This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-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.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
Something is wrong here. This article, and the one for Waterloo Tunnel, state that the Victoria Tunnel (2475m) runs from the docks to the short cutting gap, and the Waterloo Tunnel (862m) runs from the cutting gap to Edge Hill.
However, in actual fact, the shorter of the two tunnels is the one at the west (docks) end, and the longer one runs through to Edge Hill (east). The gap is located adjacent to Byrom Street (A59).
The trouble is, I don't know which tunnel is which by name, so I don't know whether it is the relative locations, or the lengths that I should switch round!!
The Waterloo Tunnel article should erased and any searxches on Waterloo directed to this article. They are efectively the same tunnel with an air cutting between. This article states so. Although A little more on the Waterloo would be nice.[[--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Special:Contributions/194.83.172.121|194.83.172.121]] (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All references appear to agree that the Victoria is the longer, and Underground Liverpool gives it as being at the Edge Hill end, so I have amended the locations.
Will the editors please lock this article as a user is constantly vandalizing many articles with the same unsubstantiated insertion of a stadium he thinks is being built around Clarence Dock. He is in an edit war with many editors.WritingStuff (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will this RayWill vandal stop playing about. He Keeps reverted perfectly good content saying the source does not match the content. This is tripe! It does. So leave things alone. The ref says:
TWO disused rail tunnels opened more than 150 years ago could be brought out of retirement to ease Liverpool’s transport headache.
A report compiled by Merseytravel’s chief executive Neil Scales is calling for studies into reopening the Waterloo and Wapping tunnels out of Edge Hill, built in the early days of steam to cater for dock-bound traffic.
The Waterloo and Victoria Tunnel are all one tunnel and the article states that.
I can perfectly well justify it. Here is the given source and not once is the term "Victoria Tunnel" mentioned, nevermind anything at all on this particular tunnel's reuse. There is no source given in the article to show that they are effectively one tunnel, and even if this is effectively the case, the source only refers to the Waterloo Tunnel so it cannot be used to say that the Victoria Tunnel my also be used unless there is a source to prove that the terms are used interchangeably. Raywil (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-added it. To claim that the reference can discuss the Waterloo Tunnel without implying the Victoria Tunnel as well would require some sort of elevator to be constructed in the Fontenoy street cutting between them, which is obviously ridiculous (I assume that all concerned have at least looked at a map, and if not: File:FutureMerseyrail.jpg).
It is rare (even in Liverpool, amongst anoraks) to distinguish between the Waterloo & Victoria tunnels. Apart from the cutting as an over-sized ventilation shaft, they are effectively one tunnel and are universally discussed as such. If anything, we might merge the two wiki articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The map is not an official map. While I have no reason to doubt the contents. The cutting is more than a vent shaft. I think there is a change in gradient there. It is possible that construction was started at both ends and and in the cutting. If the tunnel is reffered to very little. See Liverpool - Edge Hill Cutting & Tunnels--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cutting might be more than a vent shaft, but it's far less than a junction or station. Do you really claim that there is any possibility of a re-use plan (as referenced) that intends to re-use the Waterloo section of tunnel but not the Victoria? As you're Liverpool born & bred you might also have an opinion as to whether the name "Victoria Tunnel" is ever even used - I've never heard it used in Liverpool (just Waterloo for both sections), even amongst the Edge Hill Rail Trail project, back in the days of Rocket 150.
