Talk:Merseyrail

Transit Mode - Commuter Rail, Metro or both?

I've noticed the lead & infobox in this article have recently been changed to state that Merseyrail is a metro rail/metro system rather than commuter rail because that is what the Merseyrail website states/considers it to be. However, I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this change because the previous source in the lead (https://www.railengineer.co.uk/new-merseyrail-connected-trains/) which has been removed by DankJae, does state this is instead a commuter rail system. As I've previously stated in the Talk:Rapid transit in the United Kingdom page (as the transit mode for Merseyrail has been a bit of an issue in the Rapid transit in the United Kingdom page), I'm not sure I can call Merseyrail a true rapid transit system because it is owned by National Rail, some of the lines extend beyond the urban core of Liverpool (to Chester & Southport, both of which are separate to the Liverpool region) and the trains (including the new ones, despite them being named Metro Stadler trains) have a more commuter rail-oriented seating layout.

I might also say that what the transit mode the website or some other sources considers it to be may not always be correct, for instance, the Manchester Metrolink & West Midlands Metro may be considered as metro systems in some sources but they are both tram/light rail systems in reality (the Elizabeth line is probably an even better example as many would consider that to be a metro/underground/tube line but that is a commuter rail line/system). So I'd probably say the lead should be reworded to state that Merseyrail is a hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit system (it previously used to say that before it later got changed to just commuter rail and now metro rail) with the main website and the source which was previously there both being featured. I'd be grateful if anyone can also give their opinions on this matter and if most of you are happy with this systems just being classed as metro rail, then I wont make any changes to it, many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, I wasn't the one that first changed the term, @ADTelo did in this edit. I just cleaned it up and made the additions fit the new source. Agree somewhat that the new sources are less directly describing Merseyrail as the rail engineer source (which I added in the first place), but they do come from Merseyrail itself, and as it was cited, did not contest it. Although they specifically talk about toilets and state other similar metro rail systems, which is not as direct than is the commuter rail network in RE.

Fine with a discussion, I do not take a clear side in these recent edits, so you could boldly revert ADTelo's edits per BRD.

Note, Merseyrail is not owned by National Rail? I just organises ticketing under it. Plus there are proposals to devolve the system. Thanks DankJae 10:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction regarding National Rail. I think I'll see if anyone else adds to this topic/discussion over the next few days and if not, then I'll boldly change it to my suggested change in my earlier comment (hydrid commuter rail and rapid transit or hybrid commuter rail and metro) - I don't think I'm going to entirely revert ADRelo's edit. Broman178 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit", seems a bit WP:SYNTH, I'd prefer just undoing the edit, as the toilet sources are not direct, and probably not the best ones. A footnote could be added following commuter rail. DankJae 10:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm the one that originally made the change - my reasoning for doing so is as follows:

• Merseyrail is a high-frequency, separated, partially-underground network using (new) rolling stock from a product family designed for such and used on many metros.
• While it sits annoyingly on the line between rapid-transit and commuter rail, it has much more in common in UK context with rapid-transit (LU, T&W Metro etc.) than it does with most commuter trains in the UK, such as in Manchester and Leeds - this name usually describes mainline services with longer headways and tracks shared with express/freight. It also exists almost entirely in one City Region, only leaving it to serve towns just outside the border, as the Tube does.
• It is documented as one in professional and lay press (Some examples: 1, 2, 3) (although there are of course other articles saying the opposite)
• They are not a traditional NR franchise as they are run under an exemption (although this would in my opinion not stop it strictly being a metro either - for example, Seoul's system is run by their national operator).
• MRE describe themselves as a metro service and are steering policy by this principle (see article citations).

