Odd use of railway train terminology

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.
--

Adelaide was in fact the first royal to travel by train but it was on a
scheduled service two years before the first ever carriage for
exclusive royal use was built. She travelled in the 'caboose' to keep
her away from the riff-raff. Victoria's first train journey was not on
the footplate of the locomotive, as you say, although the royal
coachman and one Isambard Kingdom Brunel did join the driver
for the journey (much to the besmirchment of the coachman's
scarlet coat and livery!)

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-06-13 13:36:38 UTC

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 04:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

I thought of that possibility just a few minutes ago. Thanks for
confirming that is what happened.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Victoria's first train journey was not on
the footplate of the locomotive, as you say, although the royal
coachman and one Isambard Kingdom Brunel did join the driver
for the journey (much to the besmirchment of the coachman's
scarlet coat and livery!)

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Theodore Heise

2018-06-13 11:44:36 UTC

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:30 +0100,

I don't know about these two usages, but "rayal train" strikes me
as redundant. Don't trains by definition run on rayals?

--
Ted Heise <***@panix.com> West Lafayette, IN, USA

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-06-13 11:53:21 UTC

Post by Theodore Heise
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:30 +0100,

I don't know about these two usages, but "rayal train" strikes me
as redundant. Don't trains by definition run on rayals?
--

Actually, no. Railway trains do. Camel trains, wagon trains, and
gravy trains do not.

CDB

2018-06-13 14:56:39 UTC

Post by Theodore Heise

I don't know about these two usages, but "rayal train" strikes me
as redundant. Don't trains by definition run on rayals?

It's possible that new duchess's train was walked a short distance by
some small royals.

Katy Jennison

2018-06-13 12:13:19 UTC

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM
riding the locomotive, I conjecture that the source called it 'riding
[in] the train' (almost certainly 'in' if it was BrE, or just
conceivably 'on', but not just 'riding') and someone supposed 'train' to
mean the engine rather than the, er, train.

--
Katy Jennison

Peter Young

2018-06-13 12:32:14 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Something that annoys me is the British Press using "train" to mean
"engine" (AmE Locomotive). Regularly in a report of an engine with a name
is styled "a train called <name of engine>".

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Katy Jennison

2018-06-13 13:12:29 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Something that annoys me is the British Press using "train" to mean
"engine" (AmE Locomotive). Regularly in a report of an engine with a name
is styled "a train called <name of engine>".

Yes. (PTD is also right to complain about that.) I wonder if they've
been misled by the fact that the name 'Flying Scotsman' can refer to either.

--
Katy Jennison

Peter Young

2018-06-13 14:40:43 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Something that annoys me is the British Press using "train" to mean
"engine" (AmE Locomotive). Regularly in a report of an engine with a name
is styled "a train called <name of engine>".

Yes. (PTD is also right to complain about that.) I wonder if they've
been misled by the fact that the name 'Flying Scotsman' can refer to either.

I think they're just ignorant.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Garrett Wollman

2018-06-13 17:13:31 UTC

Post by Peter Young
Something that annoys me is the British Press using "train" to mean
"engine" (AmE Locomotive). Regularly in a report of an engine with a name
is styled "a train called <name of engine>".

Of course, an engine is a train, if it's displaying markers. But
that's a rather non-Gricean way to think of it.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

Percival P. Cassidy

2018-06-13 22:11:00 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Something that annoys me is the British Press using "train" to mean
"engine" (AmE Locomotive). Regularly in a report of an engine with a name
is styled "a train called <name of engine>".

I had assumed that "locomotive" is the AmE equivalent of BrE "engine,"
but when conversing with an Amtrak employee at one of our stops on a
journey a few years back, he seemed to be using both words, and not
synonymously -- but I cannot now recall the exact usage. Was
"locomotive" the combination of two (in that case) or more "engines"?

Perce

Mark Brader

2018-06-15 00:04:15 UTC

Post by Percival P. Cassidy
I had assumed that "locomotive" is the AmE equivalent of BrE "engine,"

No, "engine" is a word sometimes used in Britain with the same meaning
as "locomotive".

Post by Percival P. Cassidy
but when conversing with an Amtrak employee at one of our stops on a
journey a few years back, he seemed to be using both words, and not
synonymously -- but I cannot now recall the exact usage. Was
"locomotive" the combination of two (in that case) or more "engines"?

"Engine" can also mean an internal-combustion motor, such as is found
inside a diesel locomotive. Could he have been using in that way?

--
Mark Brader | "...no politician has ever been indicted for forging
Toronto | an unnecessary and insufficient response to a tragedy."
***@vex.net | --Steve Summit's corollary on Politician's Logic

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-13 12:33:50 UTC

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

We did that quite a while ago. It wasn't clear why a train in allegedly
civilized Great Britain needed guards. (Or if it did, as in the Great
Train Robbery, what good they would be if they were all back in the
caboose.)

Post by Katy Jennison
riding the locomotive, I conjecture that the source called it 'riding
[in] the train' (almost certainly 'in' if it was BrE, or just
conceivably 'on', but not just 'riding') and someone supposed 'train' to
mean the engine rather than the, er, train.

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).

BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There are
all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of model
train cars that hobbyists could have.

Katy Jennison

2018-06-13 13:19:33 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).

So it damn well ought to be on this side of the pond <mutter, harrumph,
mutter>.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There are
all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of model
train cars that hobbyists could have.

WIWAL I'd have called them all 'trucks', but I dunno from today. Hornby
seems to call them 'wagons'.

http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm

--
Katy Jennison

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-13 16:56:37 UTC

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).

So it damn well ought to be on this side of the pond <mutter, harrumph,
mutter>.

WIWAL I'd have called them all 'trucks', but I dunno from today. Hornby
seems to call them 'wagons'.
http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm

_Very_ technically speaking, in transit systems the "truck" is the assemblage
of wheels on which the body of the car is mounted. Each truck might have
two or three wheels on each side, each car will have two trucks; they take
their electrical power from the "third rail" (or, in street-level systems,
from an overhead wire). There's no locomotive, as each car is separately
powered.

Quinn C

2018-06-13 21:02:19 UTC

WIWAL I'd have called them all 'trucks', but I dunno from today. Hornby
seems to call them 'wagons'.
http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-14 03:24:41 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
_Very_ technically speaking, in transit systems the "truck" is the assemblage
of wheels on which the body of the car is mounted. Each truck might have
two or three wheels on each side, each car will have two trucks; they take
their electrical power from the "third rail" (or, in street-level systems,
from an overhead wire). There's no locomotive, as each car is separately
powered.

