were mostly owned and operated privately; the canal company may have owned boats which could be hired. Similarly, the S&D provided the railway lines, but the trains were mostly owned and operated privately; the S&D also owned some locos which hauled (privately-owned) goods and coal trains. Apart from the demonstration run on the opening day, passenger trains were initially horse-drawn exclusively; some "trains" were a single coach, much like a stagecoach on railway wheels, and the drivers of these trains were not S&D employees. Even the steam loco drivers were contractors. See for example Tomlinson p. 117 et seq. It wasn't long before chaos ensued, with a consequent introduction of rules governing how the traffic should be worked - remember, there were no signals, no telegraph, no continuous brakes and definitely no safety devices. So the directors of the L&M learned from the S&D's mistakes, and from the outset resolved to operate the trains themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry I didn't make my question clear. I am certainly no expert on the subject. What confuses me however, is what is so different for the L&M to claim to be a "world's first". The S&DR and the L&M are geographically almost identical (One town inland and the other a port). I don't see a big enough difference in the 2 lines, both of which carried passengers and freight, other than advancements in the L&M to which you have mentioned. I guess I am asking as I am annoyed after watching several documentaries on the history of the trains and the S&DR hasn't had even a mention, like it is being eradicated or at least downgraded from history, in favour of a "sexier" L&M. I speak of course as a local Teessider and believe our own area isn't doing enough to put forward our heritage, certainly not like I have seen in the community at Rainhill. Thanks in advance for any reply and apologies, like I said my knowledge on the subject is not great but a fire in the belly for the truth has ensued lately.

ps. Surely if the term "inter-city" is a bit "geeky" then so is any claim of a world's first ;) AntCairns (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is inter-city is a 1950's/1960's branding WP:NEOLOGISM, and while it could be used in the context of between cities that is best avoided. The S&DR, with which I am very much less familar than the L&MR (I possess zero direct books on former and 4 direct books on latter), while the exemplar railway of the period 1825-1829 its operation was at times haphazard. From L&MR commencement of operations from September 1830 the L&MR took over as the example others looked to follow and operated regular services in a format that would be recognised in a modern railway. As (Ferneyhough,1980,IFC) puts it: "As the world's first railway, using steam locomotives regularly to haul passenger carriages and goods wagons along iron rails, the Liverpool & Manchester Railway formed the model for those that rapidly followed, in England and indeed in many countries overseas". Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"As the world's first railway, using steam locomotives regularly to haul passenger carriages and goods wagons along iron rails, the Liverpool & Manchester Railway formed the model for those that rapidly followed, in England and indeed in many countries overseas"

That doesn't (to me) sound any different to what the S&DR had already achieved. Infact as I have previously stated the idea for the L&MR was infact born out of the S&DR. Surely making that the model for everything that followed. Yes, there were advancements and "firsts" at the L&MR, but I don't see enough for the claims of world's first even if they do throw in the "geeky" inter-city tag. Can I ask a question? The Wikipedia page for the Stockton and Darlington claims passengers weren't taken by steam engine until 1833 but infact only by horse. It is my understanding this is false, as passengers were taken in purpose-built carriages pulled along behind the coal from near enough the start? The page keeps getting edited incorrectly and infact lacks so much information ie locomotive no. 1 and George Stephenson etc. It seems to me it is systematically being downgraded in importance especially compared to the L&MR for reasons I have already given. Thanks for your welcome and time, I am still learning the wiki basics! AntCairns (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's not for Wikipedians to decide something's relative importance or how to describe it. That's what we us reliable sources for. And the Liverpool & Manchester is almost universally referred to as "the world's first inter-city railway". That usage should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. We don't omit claims just because there are competing claims or because we don't personally like them or agree with them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If what you say is general consensus then I am prepared to go with the consensus, and my view may be different because what I generally feel, however even in that event I am far from convinced it is appropriate so high in the lede (without being referenced in the body), especially as there appears to be more than myself at that point of view. While it appears people think I am calling this because I dont like it; if there are competing claims why it should be included then these may be brought out in the article. In the interim can someone who wishes the inclusion of inter-city please wikilink it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC) People should also be aware per Manchester and History of Liverpool city status was achieved in 1853 and 1880 respectively whereas this article is primarily about a company that existed independently until about 1845. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to put in a few facts. Neither Manchester nor Liverpool had City Status until after the opening of the Great Western Railway which linked the cities of London and Bristol, that were cities at that point and had been for centuries. Therefore anyone who says that the Liverpool to Manchester railway was the first inter-city railway is simply wrong and clearly demonstrably so with respect to basic terms i.e. what is a city, and thereby what is inter-city. Therfore the claim in this article that the Manchester to Liverpool railway was the first inter-city railway should be removed as it is historically inaccurate and demens the status of Wikipedia whilst attempting to spread false knowledge. NJamesfc (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@NJamesfc: While I concur with your sentiments Facts without sourced references are possibly treated as WP:OPINION here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Inter city railway

Neither Liverpool nor Manchester were cities until after 1845 when the line ceased to operate as The Liverpool and Manchester Railway. 109.144.16.83 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)