So, in my opinion, if it looks like a duck, is described in the press as a duck, and its owners say that it's a duck (beyond a name, looking at you WY Metro), then it's a duck. I know this is a contentious issue that crops up every now and again - the network does exist on the border of definitions. However, combined with the above, if a reader was coming to this article from Norway or China, they're going to get a much closer idea of what Merseyrail is with the "metro" moniker (high-frequency urban trains) over commuter rail - I think this is why some other-language Wikipedias just flat out call it the Liverpool Metro despite it never having that name. I wish we could put it to bed with "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit" but I think that's way too cumbersome and is the opposite of categorisation - of course, if S-bahns were a known thing in the UK we might have a better solution, but there are definition issues there too. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 13:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@ADTelo, I can't comment on the accuracy of the uncited statements as it may be WP:OR unless backed up, even if true, remember WP:NOTTRUTH. While it may look like a metro system, there is a source clearly stating it as just a commuter rail one. Of the sources you have provided (greatly appreciated) they're not as clear as the replaced rail engineer, ITV states Liverpool's new underground metro system, so the underground sections of Liverpool are, but not exactly the entire Merseyrail network. The toilet sources refer to the system in comparison, rather than directly, so cannot be certain. The rail tech source is much better, but is not as clear as rail engineer ("Merseyrail is a"), so a little weaker. If only there were a source settling this.

This old source (once used to incorrectly justify "rapid transit") states Merseyrail and Crossrail are usually sometimes classified as rapid transit systems, exhibiting the characteristics of a rapid transit network. However, the systems are accommodated through the national rail ticketing system, which separates them from the other systems listed below.

So confused where to go (I am not too much in rail classification), we have one clear source stating in the clearest terms Merseyrail is a commuter rail network, but various sources more vaguely and indirectly referring to it or parts of it as a metro system, but another source saying it is clearly not rapid transit, and no source saying it is both, so stating such is WP:SYNTH. DankJae 18:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae You make good points, but I still think that it falls on the metro side of the dial, mostly because of how much it differs from mainline commuter services in most other cities, London excluded. I'm also not so sure about the distinction between the underground and surface sections - they're one and the same system, just as the Tube is.

Perhaps this could be put to a vote? | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 20:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@ADTelo, we have to follow the sources, not what we personally view it as. One source did specify underground, so cannot to be used for the entire network. May be another source needs to be found. DankJae 17:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't contributed much to this discussion despite being the one who first raised this topic - I have mostly been on a break from Wikipedia. Regarding Merseyrail, the fact that the system reaches two places outside the Liverpool urban area - Chester & Southport and the fact that the trains have an interior which more closely matches longer-distance trains (lack of extensive longitudinal seating & some overhead luggage racks - the latter of which metro/rapid transit systems usually lack) minus toilets means that it would not quite match being a true metro/rapid transit system to me. I would say at the most, Merseyrail is a hybrid between both commuter rail and metro/rapid transit just like the Elizabeth line and perhaps also the East London Line for the London Overground (which originally used to be a tube line) - I probably also would add Thameslink to this as it does act like a rapid transit line in its core section. I would also say that while the Metropolitan line is officially a rapid transit line being part of the London Underground, it probably fits into the hybrid type as well because its long distance to Chesham would match having commuter rail characteristics.

