Talk:Waterloo & City line

What is a "similar service"?

I suggested as a similar service the Hudson Tubes (PATH) between New Jersey and Manhattan. The edit was reverted.

Why similar? Because like the W&C, the Hudson Tubes were a metro built to cover the last mile under a major river between a (collection of) major railway terminal(s) and the actual desired final destination in the central business district. In the case of London, the South Western was stuck on the wrong side of Waterloo Bridge, unlike the competing south bank railways which had terminals in the City and Westminster. In the case of New York, the Pennsylvania and other railways on the west side of the Hudson had to put their terminals on the New Jersey side of the river, necessitating many ferry services and the Hudson Tubes. (A few years later, the Pennsylvania spoiled the fun by building full-fledged railway tunnels under the river terminating at the new Penn Station New York.)

A shuttle with only two stops is another way of looking at the W&C and deciding what's similar, but it's not very interesting as a comparison. New York's 42nd street shuttle? The very well travelled orphan segment when the original IRT subway was broken into two lines; the segment could hardly be abandoned, so it became a shuttle. Madrid's Ramal and Barcelona's L12 also fit into the category of well travelled orphan segments. None of these are similar in motivation to the W&C, only in their nature as shuttles.

-- Justinbb (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, as the current "similar services" are all 1 stop shuttle services. IMO, a list of Metros connecting edge of centre railway stations to financial districts/CBD would be a very long list, with most cities having a contender - e.g. Line 2 (Shanghai Metro) is the main route connecting the new financial district of Pudong to the original city centre and far flung railway termini (Shanghai Hongqiao, the terminus of the Beijing–Shanghai high-speed railway). What do other people think? Turini2 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Metric

It may very well be the case that the Waterloo and City line is metricised - but there needs to be a valid, reliable source for this, not just a video taken from a train. WP:VIDEOLINK makes it very clear that "if using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source." Neither video is from a reliable, reputable source. Turini2 (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leaderboard and @86.131.235.171 sorry, I forgot the ping! Turini2 (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Turini2: I am not familiar with the intricates of Wikipedia policies, which is why I gave up after seeing my edit reverted twice. Looking at the link you gave, I see "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context". To me, that means that first reference I added is valid, as the video is clearly not manipulated and in itself proves the metric statement. Even though I am not sure on whether the uploader meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, I do not know why cab rides are considered invalid as a result.

I only added the second reference as a means of confirmation, though I can understand why its validity is questioned, being a train simulator. Leaderboard (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leaderboard The cab ride YouTube video is a primary source, and doesn't inherently confirm metric speed. How do we know it's not a radio code, or something else that means something to the driver? We therefore need a secondary source to confirm that it is metric. As I stated, the video is not from a reliable source - a YouTube channel is considered to be self published media. The flowchart on Wikipedia:VIDEOLINK is quite good at explaining the thought process.

Basically, we need a secondary source confirming that the line (and train?) uses metric units throughout. I've had a look online, and I can't find anything - even during the 2005/6 Metronet upgrade of the line, there doesn't seem to be anything about it. I might have a look in my copies of Underground News to see if there's anything in there.

(You're correct that the second source (a clip from a train simulator game) is not a valid reference - inclusion in a video game doesn't confirm anything!) Turini2 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Turini2: Regarding the metric speed, it does. The fact that it's a speed limit sign can be easily shown from cab ride videos such as this, which is actually a TfL-based video. With that, the remaining step is to show that it's metric. This can be shown by inference, or alternatively by places such as this forum, which list the speed limit of the Waterloo and City Line as 60 km/h, matching what we see from the cab ride.

Does that satisfy you? Leaderboard (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:UGC refers, Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As Murgatroyd49 states, user generated content isn't okay. (Also, we cannot have 'Inference' and deduction as a reason to put it in the article - that's original research WP:OR) We need a secondary source - a reliable and published one. And I've looked, and there doesn't seem to be one. Turini2 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's put this in context - the discussion is not just about W&C speed limits, it is about the whole of the content added in edits such as this. The text concerned, for which two YouTube videos were given as sources (and the second video could have had literally anything faked in), reads: This is the only underground tube line in London to be fully metric; unlike the other tube lines, speed limits are in km/h. There are three phrases here, and all of them need to be verifiable:

1. This is the only underground tube line in London to be fully metric
2. unlike the other tube lines
3. speed limits are in km/h

Of these, (3) should be easiest to find a source for, and (1) the most difficult. Ideally the same source should support all three claims - because if you have a source supporting (3) only and another supporting (1), putting them together to deduce (2) is WP:SYNTH - there might be another line with speed limits in km/h but which is not fully metric in other aspects - such as the length of platforms. So: can you find a single source for the whole sentence? Does that source explicitly state that speed limits on the W&C are in km/h? Does it also state that speed limits on other lines are in mph? Finally, does it also clearly and explicitly state that the W&C is the only underground tube line in London to be fully metric (although not necessarily in those exact words)? If you cannot find all of that in a single reliable source, the claim is not verifiable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@86.131.235.171 ping - please see the discussion above. Turini2 (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You cannot ping an IP that way. The important part of the claim is not whether the line is fully metric but whether the line speeds are displayed and measured in km/h. There is no shortage of websites that claim that line is entirely km/h but they all fall into the realm of 'enthusiasts' sites'. In the railway enthusiast fraternity, such information is very very rarely wrong. Every other enthusiast would instantly jump all over them if they were. There are several train cab videos that all clearly show the '60' speed sign. These must have been made with the co-operation of LUL, or at least by staff members. I also found a photograph of the train cab controls. The speedometer is an electronic display with a yellow ribbon that moves rightward across the display. Although the actual units cannot be read, the fact that the speedometer reads up to 120 units of whatever measure is clearly visible. The maximum speed of the Class 482 train is specified as 100 km/h or 62 mph. A speedometer reading up to more than double the maximum speed of the train does not make sense. But a speedometer reading just 20 units over the maximum speed does therefore they must be kph.