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?

The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

s***@gmail.com

2018-06-14 04:19:07 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

/dps "AC or DC? Yes"

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-14 10:58:07 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

Post by s***@gmail.com
/dps "AC or DC? Yes"

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-06-14 11:41:31 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

No, a difference engine is something else entirely.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-14 13:45:51 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

No, a difference engine is something else entirely.

I did indeed intentionally leave that for someone else.

John Varela

2018-06-15 01:55:46 UTC

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:41:31 UTC, Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In technical thermodynamic terminology, an engine converts heat into
work, as in a steam engine. A motor converts one form of work (such
as electricity) to another (such as motion). This distinction is
ignored in common usage, as in "motorcar", which technically should
be "engine car".

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
No, a difference engine is something else entirely.

Bravo!

--
John Varela

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-06-15 08:20:53 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:41:31 UTC, Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
No, a difference engine is something else entirely.

What about sorting engines?

Post by John Varela
Bravo!

--
athel

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-06-15 10:57:44 UTC

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

No, a difference engine is something else entirely.

As is a search engine.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Jerry Friedman

2018-06-14 12:22:55 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.

In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-14 13:48:02 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.

Those would be attended to by motoreers rather than engineers, no?

Post by Jerry Friedman
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

And they have an engine up front (usually).
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Jerry Friedman

2018-06-16 12:23:28 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.

Those would be attended to by motoreers rather than engineers, no?

Post by Jerry Friedman
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

And they have an engine up front (usually).

Yes.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Electric cars have a motor, and hybrids have a motor and an engine.

--
Jerry Friedman

Garrett Wollman

2018-06-16 16:30:52 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Electric cars have a motor, and hybrids have a motor and an engine.

Commonly two motors and an engine, and one of the motors is
predominantly used as a generator but for some reason the car industry
calls it a motor. (I guess because it also fulfills the function of
the starter motor?)

Next lesson: "series" and "parallel".

-GAWollman

Jerry Friedman

2018-06-16 19:48:10 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Electric cars have a motor, and hybrids have a motor and an engine.

Seems reasonable. I certainly didn't think of that one, which
conventional cars have too. I imagine my Prius also has motors for the
air conditioner, the windows, the locks, the CD player, and maybe other
stuff.

Post by Garrett Wollman
Next lesson: "series" and "parallel".

As in "winding"?

--
Jerry Friedman

charles

2018-06-16 19:52:11 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Electric cars have a motor, and hybrids have a motor and an engine.

My Mazda 6 has one for the Parking Brake, too.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Garrett Wollman

2018-06-17 00:13:18 UTC

Post by Garrett Wollman
Next lesson: "series" and "parallel".

As in "winding"?

No, as in "series hybrid" (fully electric transmission) vs. "parallel
hybrid" (electromechanical transmission with a part-time booster/brake
motor/generator). Some car-makers sell both systems: e.g., Honda
calls parallel hybrid "Integrated Motor Assist" and calls series
hybrid "eCVT" (which is not a CVT at all, it's a motor controller,
with the drive motor attached to the drive shaft at a fixed gear
ratio; all the "variable" bits are in the electronics).

-GAWollman

J. J. Lodder

2018-06-17 08:18:23 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Electric cars have a motor, and hybrids have a motor and an engine.

A hundred years ago few people had even one.
Nowadays you don't have the faintest idea
about how many motors you may own,

Jan

Kerr-Mudd,John

2018-06-17 08:21:33 UTC

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:18:23 GMT, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
wrote:
[]

Post by J. J. Lodder
A hundred years ago few people had even one.
Nowadays you don't have the faintest idea
about how many motors you may own,
Jan

Or computers.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

Richard Tobin

2018-06-17 08:58:24 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by J. J. Lodder
A hundred years ago few people had even one.
Nowadays you don't have the faintest idea
about how many motors you may own,

Or computers.

Do you own more than a trillion transistors yet?

-- Richard

Kerr-Mudd,John

2018-06-17 09:24:17 UTC

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by J. J. Lodder
A hundred years ago few people had even one.
Nowadays you don't have the faintest idea
about how many motors you may own,

Or computers.

Do you own more than a trillion transistors yet?
-- Richard

No idea. What if I have a MS/Google/Amazon/etc account; does that entitle
me to a share of a server farm?

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

Richard Tobin

2018-06-17 08:57:32 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman
Seems reasonable. I certainly didn't think of that one, which
conventional cars have too. I imagine my Prius also has motors for the
air conditioner, the windows, the locks, the CD player, and maybe other
stuff.

A hundred years ago few people had even one.

Electric toy trains were already available a hundred years ago. They
may well have had the first electric motors in many homes.

-- Richard

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-06-17 19:22:36 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
[ … ]
A hundred years ago few people had even one.
Nowadays you don't have the faintest idea
about how many motors you may own,

Without having checked what were replying to, I thought you were saying
a hundred years ago few people had even one testicle. I found that
surprising. A minority, yes, but few, no.

--
athel

J. J. Lodder

2018-06-17 09:43:48 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Electric cars have a motor, and hybrids have a motor and an engine.

What's used for the locks
(an electromagnet moving a piece of iron)
is usually called an actuator, I think,

Jan

Paul Wolff

2018-06-17 18:57:57 UTC

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018, J. J. Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> posted:

[car electric motors]

Post by J. J. Lodder
What's used for the locks
(an electromagnet moving a piece of iron)
is usually called an actuator, I think,

Electrical engineering terminology isn't my strong point, but I'd call
that a solenoid or a solenoid-driven actuator. The plain word 'actuator'
is one I've freely used in the context of hydraulic power systems
(rodded piston in a cylinder).

--
Paul

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-06-16 18:16:54 UTC

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 06:23:28 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.

Those would be attended to by motoreers rather than engineers, no?

Post by Jerry Friedman
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

And they have an engine up front (usually).

Yes.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What do electric cars have? How about hybrids?

Electric cars have a motor, and hybrids have a motor and an engine.

And diesel–electric locomotives have an engine driving a generator that
powers motors.
http://tinyurl.com/yb27qtzm
for
Loading Image...