Opinions aside (which would count as original research), the rest of this article also mentions "commuter rail" for the Character section in the infobox and underground commuter rail in the categories at the bottom of the article, so its probably worth thinking about those two bits as well as the lead (I believe in consistency for Wikipedia articles so if we change the lead, then the rest of the article needs to be consistent with it as the lead is only supposed to summarise the information in the rest of the article). The article for the British Rail Class 777 also describes Merseyrail as a commuter rail system (using that same source which was earlier in the lead/infobox of this article) rather than metro even though that new rolling stock is classed among Stadler's Metro family. So regarding sources, I probably have to agree with DankJae that the source mentioning commuter rail is the most reliable source for now but looking at the Elizabeth line article has given me another idea - the lead & infobox in that article mentions the Elizabeth line as being a hybrid urban–suburban rail system and the "Hybrid urban-suburban rail systems" section of the Commuter rail article covers systems with aspects of both rapid transit and commuter rail (with Merseyrail also being featured there). However, I'm also not quite sure if "hybrid urban–suburban rail system" also borders on WP:SYNTH like "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit system" or "hybrid commuter rail and metro system" probably do, otherwise I'm in favour of using a reliable source for the system/transit type for Merseyrail if that idea isn't suitable. Broman178 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178 I wouldn't say no to defining it as a hybrid a la the Elizabeth Line and updating the whole article accordingly. It's not neatly one or the other, but neither is the network. While I'm still on the metro side, and I think the definition may change in the future as the LCR continues its ambition to bring it under full local control, I find this to be a good compromise. Not quite sure what the best wording would be, hybrid metro and suburban rail? Suburban rail providing a metro-style service?| 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 10:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Still, my only issue is that does any source describe it as a hybrid? Or are we synthesising two sources to state a third. DankJae 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae None in particular, so that would probably fall under WP:SYNTH. Perhaps it's worth roping in a more experienced editor for this - there must be a process for when a definition is split like this. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 20:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae Just out of curiosity, could you please tell me if the description "hybrid urban–suburban rail system" would be a suitable description for Merseyrail or do you also think this borders on WP:SYNTH? The reason why I ask this is because "hybrid urban–suburban rail" is what is used in the lead section & infobox of the Elizabeth line article. If this idea isn't suitable then I probably would suggest changing the lead back to commuter rail as it was before (with that source for it) but maybe add a footnote beside it stating that the Merseyrail website describes it as a metro system. Broman178 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, Note WP:OTHERCONTENT, just because it is at Elizabeth line isn't a reason. The two are or can be described differently.

Looking into EL a bit, that description was added just under a year ago, but using a citation which does not support it. TfL and Crossrail, in reference to toilets, describes it as "metro-style", or otherwise just "railway" or "high frequency, high capacity service". It was previously a "suburban passenger service" or "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit service", but both using a source which only describes Crossrail as a "metro". Other sources use either just "commuter rail"[1][2] or just "railway", while those with "hybrid" seem closely worded to Wikipedia, but not for certain. So EL may need a discussion too, and ofc best there not here, it seems there wasn't one at its talk.

Back to Merseyrail, we must follow what the sources use, as stated before some vaguely indirectly describe it as a "metro", specifically referencing its lack of toilets, but one source clearly states it as commuter rail undisputedly. Seem a basic reversion seems to be the best, but open to wait to see anyone else adds to the discussion. I may have missed a source, sorely needed. Regards DankJae 23:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Lots of trains lack toilets - Class 455, for example. That doesn't make the lines that they run along into metro systems. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have found another source which does state Merseyrail is a "local commuter rail and underground network" - https://m247.com/eu/success-stories/mersey-rail/. However, I don't quite know how reliable this source is and if it would be suitable for this article, so I think the best answer may be changing it back to commuter rail as it previously was with that source which supported it (although I think we should wait & see if more people add to this discussion before that). Broman178 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Broman178, seems M247 is a cloud services partner? so not exactly transport-related, so probably can't rely on them for the definition of a system.

I'm fine with reverting back to commuter rail, seems there is a small consensus for that? Much more than keeping the edits. DankJae 10:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