Some research shows that TfL are rather coy about discussing line speeds, though these are usually visible on surface lines. I found a statement from citymonitor (which owns a number of newspapers) in a tangentially related article about journey times over which line was the fastest. The had obtained from TfL a statement that the highest average line speed was 25.5 mph for the Northern line (some of the larger distances between stations is a clue here) and that the fastest line speed on any sub surface or tube line is 45 mph - the Northern line. The Waterloo and City being the second oldest tube line is unlikely to be that fast. Dividing the tunnel length by the timetabled journey time gives an average speed of 17.64 mph. If the train was able to run in those sections of tunnel identified as '60' at 60 mph, the journey time would be a lot shorter (as well as exceeding the known highest line speed).

A further consideration is the headway between the two aspect signals. If the train did run at 60 mph it would require a headway of twice the stopping distance of the train using normal service braking (a hangover from the Regulation of Railways Act 1889). That would be almost the entire tunnel length (the legislated stopping distances not having changed from steam days - as steam still runs on many railways, though granted, not the W&C - but the legislation does not recognise that). No. The '55' and '60' speed signs visible in the tunnels of the drivers position videos (and I have reviewed three of them up to now which all clearly show them) must be in kph. And as far as the signs are concerned, speed limit signs on tube railways are rectangular with black letters on white. On sub surface and surface they are circular with a red border with black on white (exception, signs in kph in locations likely to be confused with imperial signs are white numerals on black - These can be found on and around St. Pancras international).

A further issue is: that I used to work on railways as an electrical consultant up to my retirement. I was aware, long before this argument broke out that the W&C is indeed signed in kph (a decision by Railtrack when the line was being upgraded). The speed signs took me by surprise (along with a few others who initially thought that 60 mph was shifting a bit!). 86.131.235.171 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add beyond @Redrose64's succinct summary, which answers and clarifies many of your points. Turini2 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Followup: Leaderboard (talk · contribs) has added this passage to Central line (London Underground), and the FoI request used as a ref mentions several Underground lines using km/h (or kph) - but the Waterloo & City is not shown at all. So it appears that my (1) and (2) of 22:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) are contraindicated, and my (3) unconfirmed. So the claim fails. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Actually they were supposed to answer the question for Waterloo and City, so I've asked them to answer that as well. I will accept that (1) and (2) are not correct however. Also apologies for the "slogans are not appropriate" part; that was generated by the citation extension on VisualEditor, not something I wrote. Leaderboard (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Turini2:, TfL came back to me. I can't seem to see this on TfL's FOI website, but the confirmation is that the Waterloo and City Line is metric. Quoting:

Thank you for your request received by us on 26 July 2022 asking for information about whether speeds for London Underground’s Waterloo & City line and the Elizabeth line network are defined in km/h, as opposed to mph, following your previous request for information, reference number: 0768-2223.

The following part of your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold the information you require.

I see no response for the Waterloo and City and Elizabeth lines (which I understand are TfL services) – could you add on that?

We can advise that the speed for Waterloo & City line is defined in kilometres per hour. Speeds for the Elizabeth line are defined in miles per hour.

Not sure how I can link to this. Leaderboard (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As per your FOI https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0768-2223 - it looks like your query has been answered by the customer service team, and not sure we can use that as a reference. (as we can't cite an email/communication to you) Turini2 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Turini2: Actually no, the reply was from FOI. Leaderboard (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess wait until it appears online and then it can be considered for consensus I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Turini2 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Turini2: Are you sure they would come online though, given that this is a follow-up response? The original FOI question was put up in the site before I got an answer by email. Leaderboard (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, follow ups do appear eventually (e.g. on WhatDoTheyKnow). I don't know if an email response to you will appear tho. Turini2 (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Turini2: So can I just add the information to the article, citing the communication I got from TfL? Leaderboard (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Leaderboard It's not published, how can anyone else verify it? I think that would fail Wikipedia:No original research. Turini2 (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Turini2: Maybe by sending something to somebody (like Commons VRT exists for images)? This is as official as it can get... Leaderboard (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(and @Redrose64:) Leaderboard (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Fully underground

@Epicgenius added a "not verified in body" tag to "It is one of only two lines on the Underground network to run completely underground, the other being the Victoria line." Can anyone help with a reference for this? It's quite hard to reference something very clear like that - most secondary sources do not seem to mention it (despite it being the case!) Turini2 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Turini2, I was not the one that added the tag; @10mmsocket added this tag back in January. I merely changed the {{cn}} tag to {{cnl}} because the citation-needed template is for claims that are unsourced in the body, not for claims in the lead. The claim is not sourced in the body, which is why I changed the template to {{cnl}}. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the misguided attribution! The question remains, however. Turini2 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added a source that mentions that the W&C is entirely underground and that the Victoria is underground except for its depot. Perhaps a better source may exist, however. I've also removed the {{cnl}} tag. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice one! 10mmsocket (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)