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Dingbat

2018-06-15 00:00:20 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

A car's motor delivers torque.
A diesel powered generator delivers electricity.

While they are both powered by reciprocating engines, the engine is but a
component of the motor or generator which might be why the entire
assembly is called a motor or generator, not an engine.

In India, 'motor' usually refers to an electric motor that drives a
water pump; what's under a car's hood is called an engine, never a motor.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-06-15 08:19:04 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

A car's motor delivers torque.
A diesel powered generator delivers electricity.
While they are both powered by reciprocating engines, the engine is but a
component of the motor or generator which might be why the entire
assembly is called a motor or generator, not an engine.
In India, 'motor' usually refers to an electric motor that drives a
water pump; what's under a car's hood is called an engine, never a motor.

In British English what's over the engine is a bonnet, not a hood. (At
least it were when I were a lad.)

--
athel

Peter Young

2018-06-15 09:41:27 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

A car's motor delivers torque.
A diesel powered generator delivers electricity.
While they are both powered by reciprocating engines, the engine is but a
component of the motor or generator which might be why the entire
assembly is called a motor or generator, not an engine.
In India, 'motor' usually refers to an electric motor that drives a
water pump; what's under a car's hood is called an engine, never a motor.

In British English what's over the engine is a bonnet, not a hood. (At
least it were when I were a lad.)

And it still is, even now that I'm ancient.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-06-15 11:01:57 UTC

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

A car's motor delivers torque.
A diesel powered generator delivers electricity.
While they are both powered by reciprocating engines, the engine is but a
component of the motor or generator which might be why the entire
assembly is called a motor or generator, not an engine.
In India, 'motor' usually refers to an electric motor that drives a
water pump; what's under a car's hood is called an engine, never a motor.

In British English what's over the engine is a bonnet, not a hood. (At
least it were when I were a lad.)

+1

However, what is the "lid" over the engine called on a rear-engined car?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Paul Wolff

2018-06-15 13:44:44 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels
_Very_ technically speaking, in transit systems the "truck" is
the assemblage
of wheels on which the body of the car is mounted. Each truck might have
two or three wheels on each side, each car will have two trucks; they take
their electrical power from the "third rail" (or, in
street-level systems,
from an overhead wire). There's no locomotive, as each car is separately
powered.

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

No, they have motors in them. Electric motors.

Difference?

In engineering, technically speaking, an engine converts thermal energy,
usually from burning something, to work. A motor has some other energy
source, usually electricity.
In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
to mention common usage.

A car's motor delivers torque.
A diesel powered generator delivers electricity.
While they are both powered by reciprocating engines, the engine is but a
component of the motor or generator which might be why the entire
assembly is called a motor or generator, not an engine.
In India, 'motor' usually refers to an electric motor that drives a
water pump; what's under a car's hood is called an engine, never a motor.

In British English what's over the engine is a bonnet, not a hood. (At
least it were when I were a lad.)

+1
However, what is the "lid" over the engine called on a rear-engined car?

Engine compartment temporary cover means.

Essentially, an engine is an assembly for getting something done, while
a motor is a source of motion. Any attempt to define a difference (see
one-word question above) can't work, as there's enormous overlap. Usage
decides which word is right at any time, and even usage can be wrong.
There's not much point in arguing which term is better suited to a
railway engine or locomotive, or powered rolling stock.

--
Paul

Dingbat

2018-06-16 11:45:27 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In British English what's over the engine is a bonnet, not a hood. (At
least it were when I were a lad.)

However, what is the "lid" over the engine called on a rear-engined car?

tonneau (a pun on dunno)

J. J. Lodder

2018-06-16 17:17:45 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dingbat
In India, 'motor' usually refers to an electric motor that drives a
water pump; what's under a car's hood is called an engine, never a motor.

In British English what's over the engine is a bonnet, not a hood. (At
least it were when I were a lad.)

+1
However, what is the "lid" over the engine called on a rear-engined car?

Just the engine cover, for a VW Beetle for example,

Jan

Quinn C

2018-06-14 22:42:11 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

I don't know what "Humphrey" refers to, but you made it appear like
"truck" was a word specifically for the powered bogies of transit
systems, not for other bogies. Not least because you introduced
"transit systems" into the discussion on this occasion. Before we were
speaking about trains in general, so this looks like an unnecessary
narrowing of the subject, aka goalpost move.

--
Perhaps it might be well, while the subject is under discussion,
to attempt the creation of an entirely new gender, for the purpose
of facilitating reference to the growing caste of manly women and
womanly men. -- Baltimore Sun (1910)

Tony Cooper

2018-06-14 23:14:24 UTC

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:42:11 -0400, Quinn C

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

I don't know what "Humphrey" refers to, Bogie > Bogart > Humprhey Bogart. Known as "Bogie".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-15 03:12:38 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

The only "bogie" I'd heard of before this thread -- before your message,
in fact -- was the one that came up the other day about bogeying a joint
and the Damia's misapprehension of its meaning. (Also a bogie in golf.)

If you look at the line directly above the first one that appears in this
message, you will see that that first one followed directly from the topic
of the sentence it followed.

The usual malicious snippage.

Tony Cooper

2018-06-15 03:41:46 UTC

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The only "bogie" I'd heard of before this thread -- before your message,
in fact -- was the one that came up the other day about bogeying a joint
and the Damia's misapprehension of its meaning. (Also a bogie in golf.)

No, a score of one over par (on a hole, not the round) in golf is a
"bogey".

The spelling goes back to "the bogey man", and that - in turn - goes
back to the Edwardian music hall song "Hush! Hush! Hush! Here comes
the bogey man". Going back once more, that bogey comes from the
Scottish term "bogle" for a goblin or devil. Colonel Bogey arose from
the golf usage at the United Services Club in Gosport where all
members had a military rank, so a bogey was given a rank.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

John Varela

2018-06-15 23:36:38 UTC

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:41:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

No, a score of one over par (on a hole, not the round) in golf is a
"bogey".

According to the OED, at one time bogey was the target score for a
golf hole. I haven't researched this, but my guess is that
improvements in equipment led to the bogey score being too easy, so
the target score was reduced and renamed par.

The idea that a bogey was once the target score in golf fits with
the fact that fighter pilots call an enemy aircraft a bogey, which
is another kind of target.