As no one else has added to this discussion in over two weeks, I have now boldly reverted the lead section back to mentioning commuter rail based on these four reasons - 1) While the system is grade separated, it runs to two places outside the Liverpool urban core (Southport, Chester), 2) the trains have an interior which resemble commuter rail rather than rapid transit, 3) The previous news source for the new trains confirms it is commuter rail - now reinstated (not to mention this discussion has mostly concluded that source is more reliable than the recent toilet source), and 4) the WP article for the new trains does state Merseyrail is commuter rail. One other thing I forgot to mention in my edit summary is that the term "Metro" is a very misused and misleading term as that term can also refer to some commuter rail systems and tram systems rather than just proper metro/rapid transit systems, so even if the Merseyrail website may call it a "Metro", that doesn't mean the system itself is truly a "Metro" system, which prompted me to change it back alongside my 4 other reasons. Broman178 (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Merseyrail officially calls itself a metro system. However, not sure over the definitions of Metro + Commuter. See https://www.metro-smart.org.uk/, and the signs at [Headbolt Lane]--- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 10:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@NeoJade, Merseyrail does use the term "Metro" in branding, but that is probably for marketing reasons rather than what the network actually is? DankJae 11:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, perhaps, but they also are a public entity so I don't really see why they would need to "lie" persay, for marketing. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Just adding my more educated view (compared to my previous) on to this, using definitions previously made by Wikipedians on Rapid transit and Commuter rail. It seems like metro is defined as "underground rapid transit systems", and commuter rail as one that "primarily operates within a metropolitan area, connecting commuters to a central city from adjacent suburbs or commuter towns".

With those set as the definitions on-wiki, it seems pretty glaringly obvious that Merseyrail is a commuter rail service, as only portions, mostly under Liverpool, are underground, and a majority of the network being on the surface or above. Further, there is only 4 stops in the "central city" (Liverpool Central, Moorfields, James Street, Lime Street) whereas there is 69 other stations outside of Liverpool. We could further bring up the Passenger figures and show that most people are going from the outer regions, into Central. (Central has 10 million entries/exists in the 21-22 year, no other station has near that high) --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 01:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definitions change all the time and can be contradictory, so we should follow sources specifically describing Merseyrail when they exist, which they do as mentioned above. DankJae 12:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I have now changed the lead section & infobox back to mentioning commuter rail, I think its also worth mentioning that the Merseyrail isn't actually fully grade separated as many people think because the Merseyrail branch to Southport in particular does actually feature some level crossings along the route, for example, the one near Freshfield railway station (I initially thought it was fully grade separated but after looking at the Southport branch in Google Maps, changed my mind after seeing some level crossings along the route), which alongside the other points above does further support the system being commuter rail rather than a metro/rapid transit system.

I might also mention that with the recent extension to Headbolt Lane and with planned extensions to Shotton/Wrexham, Skelmersdale/Wigan Wallgate, Burscough Junction/Preston etc., it definitely is heading towards becoming more like a proper commuter rail (or longer distance rail) system rather than a metro-like railway. I have no wish to add further to this discussion now but I just thought I'd highlight these two final points, as they werent mentioned before. Broman178 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The metro-mayor refers to Meseyrail as a metro. It is hybrid commuter rail rail/Metro, a smaller version of LU. Is clearly a metro in the centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead. The new train are metro class train. It is silly not say it is a metro.

End of. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've really read this discussion carefully before stating your point because plenty of evidence has been highlighted here to prove the system is more like a commuter rail system rather than a proper metro/rapid transit system. And I'd say its far more similar to the Elizabeth line than it is to the London Underground. Broman178 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Line is one line with few branches, bearing no relation to Merseyrail which is a full network. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You could argue that Merseyrail is 2 lines with a couple branches. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@NeoJade, I assume that excludes the City Line? That is at least three lines itself. DankJae 19:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As heavily debated on here, I don't really include City Line in the Merseyrail network, but more of the MerseyTravel System. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the monthly debate is here again, I guess it is a sign to make progress on the history article, and possibly consider the main split again.

I'd love the City Line to be part of Merseyrail proper, but it is just not as integrated, and recently seen Merseytravel slowly separate City Line from the rest of the network. DankJae 19:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Not here to debate, and shutting up about it now, don't worry. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

NeoJade, you could argue but you would lose. Many have put forward that the Wirral and Northern Lines both be split into two lines each of different names. Then when the Borderlands Line comes in, or parts of it, and extensions to Helsby or Warrington, then matters will have to be reviewed on line names on the Wirral for sure. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I lot of pedantic nonsense on this thread. Merseyrail is a metro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY8oqKasIVM&t=1s

Merseyrail is actually the second oldest underground system in the world.

