Talk:Lancashire Union Railway

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion of article

I've renamed this article from "Blackburn to Chorley Line" to "Lancashire Union Railway", and rewritten it to cover the wider topic. There didn't seem much point in having two articles covering the same line. Unfortunately my sources say very little about the Wigan-to-St Helens section of the line. Butt's book indicates the stations on this section were owned the the LNWR, which suggests this section may have been jointly vested between the LUR and LNWR. Can anyone cast light on this? --Dr Greg (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article on BBC site about this line http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/lancashire/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8121000/8121302.stm

--88.104.21.235 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

My understanding is that the northern sections (Cherry Tree - Chorley and Adlington - Boar's Head) were jointly owned by the Lancashire Union Railway and the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, whilst only the southern sections (Wigan - St Helens, also the Whelley Loop) were Lancashire Union Rly proper. The Lancashire Union was absorbed by the LNWR prior to Grouping, so the southern sections became fully LNWR property, and the northern sections became joint between the LNWR and LYR.

Examination of the Railway Clearing House diagram book shows that the northern sections were marked distinctly; the legend on page 103 shows "L.&Y. & L.&N.W. JOINT", red and blue; page 77 shows "L.&Y. & LANCS. UNION JOINT (L.&N.W. & L.&Y.)", also red and blue. Similarly, the Ian Allan Pre-Grouping Atlas & Gazetteer has on pages 20, 24 & 45 "L.U. Jt", dotted red; in the Gazetteer, section 1, p.50 "LU" is described as "Lancashire & Yorkshire & Lancashire Union Joint (L&NW & L&Y)". However, in both books the southern sections are given the LNWR colour (solid red in RCH, solid black in Ian Allan) --Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, LUR was a joint project between the LYR and the LNWR and undertaken in the Lancashire area.

Therefore, a 'Union', in 'Lancashire', = the 'Lancashire Union'.

92.239.71.235 (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, John (1970). The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 2. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0 7153 4906 6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Marshall describes how the Lancashire Union Railways Company was formed to build

a railway from the St Helens Canal & Railway line near St Helens to Wigan and on through Chorley to Blackburn with connections to various other railways and collieries. The scheme was supported by the LNWR.(Marshall 1970, p. 27)

also that the LYR also wanted to build a line between Blackburn and Wigan.(Marshall 1970, p. 27) The two schemes were combined, the upshot being that two Acts were obtained on 25 July 1864:

The LUR Act (27 & 28 Vic cap. 273) for Adlington-Boars Head, Haigh-St Helens and certain branches and connections in the Wigan area; this Act provided that the Adlington-Boars Head section might become joint LUR/LYR property (Marshall 1970, pp. 27, 29)
A LYR Act (27 & 28 Vic cap. 270) for Cherry Tree-Chorley, with the provision that this line could become joint LYR/LUR property (Marshall 1970, p. 27)

Prior to opening - indeed, before much construction had begun - a LYR/LUR Act (28 & 29 Vic cap. 21), of 26 May 1865, vested the Cherry Tree-Chorley and Adlington-Boars Head lines jointly in the LYR & LUR, 50% each.(Marshall 1970, p. 29)

Later on, "By the LNWR Act of 16 July 1883 the LUR were vested in the LNWR which thereby became joint owner of the Blackburn-Chorley-Wigan lines ..."(Marshall 1970, p. 32)

Thus, the LUR was not (and never was) joint LYR/LNWR property; the LUR was initially independent, and was later wholly absorbed by the LNWR; it was co-owner of a line which was initially joint, and remained so until the LNWR/LYR amalgamation on 1 January 1922.(Marshall 1970, p. 256) No explanation for the term "Union" is provided, although "Lancashire" is obvious. Regarding the word "Union" in the nearby North Union Railway, this reflected the union of two pre-existing railways: the Preston & Wigan Railway and the Wigan Branch Railway, but the LUR is a different situation. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wigan. No. Not at all.

The railway was never intended to go to Wigan and indeed it never did. It by-passed Wigan using the Whelley Loop.

Why do you people have to add 'Wigan' to every subject covered on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.90.16 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EVERY ARTICLE HAS TO BE TURNED INTO AN ARTICLE ABOUT WIGAN

Wigan this, Wigan that, Wigan the other. Things which are totally irrelevant to this article are included, for the sole reason of mentioning Wigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.90.16 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we go with whatever reliable books on the subject say, not your personal dislike of Wigan. -- Dr Greg talk 01:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]