Post by Tony Cooper
The spelling goes back to "the bogey man", and that - in turn - goes
back to the Edwardian music hall song "Hush! Hush! Hush! Here comes
the bogey man". Going back once more, that bogey comes from the
Scottish term "bogle" for a goblin or devil. Colonel Bogey arose from
the golf usage at the United Services Club in Gosport where all
members had a military rank, so a bogey was given a rank.

--
John Varela

Tony Cooper

2018-06-16 01:19:29 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:41:46 UTC, Tony Cooper

No, a score of one over par (on a hole, not the round) in golf is a
"bogey".

According to the OED, at one time bogey was the target score for a
golf hole. I haven't researched this, but my guess is that
improvements in equipment led to the bogey score being too easy, so
the target score was reduced and renamed par.
The idea that a bogey was once the target score in golf fits with
the fact that fighter pilots call an enemy aircraft a bogey, which
is another kind of target.

An unidentified blip on a radar screen is also called a bogie or
bogey. That, though, fits with the bogey man usage.

Those of us who watched WWII movies remember the radio transmissions
like "Bogey at eleven o'clock high!".

Post by John Varela

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Mack A. Damia

2018-06-16 01:53:28 UTC

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

No, a score of one over par (on a hole, not the round) in golf is a
"bogey".
The spelling goes back to "the bogey man", and that - in turn - goes
back to the Edwardian music hall song "Hush! Hush! Hush! Here comes
the bogey man". Going back once more, that bogey comes from the
Scottish term "bogle" for a goblin or devil. Colonel Bogey arose from
the golf usage at the United Services Club in Gosport where all
members had a military rank, so a bogey was given a rank.

There is a hotel in my home town in Lancashire that has a seven
hundred year-old spirit that haunts the hotel.

The spirit is known as the "Dunkenhalgh Boggart"

The boggart is supposed to appear every Christmas Eve in the form of a
young lady, dressed in a winding sheet, who moves along the trees and
by the site of the bridge, then disappears. The story goes that in
olden times, when the Petre family were in their heyday, they had a
young French lady as governess to their children, known to all the
countryside as Lucette.

One Christmas there came a dashing young officer who fell in love with
Lucette, soon found a way to woo her, and gained her affections. But
he never intended to marry her.The deceiver rode away after he had
accomplished her ruin and promised to return.

The promise was false and Lucette realised that Dunkenhalgh was no
place for her but did not dare go home to France. Often she wandered
about in the gloaming, through the glades where her false lover had
gone. Her reason failed at last and one stormy night she wandered to
the bridge and threw herself into the rushing torrents.

But her lover did not escape; he was killed in a duel by her brother,
who thus avenged the death of his sister. Her ghost is still said to
haunt the scene of her unfortunate love on Christmas Eve.

The name Dunkenhalgh comes from Roger de Dunkenhalgh who built the
house by the end of the 12th century; I always heard my family
pronounce it, "DUNCANALSH", but an online pronunciation guide does not
seem to agree. One guide claims that pronounced properly, the GH is
pronounced like an F in the back of the throat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/content/articles/2006/04/05/spooky_dunkenhalgh_feature.shtml

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-16 02:28:54 UTC

Post by Mack A. Damia
But her lover did not escape; he was killed in a duel by her brother,
who thus avenged the death of his sister. Her ghost is still said to
haunt the scene of her unfortunate love on Christmas Eve.

Poppycock. If she was avenged, why would she still haunt? Normally, hants
haunt because they have not been avenged.

Paul Wolff

2018-06-16 10:09:49 UTC

Poppycock. If she was avenged, why would she still haunt? Normally, hants
haunt because they have not been avenged.

But paranormally?

--
Paul

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-16 11:46:39 UTC

Post by Paul Wolff

Poppycock. If she was avenged, why would she still haunt? Normally, hants
haunt because they have not been avenged.

But paranormally?

Eh? Ghosts are the ghosts of people, usually victims of unprosecuted
evildoers. Paranormality doesn't come into it until, probably, some
statute of limitations has run that gave the constabulary adequate
time to investigate the deed and requite the wrong.

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-06-16 12:46:12 UTC

Post by Paul Wolff

Poppycock. If she was avenged, why would she still haunt? Normally, hants
haunt because they have not been avenged.

But paranormally?

Being avenged doesn't necessarily mean that a spirit's task on
Earth is done. She may be hanging around to warn other young
ladies of the wicked ways of men, or to protect the house. Your
understanding of ghosts is clearly too restricted.

Mack A. Damia

2018-06-16 15:49:41 UTC

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 05:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Paul Wolff

Poppycock. If she was avenged, why would she still haunt? Normally, hants
haunt because they have not been avenged.

But paranormally?

Don't you know, Daniels is the resident authority on fairy tales?

Back in the 1960s, my cousin, who was a student in college at the
time, dressed up as the Boggart with winding sheets, borrowed a horse
and rode around the area one Christmas Eve at midnight.

It was reported in the local newspaper.

Mack A. Damia

2018-06-16 19:26:09 UTC

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

The Colonel Bogey March

The name "Colonel Bogey" began in the later 19th century as the
imaginary "standard opponent" of the Colonel Bogey scoring system
(golf).

The tune was set to the popular song during World War II, "Hitler Only
Has One Ball".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball

David Lean, director of the film, "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)
initially wanted Col. Nicholson's soldiers to enter the camp while
singing "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" to the tune, but producer Sam
Spiegel said the song was too vulgar. The compromise was to whistle
it. The rest is history.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-06-17 07:44:43 UTC

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

The Colonel Bogey March
The name "Colonel Bogey" began in the later 19th century as the
imaginary "standard opponent" of the Colonel Bogey scoring system
(golf).
The tune was set to the popular song during World War II, "Hitler Only
Has One Ball".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball
David Lean, director of the film, "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)
initially wanted Col. Nicholson's soldiers to enter the camp while
singing "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" to the tune, but producer Sam
Spiegel said the song was too vulgar. The compromise was to whistle
it. The rest is history.

What is curious, though, is that there have been serious reports that
it was true, at least in relation to Hitler. Supposing it to be true,
how on earth did they know?

--
athel

Mack A. Damia

2018-06-17 15:00:11 UTC

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 09:44:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

The Colonel Bogey March
The name "Colonel Bogey" began in the later 19th century as the
imaginary "standard opponent" of the Colonel Bogey scoring system
(golf).
The tune was set to the popular song during World War II, "Hitler Only
Has One Ball".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball
David Lean, director of the film, "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)
initially wanted Col. Nicholson's soldiers to enter the camp while
singing "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" to the tune, but producer Sam
Spiegel said the song was too vulgar. The compromise was to whistle
it. The rest is history.