The first urban railways to incorporate underground tunnels and stations were:

1. 1863 - Metropolitan Railway (now a part of London Underground). Had stations underground and open to atmosphere.

2. 1886 (20 Jan)- Mersey Railway (now a part of Merseyrail). Had stations underground and open to atmosphere. Incorporated the first deep level stations and an extensive under-river tunnel.

3. 1886 (15 March)- Glasgow City and District Railway with one underground station accessed by extensive tunnel under the city centre. Now merged with the North Clyde and the Argyle railway which had one underground station, giving it two underground stations.

4. 1890 - City & South London Railway. 100% underground, 100% electric.

5. 1896 (2 May)- Budapest Line 1 (now a part of Budapest Metro). Had stations and track underground and open to the atmosphere. 100% electric.

6. 1896 (14 Dec) - Glasgow Subway (All stations underground). 100% electric.

7. 1896 (21 Dec) - Liverpool Overhead Railway (Underground Dingle extension), 100% electric.

They are the first urban railways in the world using underground stations and tunnels. 143.58.173.57 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

City Line

The City Line exists. Read Merseytravel Merseraril documents. Many are pretending it does not exist. They clearly have little idea of what it is. The City has been in the article since day one. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is part of the article, but the City Line is not operated by the train operator Merseyrail nor part of the concession so a distinction has to be made. Just because it is on some maps, does not override that the operator of the same name does not use it. Furthermore, please provide sources. DankJae 00:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. DankJae 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You are the offender. Leave the article alone. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You are very confused. The City Line has been in teh article since day one., That is the only consensus needed. Some one comes in saying we need a consensus after 20-25 years. My World!

Leave the article alone until you understand what the City Line is. The idea is not to butcher the article continuously so as to take you through learning curve. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I have provided the version of the article on "day one", which omits the City Line, open to discuss a way forward, but keep the article as it was while a discussion is ongoing. Consensus is not the opinion of one editor. Please remain WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks. DankJae 01:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The way forward is you LEAVE the article alone. You clearly lack understanding. You are a nuisance. I am not batting the ball with someone of limited understanding, I will get nowhere with people like you There is lots on the City Line in the archives. Read them. Rad Merseytravel and Merseyrail docs. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Reading this section it is obvious the editor DankJae does not understand what the City Line is. He is disruptive. I suggest he desists from editing. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You added uncited material. The other editor was temporarily blocked. DankJae 18:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not know who the other editor is. No uncited material whatsoever. No POV. I read it realizing it was badly written nonsense. Just clarifying the appalling description of the City Line. It is clear you do not understand what the City Line is reading this section. All suburban train services running thru the LCR are under Merseytravel's remit. Merseytravel has put all its suburban services under one umbrella, Merseyrail, no matter who runs the lines, with the same branding and seamless ticketing, to make it all seamless and one network for passengers. Now you know. Not difficult is it? 137.220.109.241 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This article has to balance two "Merseyrail's" (networks) the one of the train operator and of the brand. Describing the City Line as part of Merseyrail equal to the Northern and Wirral will lead to confusion that it be assumed Merseyrail trains operate on it. So the wording was cut to better distinguish between the two. The City Line has been extensively discussed, with splitting the article being considered, so the City Line can be treated a core part of the brand, but not of the network run by the same named company, which is more commonly what "Merseyrail network" refers to. While the wording may be "nonesense" that is all that was written in the sources, there are very few sources found that describe the City Line. I added a section on a 2000 Merseytravel statement that said they aimed for a unified identity, so hope can helps a bit.

I am not disputing the City Line is partly under Merseytravel's remit, just not comfortable to eagerly describing it as "Merseyrail" without clarity.

