Talk:Spirit of Progress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Typical Consist of steam-hauled Spirit of Progress[edit]

Period photos show only three second class cars between the guard/luggage van and the dining car. The cars were originally unclassed. First class cars were numbered 1-5 and second class cars numbered 6-9. Thus the normal consist was four first class and three second class with one spare car of each class. Dbromage 07:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, now we have something of a conflict of source information. I just took the consist details from the Dunn book on the S class (which I fully appreciate could be itself factually incorrect on this point) which stated on two separate pages that there were four first and four second class cars, guards van, dining car, and observation car for the original '37 consist. (It even quotes a total tonnage including loco of 766 tons) It states that the mail van and an additional first class car were then added from April 1938.
I think the article in its current form is now factually incorrect, as when you read it it suggests two mail vans ended up in the consist after 1938, and I'm pretty sure it was only ever the one. I removed the bit about the mail van being in the '37 consist, kept the second class car count at three, and suggest we try and find some further reference material for verification (eg "Six & a half inches from destiny" maybe?) Zzrbiker 08:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more checking. The original consist may have used all available cars with no spares. There were four of each sitting car plus the guard/luggage van, dining car and parlor car available from November 1937. Car 4 (first class) and the Bulk Mail Van weren't delivered until April 1938. It's possible that one of the second class cars was removed from 1938 so the load would be the same with the mail van. This would also leave one spare sitting car of each class. This suggests the Buckland photo is from 1938, not 1937. Dbromage 08:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Times and metric conversions[edit]

I've reverted some changes to times to reflect the way these have been described in the source material, which is in an am/pm format rather than a 24 hour time format. I'm not sure if there is an actual agreed standard for time (the MOS certainly didn't enforce a single standard) so I've opted to go with the original source description.

Similarly, I've reverted a change that had a metric-only measurement (38 kg) to include the original imperial measurement that the source material reported with a metric conversion calculated by the Wikipedia {{convert}} template.

I've also reverted the edits to the formatting of National Library of Australia cited sources. The citation as formatted is what was provided by the NLA, so I'm going to trust that they've done it in the most correct way.- Zzrbiker (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spirit of Progress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]