Talk:Skipton–East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership

History of the line

Does anyone know the pattern of services which used to run on the Skipton to Colne line? I suspect that all local stopping services terminated at Colne and the only trains that continued through Colne were long-distance services. I could be wrong. But if I am right, I think the diagram within the East Lancashire Line article should not depict stations beyond Colne as they were never considered part of that line. (These stations are depicted in the Leeds and Bradford Extension Railway article.) --Dr Greg (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Most trains did indeed termintate at Colne.

In the summer of 1961 there were only 2 through services - ie not terminating at Colne - in each direction on Mondays to Fridays with 2 extra services on Saturdays. Trains in the westerly direction went to Manchester, Blackpool, Stockport, and even as far as London. However in the easterly direction all trains terminated at Skipton, it was necessary to change for services to Leeds or Carlisle.

In 1967 there were still 2 through trains with all others terminating, and the eastbound trains (8 in all) all going no further than Skipton.

However - the through trains to Skipton DID stop at intermediate stations, in the 1960s at least - there were no "express" services via Colne by this time.

Exile (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So do you think it would make sense to remove the Colne-Skipton section from the diagram in the East Lancashire Line article? --Dr Greg (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Skipton–East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires infobox - if suitable one isa abailable Requires photographs/logo Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates Copy edit for WP:MOS Diagram needs attention as some of the text is not clearly readable Keith D 12:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

SELRAP: The re-instatement proposition

Moved from User talk:The joy of all things §  SELRAP: The re-instatement proposition

The joy of all things (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a member of SELRAP executive, and have been asked to review the wikipedia entry. I see that you have spent some time updating this entry, for which our thanks. The current entry contains some inaccuracies (for instance, we are NOT proposing to re-open Earby station), and there are some more recent reports that have a bearing on the position (e.g. STP from TfN). In addition, the recently announced "Rail Investment Enhancements Pipeline" will inevitably have an impact. What I want to avoid is trampling over somebody's corns, or getting involved in competitive editing. It seems to me that this should be avoided if we discuss any major changes in advance. FYI I have already made a couple of small changes e.g. updating the membership; and the executive does have a view on this strange concept of reversing at Hellifield as an "alternative". I'm unsure of your level of involvement, or if you are actually a member of SELRAP, but I will happily run my proposal past you for comment, once I have whipped it into shape. Regards Rossendalian (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rossendalian Hi; no I am not in SELRAP but I used to live in the area. If you are a member of the SELRAP executive, then you may be in breach of WP:COI. Please use the blue link to read through this, because at the very least, you should annotate on your talk page/user page that you are in SELRAP. What is and isn't correct is obviously your opinion, but the Wikipedia stance is that of neutrality. Even though it is not cited as yet, your detractors may have stated that the alternative is to use the line through Clitheroe and reverse at Hellifield. As per our neutrality, we have a duty to include all sides of an argument and not favour any side. The most important of all is that the facts are cited and that the citations are reliable and verifiable.

I have moved your request to the talk section on the SELRAP page as that is a more fitting location for this discussion and it includes all editors who may be watching this page, rather than the two of us having a conversation in isolation. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)