Talk:TS King Edward

Metrics[edit]

Parking these here temporarily:

Per Baker & Tryckare:

Length: 250.5'; 76.35m
Breadth: 30.1'; 9.175m
D: 10'; 3.048m
Tonnage: 551

Per Conway's:

same length and breadth
Depth: 10' 6"; 3.20m
Draught: 7'; 2.13m
Tonnage: 502 GRT

Per Lloyd's:

same length and breadth
depth is 10'
Tonnage: 502 GRT(Edward); 551 gross, 222 net (1930–31)[1]; same in 1940–41[2]; 502 gross, 182 net 1942 through 1945[3][4]

Another online source gives tonnage at 562.

Some online sources make the common error of confusing tonnage with displacement.

Kablammo (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data now added to article, giving preference to Conway's. Kablammo (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Nice work! Sorry to have been rather slow responding, hints are always welcome on my talk page. Had a hunt for McCrorie and couldn't find it, but just the other day got confirmation that my son had it under his bed in his house, and he's now sent copies of the relevant pages so hope to add some info shortly. Also found I've a copy of Alan J. S. Paterson's The Golden Years of the Clyde Steamers (1889–1914) which has quite a lot of good stuff, so hope to use that as well, global warming permitting! . . dave souza, talk 09:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave. I have come across these on-line sources, but question whether they meet reliable source standards:

ts King Edward from Clydebuilt database; appears to be an enthusiasts' site; does not appear to contain any information which would not be available elsewhere.
An entry at a commercial site from something called socyberty; I cannot link it here as it is blacklisted. I automatically reject as unreliable any maritime source which confuses gross register tonnage with weight, as does this one and others.
TS King Edward (1901) from Transport Britain; appears to be a personal website.
A Clyde Steamer Enthusiast's Guide; certainly appears well-researched and reliable; would be very useful here, but no publisher or sources given. The author, one P. Donald M. Kelly, has authored a number of other books as well. This one gives information on career, including more detail on wartime service and voyage to Russia after WWI, and tender service in WWII, which likely are available from other sources; but it also includes information on coal consumption and other useful data which I have not found elsewhere (p. 51–54). So I would like to use this source here.

Kablammo (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given Kelly's published expertise, the use of that source could be justified as a WP:SPS even if it's not by another publisher. The sources I've to hand give good info on the context of the project being started and the early years of King Edward in service, but don't go on to the war years. Have made a start, will gradually convert other references to use inline Template:Harvard citation no brackets as in the first example I've done – that gives a link down to the main reference providing it's in a template. My intention, having expanded the background to cover early Clyde steamers, is to tighten up the Parsons bit, deferring the wreck of the destroyers as that didn't happen until after King Edward had succeeded in service. . . dave souza, talk 09:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good. I have not previously used that reference format but have no objections to the conversion. I will be unable to contribute much more until next week, by which time I should have the McOwat article from Mariner's Mirror. Should you come across any information on passenger capacity, please add it, as that is the one important measure we now lack. Thanks much for your good work. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will next get on to the launch, sea trials and early years of service, giving more detail of routes and mentioning the turbine steamers being based at Prince's Pier, Greenock. Will watch out for passenger capacity, think I saw it somewhere. Hope to do a bit more editing tomorrow. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now have two articles by Peter McOwat (and will need to figure out how the harvnb method cites diffferent works by the same author). The vessel was even more important in the acceptance of turbines than I thought. I will be able to review some century-old sources this weekend, including a couple by Parsons, and will defer further additions until I have digested those. The competition between piston and turbine engines was a near-run thing for a time, and piston engines had reached a high degree of reliability while early turbines had not. That made the success of King Edward more remarkable. Those nuances are not set forth in the more general sources I initially used. Kablammo (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, have at last added passenger info in what seemed the best place, move it if another location is preferred. Citing various works by the same author in harvnb is automatic if the years of publication differ, if there's more than one work in the same year then they can be defined as "2000a", "2000b" etc. as shown at Template:Harvard citation no brackets. Hope that helps, . dave souza, talk 12:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]