What is curious, though, is that there have been serious reports that
it was true, at least in relation to Hitler. Supposing it to be true,
how on earth did they know?

It seems to be fairly well-accepted as fact now.

"A German historian has unearthed the Nazi leaders long-lost medical
records, which seem to confirm the urban legend that he only had one
testicle."

"The records, taken during a medical exam following Hitlers arrest
over the failed Beer Hall putsch in 1923, show that he suffered from
right-side cryptorchidism, or an undescended right testicle."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/19/hitler-really-did-have-only-one-testicle-german-researcher-claims

Tony Cooper

2018-06-17 16:25:46 UTC

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:00:11 -0700, Mack A. Damia

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 09:44:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

The Colonel Bogey March
The name "Colonel Bogey" began in the later 19th century as the
imaginary "standard opponent" of the Colonel Bogey scoring system
(golf).
The tune was set to the popular song during World War II, "Hitler Only
Has One Ball".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball
David Lean, director of the film, "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)
initially wanted Col. Nicholson's soldiers to enter the camp while
singing "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" to the tune, but producer Sam
Spiegel said the song was too vulgar. The compromise was to whistle
it. The rest is history.

What is curious, though, is that there have been serious reports that
it was true, at least in relation to Hitler. Supposing it to be true,
how on earth did they know?

It seems to be fairly well-accepted as fact now.
"A German historian has unearthed the Nazi leaders long-lost medical
records, which seem to confirm the urban legend that he only had one
testicle."
"The records, taken during a medical exam following Hitlers arrest
over the failed Beer Hall putsch in 1923, show that he suffered from
right-side cryptorchidism, or an undescended right testicle."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/19/hitler-really-did-have-only-one-testicle-german-researcher-claims

As brother to a person with an undescended testicle, I object to the
phrasing that indicates the person has just one testicle. The person
has two. The fact that one is undescended doesn't usually cause a
medical problem.

One of the items in the Dow Corning line of Silastic® implants that my
company sold was Testicular Implants. We only sold about a couple of
dozen a year, but it was an item we stocked.

Almost all of them were sold to urologists* for implantation in young
(high school and college) men engaged in sports. The implants were
non-functional, but cosmetically important to the donees. A shrunken
scrotum is noticeable in the shower room, and the implants provided a
more normal appearance.

*It's not a procedure that requires a urologist, but that's the doctor
that the patient usually sees and the one who recommends the implant.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-17 16:41:27 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:00:11 -0700, Mack A. Damia

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 09:44:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper

The Colonel Bogey March
The name "Colonel Bogey" began in the later 19th century as the
imaginary "standard opponent" of the Colonel Bogey scoring system
(golf).
The tune was set to the popular song during World War II, "Hitler Only
Has One Ball".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball
David Lean, director of the film, "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)
initially wanted Col. Nicholson's soldiers to enter the camp while
singing "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" to the tune, but producer Sam
Spiegel said the song was too vulgar. The compromise was to whistle
it. The rest is history.

What is curious, though, is that there have been serious reports that
it was true, at least in relation to Hitler. Supposing it to be true,
how on earth did they know?

It seems to be fairly well-accepted as fact now.
"A German historian has unearthed the Nazi leader’s long-lost medical
records, which seem to confirm the urban legend that he only had one
testicle."
"The records, taken during a medical exam following Hitler’s arrest
over the failed Beer Hall putsch in 1923, show that he suffered from
“right-side cryptorchidism”, or an undescended right testicle."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/19/hitler-really-did-have-only-one-testicle-german-researcher-claims

As brother to a person with an undescended testicle, I object to the
phrasing that indicates the person has just one testicle. The person
has two. The fact that one is undescended doesn't usually cause a
medical problem.
One of the items in the Dow Corning line of Silastic® implants that my
company sold was Testicular Implants. We only sold about a couple of
dozen a year, but it was an item we stocked.
Almost all of them were sold to urologists* for implantation in young
(high school and college) men engaged in sports. The implants were
non-functional, but cosmetically important to the donees. A shrunken
scrotum is noticeable in the shower room, and the implants provided a
more normal appearance.

Probably a numerically more important group of patients is those with
orchidectomies because of testicular cancer. I knew one such person, in
his late 20s probably, in the WCGC. Maybe back in your day, no treatment
was available.

Post by Tony Cooper
*It's not a procedure that requires a urologist, but that's the doctor
that the patient usually sees and the one who recommends the implant.

J. J. Lodder

2018-06-17 08:18:23 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

No, a score of one over par (on a hole, not the round) in golf is a
"bogey".
The spelling goes back to "the bogey man", and that - in turn - goes
back to the Edwardian music hall song "Hush! Hush! Hush! Here comes
the bogey man". Going back once more, that bogey comes from the
Scottish term "bogle" for a goblin or devil. Colonel Bogey arose from
the golf usage at the United Services Club in Gosport where all
members had a military rank, so a bogey was given a rank.

The bogey man is much older than that,
and not particularly Scottish.
He lived all over Western Europe,
and may well date back to pre-christian times.
(compare Dutch Boeman)

'Zwarte Piet', who accompanies 'Sinterklaas'
originally was part bogey man.
He may still carry a bundle of twigs
to threaten 'not good' children with.

His big bag not only brings presents,
but at the botttom of it there is a big stick.
Bad children may be bagged, and taken away to Spain,

Jan

Tony Cooper

2018-06-17 14:31:26 UTC

I'll squeeze this in the "Odd use of railway train terminology"
because I'm too lazy to find the thread where railroad station vs
train station terms were discussed.

In the article at:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2018/06/17/how-ford-plans-resurrect-train-station/702723002/

it seems that the train station in Detroit is the "Michigan Central
Depot". Wiki, however, says it's "Michigan Central Station" and shows
the "Depot" version as aka.

As a side note, the station is in Detroit's Corktown district. That
name goes back to the influx of Irish immigrants following the Great
Irish Potato Famine. The immigrants were "primarily from County
Cork".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Quinn C

2018-06-15 16:34:39 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

The only "bogie" I'd heard of before this thread -- before your message,
in fact -- was the one that came up the other day about bogeying a joint
and the Damia's misapprehension of its meaning. (Also a bogie in golf.)
If you look at the line directly above the first one that appears in this
message, you will see that that first one followed directly from the topic
of the sentence it followed.
The usual malicious snippage.