Plus recently I do see Merseytravel removing Merseyrail branding from the City Line for its own, but that's personal experience. Nonetheless, adding sources to back your edits will greatly help. But after constant disputes the section was reduced to only sourced material. DankJae 19:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not batting the ball with you as you have not a clue what you are on about. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You provide no sources, so your arguments don't hold any weight, so not discussing further. DankJae 19:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@IPeditor, please consider WP:NPA. You can have a different view to others, but please be mindful to refrain from personal attacks. Some form of article protection may be necessary to explore otherwise. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks, just an assertive observation. I am not batting the ball with someone who clearly has little idea of this - even after having an explanation given to him, which he never fully understood. A waste of time going any further as nothing will be gained.

I do not have view. My view, or anyone else's matters not a jot. I give facts. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There has already been several debates and consensus reached over the current depiction of the City Line. Obviously, if you wish to discuss changing the consensus, that is okay, but I feel as this debate is getting very uncivil as of late. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 21:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Fact overrides any ganging up under the veil of consensus. 152.37.85.6 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Wikipedia does not operate under the veil of implied fact. We operate as a group, under the standing of consensus and verifiable evidence. Jade • Talk • Contributions 21:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this Wisdom-Inc popping up again under a different IP address, as they seem to every few months? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm under a similar assumption, just hoping and believing it is not the case. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 23:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Editor Danners430

This editor has to desist from reverting edits without any justification. 507 trains are now in the past fleet not being used on the network. Now you know. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My justification is quite simple. Where is your reliable source that says they're out of service? A quick glance at the 507 article shows them to be in service. Once you have a reliable source for their full retirement, then by all means make such edits. I would also add that edit summaries such as this are generally seen as wholly unacceptable. It's not up to any editor to "find out" as you put it - the onus is on you as the editor making claims to source your edits. Danners430 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

They were withdrawn on Jan 16 with fanfare. A quick Google would have told you that.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/rail-express-9L24/20240213/281930252882202 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

A quote from that article - "Last Class 508 is retired, while '507' fleet is reduced to 21 units." Where does it say that Merseyrail no longer operate Class 507s? Danners430 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting - it is your responsibility to source the changes you are making. It is not up to other editors to find sources for your unsourced claims. Danners430 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just reverted the edits yet again. That source does not state that the 507s have been withdrawn - as I have already stated above. The Class 507 is not the same as the Class 508. Danners430 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Split of History and Future prose

Per long running discussions above, and the creation/development of the article History of Merseyrail, general consensus is that this is better suited in a dedicated article and the split discussion, having been ongoing since late 2023 specifically in relation to this part of the article, has not brought about objection. Per the talk page on that article, I have now moved it to mainspace and split the content from this article. It could do with slightly more being added as a historical summary, perhaps alongside a better lead of the history section. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bungle, would this be considered the main split from the discussion above. So should the template now be removed? At least for now, hoping the shorter size of this article can make its scope clearer, or whether the original split should be raised again. DankJae 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This thought did cross my mind, but I didn't know which side of the fence to go on (i.e., is the split now concluded, or do we need to separately conclude the original proposal of the network/brand vs train operator). Much of that entire discussion originated from disruptive editing by one individual. While I still in principle support the original proposal of splitting again, I think it may be best to take a step back and try and get the new history article up to a decent standard before any more significant structure changes.

To that end, maybe we can remove the split notice now and let things settle for a bit, perhaps? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Good work on the article, too, BTW. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On that basis I have removed the split tag and we'll revisit some of the original proposal if it seems prudent to do so (and ideally, once the History article is a little more up to scratch). It may end up not being necessary, given removal of that vast chunk of prose makes organisation of the main article a little easier. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree the trim gives more room to explain the complexity of this article’s scope better.

Although should the occasional IP/group or normal editors repeat the clashes of the past. It should still be an option should it be needed in the future. DankJae 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)