Talk:Bom Jesus do Monte Funicular

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bom Jesus do Monte Funicular article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gibberish

I took out the following sentence. Seems to be googletranslated.

that, from your country sent all necessary for the implementation of the design and installation of equipment indications

Maybe this was supposed to mean that Niklaus Riggenbach brought all materials for the funicular from Switzerland, but I really can't tell from what I see. --BjKa (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bom Jesus do Monte Funicular. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305113205/http://www.monumentos.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SIPA.aspx?id=21298 to http://www.monumentos.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SIPA.aspx?id=21298

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grade

The present article says, "The funicular's route crosses 274 metres (899 ft) along the flank of the hill, with an 42º incline, across a rise of 116 metres (381 ft)." Calling this an incline of 42º is geometrically incorrect. The trackway length must be 274 meters and the elevation difference is 116 meters. Hence the angle would be arcsin(116/274) or 25º.

Usually, railway gradients are expressed in terms of grade, which is 100 x tan(angle), or, in this case, 46.7% (say 47% in round numbers). This is close enough to what the article called "42º" that I guess it was essentially a transcription mistake. I will replace "with an 42º incline" with "a grade of 47%" to rectify the problem.

If you find any fault with this logic, you can revert my planned edit, but, if you do, please update the track length and height so that however the gradient is expressed, it is mathematically consistent. Osoraku (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that edit. First, your edit is original research. Wikipedia bases its content on what the sources say, not on editor's own research. Second, I think your logic is wrong anyway. 274m is the length of the adjacent edge of the triangle, not the hypotenuse. 116m is the length of the opposite edge. Which give an angle of slope of 42 degrees, as the source says. Opolito (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit is considered original research, that's fair enough grounds for a reversion.

The SIPA entry says, "O percurso do elevador é feito por 274 metros de encosta, com um inclinação de 42 graus e um desnível de 116 metros." This translates as, "The elevator route is 274 meters up a slope, with an incline of 42 degrees and a drop of 116 meters." So the source is describing the length of the hypotenuse by my reading, for which the corresponding angle is 25 deg. If the source said, e.g. "274 metros na visualização do mapa," or "274 meters in map view," then the tangent would be 116/274 = 0.42, but that isn't an angle, so not a value in degrees. You'd report that as 42% (a grade). So, the source's information/description is internally inconsistent. Osoraku (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]