I see no such thing. "The line" directly above was:

| http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm

If you meant the last line written by the person you answered, it was:

| WIWAL I'd have called them all 'trucks', but I dunno from today. Hornby
| seems to call them 'wagons'.

Nothing in either of these lines says "transit system" to me.

The usual excuse based on nothing at all.

--
The bee must not pass judgment on the hive. (Voxish proverb)
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.125

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-16 02:26:30 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

The only "bogie" I'd heard of before this thread -- before your message,
in fact -- was the one that came up the other day about bogeying a joint
and the Damia's misapprehension of its meaning. (Also a bogie in golf.)
If you look at the line directly above the first one that appears in this
message, you will see that that first one followed directly from the topic
of the sentence it followed.
The usual malicious snippage.

| http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm
| WIWAL I'd have called them all 'trucks', but I dunno from today. Hornby
| seems to call them 'wagons'.
Nothing in either of these lines says "transit system" to me.
The usual excuse based on nothing at all.

Which explains the introductory "Very technically speaking." It expanded on
the meaning of "truck" in railroading, a specific type of railroading that
has its own dedicated railfans.

Quinn C

2018-06-17 02:36:09 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

The only "bogie" I'd heard of before this thread -- before your message,
in fact -- was the one that came up the other day about bogeying a joint
and the Damia's misapprehension of its meaning. (Also a bogie in golf.)
If you look at the line directly above the first one that appears in this
message, you will see that that first one followed directly from the topic
of the sentence it followed.
The usual malicious snippage.

Which explains the introductory "Very technically speaking." It expanded on
the meaning of "truck" in railroading, a specific type of railroading that
has its own dedicated railfans.

Fine, then I conclude that you simply didn't know that this meaning of
"truck" is not limited to transit systems or powered assemblies. Not a
big deal, why don't you just welcome that you learned something?

--
Strategy: A long-range plan whose merit cannot be evaluated
until sometime after those creating it have left the organization.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-17 03:12:41 UTC

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

? Humphrey?
The trucks of transit cars have engines in them.

The only "bogie" I'd heard of before this thread -- before your message,
in fact -- was the one that came up the other day about bogeying a joint
and the Damia's misapprehension of its meaning. (Also a bogie in golf.)
If you look at the line directly above the first one that appears in this
message, you will see that that first one followed directly from the topic
of the sentence it followed.
The usual malicious snippage.

Which explains the introductory "Very technically speaking." It expanded on
the meaning of "truck" in railroading, a specific type of railroading that
has its own dedicated railfans.

I don't see what you're fighting about.

I already "learned" and have no reason to remember "bogie."

Snidely

2018-06-14 08:15:43 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There
are all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of
model train cars that hobbyists could have.

WIWAL I'd have called them all 'trucks', but I dunno from today. Hornby
seems to call them 'wagons'.
http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm

_Very_ technically speaking, in transit systems the "truck" is the
assemblage of wheels on which the body of the car is mounted. Each truck
might have two or three wheels on each side, each car will have two trucks;
they take their electrical power from the "third rail" (or, in street-level
systems, from an overhead wire). There's no locomotive, as each car is
separately powered.

Only in this context? I thought "truck" in this sense is a synonym of
"bogie", which usually isn't powered.

Box cars and tank cars have trucks that aren't powered.
Diesel-electric locomotives, many transit cars, and quite a few
commuter cars have trucks that are powered (transit and commuter cars
that have powered trucks are often called power cars, but that term is
also used for an type of car that contains a motor-generator set but
unpowered trucks).

However, the TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) has body-mounted electric
motors. I would still count the trucks as powered, since this system
would seem to use drive shafts to the axles (as did diesel-hydraulic
locomotives back in the day). This system reduces unsprung weight (and
so gives a smoother ride), and apparently also reduces total weight.
(per WP, which has sightayshuns)

Maglev trains don't have powered bogies or trucks; they have powered
rails, and AIUI switching equipment flicks the fields around to provide
propulsion. See
<URL:http://emt18.blogspot.com/2008/10/maglev-propulsion.html>

Keeping track of what an engine is or what a locomotive is requires a
rulebook (and so can be different for different operators, but the
rulebooks are mostly harmonized). But IIRC, a self-contained power
unit capable of pulling unpowered cars is a locomotive, but an engine
may be several locomotive units operating as one.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

John Varela

2018-06-14 00:04:05 UTC

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:19:33 UTC, Katy Jennison

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).

So it damn well ought to be on this side of the pond <mutter, harrumph,
mutter>.

WIWAL I'd have called them all 'trucks', but I dunno from today.

Over here, a truck is the thing under the car or locomotive that
carries the wheels. Sometimes called a "bogie".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/railroad_truck#/media/File:Bettendorf
_truck_at_Illinois_Railway_Museum.JPG

Hornby

Post by Katy Jennison
seems to call them 'wagons'.
http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm

--
John Varela

Richard Tobin

2018-06-13 13:23:24 UTC

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).

The OED's first (1904) quotation for "train" meaning "locomotive"
is American.

-- Richard

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-06-13 13:54:51 UTC

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

A caboose is a "guard's van" (or "brake van") in BrE. The guard's van
was(/is?) used for carrying luggage/freight which passengers cannot fit
in where they are seated, or doesn't belong to passnegers. The title
"guard" derived from a similar function on a stagecoach:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagecoach#Improved_roads

Joseph Ballard described the stagecoach industry in 1815:

"The stage fare from Manchester to Liverpool, distance forty miles,
is only six shillings. ... Besides the fare in the coach you have
to pay the coachman one shilling per stage of about thirty miles,
and the same to the guard whose business it is to take care of the
luggage, &c. &c. Should the passenger refuse to pay the accustomed
tribute he would inevitably be insulted. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_van

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There are
all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of model
train cars that hobbyists could have.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

John Varela

2018-06-14 00:14:49 UTC

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:54:51 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

No. A caboose was only used on freight trains, and was, like barns,
typically painted red.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caboose

The BrE equivalent is "brake van".

--
John Varela

Peter T. Daniels

2018-06-14 03:25:49 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:54:51 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

No. A caboose was only used on freight trains, and was, like barns,
typically painted red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caboose
The BrE equivalent is "brake van".

