Talk:Victoria line

Station spacing

The Service and rolling stock section says "because of its evenly spaced stations" - this is demonstrably untrue. Kings Cross is much closer to Euston (0.75 km) than to Highbury & Islington (2.43 km). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

And from H&I to Finsbury Park is one of the longest underground gaps in the network. Better get rid of that misinfo. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

By "because of its evenly spaced stations" means you don't have the situation such as Leicester Square and Covent Garden being right next door to each other. The HMSO source also adds, "Finally, by having fewer stations than the Piccadilly Line between King's Cross and Finsbury Park, the Victoria Line would be faster over that stretch". I think "fewer stops" describes it best. Specifically, I was thinking about the "hack" from Morden to Kings Cross by getting on the Victoria at Stockwell instead of staying on the Northern, which is reportedly faster (though I didn't have a stopwatch). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's what it means; but "evenly-spaced" means something else to the reader, and is not a reflection of the source. It seems to have been adjusted though, so all's well. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "long-stretches between stations outside of Zone 1 / centre of London"; North of King's Cross there generally 2 kilometres / 1.5 miles between stops (Tottenhale Hale excepted). —Sladen (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong dates

There is a problem with the dates, some of the stations opened in 1870s.. So how the hell did the line open in 1960s, a good 90 years later.150.101.100.140 (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Because this line was built to connect already-existing stations on other lines, and consequently every station on this line (with the exception of Pimlico) already existed before the Victoria Line was built. ‑ Iridescent 09:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes

There appears to be an edit war about whether the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes belongs in this article. The source given is "Man shot in terror hunt was innocent young Brazilian" from The Observer, but this does not mention the Victoria line anywhere and says de Menezes was shot in Stockwell tube station. The article on the shooting does not mention the Victoria line; it implies that de Menezes was travelling from Stockwell to Kilburn tube station which would normally involve the Victoria line to Green Park and changing to the Jubilee, but it could also involve the Northern Line Charing Cross Branch and changing at Waterloo. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes best belongs in the Stockwell tube station article. It's not notable to the Victoria line itself. Similar edits have been made to District line regarding the Parsons Green train bombing by the same IP editor - again, notable in the Parsons Green tube station article, but not the District line. Turini2 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ditto with Northern line too - similar looking edits from another IP. Turini2 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The entries are inaccurate, de Menezes was not a tourist but working as an electrician. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The Extension Of Victoria Line

The Extension Will Began The construction In 2027. From Brixton-Nunhead This Will Be Above Grounds

• Loughborough Junction (2036)
• Camberewell (2036)
• Pechkam Rye (2039)
• Nunhead (2039) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.142.79 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop guessing about what might happen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Claim on ATO upgrade

There is a cited comment in the 'service and rolling stock' section that the replacement of the signalling system was the "world's first ATO-on-ATO upgrade", but I think it is important to point out that this is not true. The Tsuen Wan Line of the MTR in Hong Kong had its Westinghouse Block Work ATO system upgraded to SACEM in 1996, with the Kwun Tong Line and Island Line following suit by 1998. I know for a fact this is true, but the only source I can find right now that mentions MTR using Westinghouse and then switching to SACEM is this forum thread.

I know the source isn't perfect but I still think the claim that the Victoria line is the world's first ATO-on-ATO upgrade should either be corrected or removed as it is simply not true. KeepElephant (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

To be strictly accurate the comment is that the replacement signalling system was claimed by LUL to be the world's first. As such the statement is true. They did make that claim. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@KeepElephant Was it even ATO? That (self published) source says Westinghouse Block Work ATP (which could be GoA1). Another source states "When the MTRC system opened the first line in 1979, the train control system was quite novel at the time. It was the Westinghouse speed-code ATP system, with no trackside running signals. The interlocking was the route relay interlocking. Remote control, train describer and ATSS were also installed. Track circuits were a mixture of CVCM, HVI, 50Hz etc. and point machines were electro-hydraulic clamp locks. Axle counters were introduced at about the same time as the KCRC, in 1986." Obviously ATP ≠ ATO, so another source is needed.

There's also an argument that SACEM isn't always ATO - the use of it on the Paris RER was not an ATO system originally, it was upgraded in the 2010s. Turini2 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have found this site which does mention ATO on the ATP of the Block Work. And it is true that SACEM isn't always ATO but MTR had ATO since day 1. I don't edit often (and please don't use this to disregard my comments) but from what I can tell, most Hong Kong-based sites that get technical about trains lead to the linked site (HK Rail Engineering Centre).

And as for @Murgatroyd49 LUL did make the claim, but my point is that I think it's misleading to readers to leave it there without mentioning the Tsuen Wan Line, which is in fact the world's first ATO on ATO upgrade to the best of my knowledge. Not about whether LUL made the claim but the correctness of the claim. KeepElephant (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

First let me assure KeepElephant that no Wikipedia editor whom I respect considers the frequency of other people's editing. (But whether they have a named account or just use an anonymous URL - that is another matter.) I take his point that the truth of LUL's claim is significant. Unfortunately, I don't read Chinese so I cannot verify the cited sources. A statement that LUL are making bogus claims requires proper citation. OrewaTel (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)