As to using Sub-Brit as a reference, then Nick Catford is a lovely chap and the authority on matters ROC, but Sub Brit's often flakey on railway matters (BR steel 16 tonners in the '30s?, just for starters). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest is I was to mention either tunnel I suspect I'd get blank looks. People know the tunnels exist but often not their name. I can imagine MerseyTravel coming up with any number of half arsed plans. However I do find any reasonable use as you outlined unlikely. To be honest I'm only use Disused Stations stuff for details of old routes, so I can suggest reopening.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about unreasonable re-use suggestions? There are some expensive schemes discussed that involved further tunneling, but these have made use of Victoria and excluded Waterloo, as that's the route to Edge Hill and the mainline systems. A scheme for Waterloo without Victoria instead would leave you with a tunnel from nowhere to nowhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tram line down the Dock Road and then up to a station in the cutting would be useful and wouldn't interfere with network rails use of the top bit of the Victoria Tunnel but going all the way up to Edge Hill then on to Broadgreen as Train/Tram makes far more sense. Even better using the Wapping tunnel to connect in as well and make the tram line follow the route of LOR would IMHO be the best reuse and involve no digging. Though I expect extra staions at RLUH etc would be useful. See .--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been various suggestions to reused the tunnel. Peel suggested a monorail from the propsed Liverpool Waters to the airport. Others have been branches into the tunnel from the Wirral line taking trains to Edge Hill and onto the to be electrified Liverpool-Wigan line. Using this tunnel will not entail complex rail junctions. There was rail flyover at Edge Hill from the Cavendish Cutting (Wapping Tunnel) to to main tracks to the east. This was foolishly demolished in te 1980/90s. It looks like the tunnel may be used to service the new Liverpool Waters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peels Monorail has nothing to do with the tunnels. No connection with Liverpool Waters has ever been made. No evedence for WIrral line reuse that I can find.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cutting between the two tunnels was were locos from Waterloo Goods stn hitched up trains that rolled down from Edge Hill, or were pulled up to Edge Hill. Locos operated from waterloo to the cutting. Cale and gravity was mean from Edge Hill to the cutting. The cutting is mentioned on the Waterloo Tunnel article. The proof was established by a group of people, with maps as well, on the Yoliverpool forum. After the 1890s cable was removed and locos went all the way through the two tunnels affectively making it all one, as it was anyhow. The cutting was then a runaway trap. The two names were to distinguish the cale section from the loco section. The whole tunnel is widely known as the "Waterloo Tunnel". There should be only one article on this one tunnel with two names. The cutting was gas lit when it was cable operated for 24/7 operation, and was an access point, sort of station, for train staff. I will merge the two articles. Then editors can put redirections from Victoria Tunel and Waterloo tunnel to the same article and delete one of the articles.
194.83.172.121 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the acrimony of any change to these articles, I'd suggest tagging for merge and allowing discussion first would be less problematic (and there's no real hurry).
I think (may be wrong here, anyone know?) that it's also best to have an admin do this merge (for GFDL licensing reasons), as they have a way of merging that improves the edit history for the other source article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can do one and put it in this talk page. There is not much work involved. It can also do with some wordsmithing.
Andy look at the Merseyrail article. Some people have recently added real informative additions with references, but these immature editor keep reverting. You can see why wiki is regarded as a joke by many.
BTW the users additions have been reverted now, and it looks very much like User:WritingStuff is you. You really do not understand that you writting style and subject are suffcient to identify you. That you use account multiple accounts to back yourself up is yet another breach of Wikipedia rules.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user additions on the Merseyrail article have not been reverted back. They are sound and valid and referenced. You have a problem my dear man. Your problem is with others compounded by your arrogance. This is common a few editors. Do you work for MerseyTravel, who do not want to see Merseyrail as the prime form of transport as they were humiliated in losing the tram scheme. Or do you work for Merseyrail? 194.83.172.121 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yoliverpoolis not being touted as a valid reference, it was to show the true nature of the cutting and tunnels, complete with maps showing water tanks, tunnel inclines and gas lights. The people there did not tell lies. But the thread there, here it is: http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?8043-Liverpool-Waterloo-Tunnel-Update-10th-Feb-2008/page2 , complete with local rail historians, revealed the true nature of the cutting and tunnels. Very informative and more educational than what is on this wiki, which has a series of editors who revert everything in sight, back to poorly written descriptions, even when proper references are given. Much of what they revealed in YoLiverpool is valid. It appears you have a thing about this Waterways guy on Yoliverpool, who is one of the most informative posters and recognised as such. Act your age, assuming you are not a naive kid, which I am inclined to assume, Get it sorted.88.109.0.44 (talk)
His plans are just that his and as he has not got the money to build carry them through then they should ignored. I can't wait for the summer holidays and for you to be back at school. Is it big school this year?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That incoherent piece pf babble by you indicates that you should not be an editor on Wiki. Do you edit Wiki from school? Do they allow you on the machines?88.109.0.44 (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tunnel closed on 19 November 1972. A single set of rails still enters the tunnel for a short distance at Edge Hill, used by freight locomotives during shunting manoeuvres.[citation needed]