Does he never read _anyone_ else's postings?

Snidely

2018-06-14 08:26:32 UTC

Lo, on the 6/13/2018, Peter Duncanson [BrE] did proclaim ...

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A caboose is a "guard's van" (or "brake van") in BrE. The guard's van
was(/is?) used for carrying luggage/freight which passengers cannot fit
in where they are seated, or doesn't belong to passnegers.

In the US, luggage that didn't fit in the overhead (or the shelves at
the end of the car) would be carried in the baggage car. Baggage cars
might also carry mail or express (even before FedEx), although busy
trains might have additional cars for express or mail.

(REA -- Railway Express Agency -- was the major package shipment
handler, and they owned many of the express cars used on passenger
trains)

(the USPS or its predecessor the USPO operated RPOs on some routes, and
these cars included facilities for sorting mail en route. They also
had hooks for picking up the mail at [small] stations on the route that
the train didn't stop at; other trains had sealed cars for pre-sorted
mail only).

(These days, Amtrak has on some routes sealed cars for pre-sorted mail)

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

HVS

2018-06-13 14:13:41 UTC

On 13 Jun 2018, Peter T. Daniels wrote

-snip-

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There
are all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of
model train cars that hobbyists could have.

Goods wagons.

(AIUI, "wagons" with one "g" has always been the spelling in British railway
circles, even when "waggons" was in wide usage.)

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed

Peter Young

2018-06-13 14:46:12 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

BrE "guard" is nearly the same as AmE "conductor". No connection with the
idea of an armed guard. His main job was to operate the secondary brakes
at the back of the train, particularly on the old freight trains which
didn't have braking throughout. I don't think trains in the UK have guards
now, having been replaced by the ticket inspector, now known as "train
manager".

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There are
all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of model
train cars that hobbyists could have.

Not carriages, usually trucks.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Tony Cooper

2018-06-13 15:36:29 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There are
all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of model
train cars that hobbyists could have.

Not carriages, usually trucks.

The "truck", in the US, is the structure under a railroad car that
includes the wheel and axles.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/railroad_truck

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

John Varela

2018-06-14 00:18:11 UTC

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:29 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There are
all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of model
train cars that hobbyists could have.

Not carriages, usually trucks.

The "truck", in the US, is the structure under a railroad car that
includes the wheel and axles.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/railroad_truck

The truck is a unit under the car that carries the wheels and is
capable of turning when the train goes around a curve. The
Wikipedia articl on Caboose includes a picture of a little red
caboose that, like a toy (not model) train, had wheels attached
directly to axles with no truck.

--
John Varela

Richard Yates

2018-06-14 02:15:35 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:29 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Tomorrow, Thusday 14th, The Queen and Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle)
will be jointly attending events in Widnes and Chester (165 miles
northwest of London). They will be travelling overnight on the Royal
train.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-
be-riding-with-the-queen.html
It quotes from various sources including Grant Harrold, former royal
butler to Princes Charles, William and Harry.
The nine-carriage Royal Train was first used in 1840 by Queen
Consort Adelaide (the title given to the wife of King William IV),
who rode the caboose from Nottingham to Leeds, England, according to
Harrold. However, he notes that the first monarch to ride the train
was two years later, when Queen Victoria rode the locomotive from
London to Windsor.
F
"rode the caboose"?!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/caboose
North American A railway wagon with accommodation for the train
crew, typically attached to the end of the train.
I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".
What was King William IV's wife doing in the caboose/guard's van?
And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
The locomotive would have been a steam engine pulling the train. Queen
Victoria is hardly likely to have been travelling in it.
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding of railway terminology
and/or mistranslation from BrE to AmE.

Perhaps they don't have the term 'guard's vans' over there. As for HM

That wouldn't be an American, then, since the "train" is the entire
assemblage of the engine(s) and all the cars ("carriages") being pulled
(and/or pushed).
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There? There are
all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide variety of model
train cars that hobbyists could have.

Not carriages, usually trucks.

The "truck", in the US, is the structure under a railroad car that
includes the wheel and axles.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/railroad_truck

Also called a "bogie": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogie

J. J. Lodder

2018-06-17 08:18:24 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:29 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There?
There are all sorts; see a catalog of Lionel Trains for the wide
variety of model train cars that hobbyists could have.

Not carriages, usually trucks.

The "truck", in the US, is the structure under a railroad car that
includes the wheel and axles.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/railroad_truck

The wheelsets carry the bogie, which carries the bolster,
which carries the wagon, which can rotate a bit on the bogie,

Jan

charles

2018-06-13 16:12:57 UTC

Post by Peter Young
BrE "guard" is nearly the same as AmE "conductor". No connection with the
idea of an armed guard. His main job was to operate the secondary brakes
at the back of the train, particularly on the old freight trains which
didn't have braking throughout. I don't think trains in the UK have
guards now, having been replaced by the ticket inspector, now known as
"train manager".

One of the functions of the guard was to Guard the mail. When I was a
Christmas postman, working at a railway station in Edinburgh (1959), The
guard had to sign for the mailbags we put on the train. There were other
items in the van which he guarded as well.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Janet

2018-06-13 15:26:29 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There?

No. We call the trains freight trains, and they pull wagons not
carriages.

Freight trains used to be known colloquially as goods trains but I've
not heard that term for a while.

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/paulbartlettsrailwaywagons

Janet.

HVS

2018-06-13 19:34:14 UTC

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There?

No. We call the trains freight trains, and they pull wagons not
carriages.
Freight trains used to be known colloquially as goods trains but I've
not heard that term for a while.

I'm not sure that "goods trains" was colloquial - "goods yard" was an
official term (used on Ordnance Surveys), and I always assumed that
the trains in such yards were "goods trains".

(Might have been different in Scotland?)
http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/paulbartlettsrailwaywagons

Post by Janet
Janet.

Katy Jennison

2018-06-13 20:50:34 UTC

Post by HVS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There?

No. We call the trains freight trains, and they pull wagons not
carriages.
Freight trains used to be known colloquially as goods trains but

I've

not heard that term for a while.

I'm not sure that "goods trains" was colloquial - "goods yard" was an
official term (used on Ordnance Surveys), and I always assumed that the
trains in such yards were "goods trains".
(Might have been different in Scotland?)
http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/paulbartlettsrailwaywagons

We called them goods trains in my youth, when we lived next-door-but-one
to a railway cutting, and earlier, in my more extreme youth when I used
to be taken to see the trains at one of the stations in Finchley Road in
Hampstead. We always counted the trucks, and the prize specimens were
the ones which had a hundred trucks or thereabouts (not frequent, but
enough to keep alive the excitement).

The count was always finished with, eg,
"Seventy-nine-and-a-guard's-van!" in a particular cadence.

--
Katy Jennison

Snidely

2018-06-14 08:33:34 UTC

Post by HVS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There?

No. We call the trains freight trains, and they pull wagons not
carriages.
Freight trains used to be known colloquially as goods trains but

I've

not heard that term for a while.

I'm not sure that "goods trains" was colloquial - "goods yard" was an
official term (used on Ordnance Surveys), and I always assumed that the
trains in such yards were "goods trains".
(Might have been different in Scotland?)
http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/paulbartlettsrailwaywagons

We called them goods trains in my youth, when we lived next-door-but-one to a
railway cutting, and earlier, in my more extreme youth when I used to be
taken to see the trains at one of the stations in Finchley Road in Hampstead.
We always counted the trucks, and the prize specimens were the ones which
had a hundred trucks or thereabouts (not frequent, but enough to keep alive
the excitement).
The count was always finished with, eg, "Seventy-nine-and-a-guard's-van!" in
a particular cadence.

Cabeese may be used on a few local freights still, but more often the
conductor and the brakemen just have a seat in the cab of the
locomotive. The most common use of a caboose these days is the office
for an MOW crew (maintenance-of-way).

Various museum and tourist railroads may have a waycar for their
visitors to ride in, if the open cars don't appeal.

/dps "green for BN, yellow for UP, rusty -- er, boxcar red -- for SP"

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

Snidely

2018-06-14 08:35:00 UTC

Post by Snidely
/dps "green for BN, yellow for UP, rusty -- er, boxcar red -- for SP"

Also called "mineral red", not as deep as the "tuscan red" seen back
east.

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

Garrett Wollman

2018-06-14 15:37:29 UTC

Post by Snidely
Cabeese may be used on a few local freights still, but more often the
conductor and the brakemen just have a seat in the cab of the
locomotive. The most common use of a caboose these days is the office
for an MOW crew (maintenance-of-way).

I remember seeing a story -- probably on CBS Sunday Morning -- about
the replacement of cabooses with End-of-Train Devices, which are
nothing more than a terminator and remotely-readable pressure gauge
for the brake line with a marker light. A great deal of what
railroads used to require people for is now completely automated --
one reason why American freight railroads are among the most efficient
in the world at moving large volumes of stuff over land very slowly.

Post by Snidely
/dps "green for BN, yellow for UP, rusty -- er, boxcar red -- for SP"

And ATSF is what, blue?

-GAWollman

Snidely

2018-06-15 08:54:20 UTC

Just this Thursday, Garrett Wollman explained that ...

Post by Snidely
/dps "green for BN, yellow for UP, rusty -- er, boxcar red -- for SP"

And ATSF is what, blue?

No, closer to fire engine red.

/dps

--
Trust, but verify.

Quinn C

2018-06-14 22:14:54 UTC

Post by Katy Jennison
We called them goods trains in my youth, when we lived next-door-but-one
to a railway cutting, and earlier, in my more extreme youth when I used
to be taken to see the trains at one of the stations in Finchley Road in
Hampstead.

I have to remind myself that this is not the same Hampstead that I'll
be moving to in a few weeks. The place names here aren't all that
creative.

The giant railway yard for freight trains is in neighboring
Côte-St-Luc, though, taking up 1/3 of its area.

--
Novels and romances ... when habitually indulged in, exert a
disastrous influence on the nervous system, sufficient to explain
that frequency of hysteria and nervous disease which we find
among the highest classes. -- E.J. Tilt

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-06-15 08:17:23 UTC

I have to remind myself that this is not the same Hampstead that I'll
be moving to in a few weeks. The place names here aren't all that
creative.
The giant railway yard for freight trains is in neighboring
Côte-St-Luc, though, taking up 1/3 of its area.

"Côte-St-Luc" seems reasonably creative to me!

--
athel

Quinn C

2018-06-15 21:40:15 UTC

I have to remind myself that this is not the same Hampstead that I'll
be moving to in a few weeks. The place names here aren't all that
creative.
The giant railway yard for freight trains is in neighboring
Côte-St-Luc, though, taking up 1/3 of its area.

"Côte-St-Luc" seems reasonably creative to me!

It's a French name, so can't be judged from an English perspective. I
actually checked the city website to make sure that I use the official
spelling in English. After all, it's a majority English-speaking town.
It is written as is, following French practice. Just in case: with St
spoken as "Saint" (well, reduced, so "snt").

Tony Cooper

2018-06-13 22:48:28 UTC

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:34:14 +0100, HVS

Post by HVS

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There?

No. We call the trains freight trains, and they pull wagons not
carriages.
Freight trains used to be known colloquially as goods trains but

I've

Post by Janet
not heard that term for a while.

I'm not sure that "goods trains" was colloquial - "goods yard" was an
official term (used on Ordnance Surveys), and I always assumed that
the trains in such yards were "goods trains".

In something close to a serendipitous pairing, just after I read the
posts where "goods trains" was used, I took a reading break and the
first page turned up "goods lift". In a book by an American author,
that would be "freight elevator".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

RH Draney

2018-06-14 02:42:42 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
In something close to a serendipitous pairing, just after I read the
posts where "goods trains" was used, I took a reading break and the
first page turned up "goods lift". In a book by an American author,
that would be "freight elevator".

Sure it wasn't a dumbwaiter?...r

s***@gmail.com

2018-06-14 04:20:07 UTC

Post by RH Draney

Sure it wasn't a dumbwaiter?...r

Depends on whether you're talking dinner at home
or a cafeteria.

/dps

Peter Young

2018-06-13 20:56:41 UTC

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels
BTW, are what we call "freight cars" also "carriages" Over There?

No. We call the trains freight trains, and they pull wagons not
carriages.
Freight trains used to be known colloquially as goods trains but I've
not heard that term for a while.

My daughter uses that term when taking her five year old son to the local
station to watch the goods trains thundering by.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Mark Brader

2018-06-13 18:30:24 UTC