Talk:Railroad car/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Railroad car. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Friends, I require some information on the subject, "The various processes involved in making railway-wagons". Could somebody please add a few pages on this matter in wikipedia or direct me to a webpage which provides some information on the same? I shall be really thankful to you. Please reply on this webpage or at raj_softnet@sify.com

Doesent this article duplicate the coach article. G-Man 22:34, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I view the coach article as more of a disambiguation one, between rail and road coaches. Arwel 22:37, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No; 'coach' only refers to passenger rail vehicles. In addition, the use of 'coach' is problematic since in American usage it only refers to open-plan passenger cars with rows of seats and a central aisle. Sleeping cars, parlor cars, etc etc. are NOT coaches in American railroad parlance.

I also agree with Arwel's point.

If there is overlap it's between this and rolling stock although the terms are not quite interchangeable. In particular rolling stock properly does not cover self-powered load-carrying vehicles (e.g. DMUs, EMUs) while railroad car does.

Unfortunately the railway/railroad world is largely split on terminology between British and American versions (in the English-speaking world, that is). Since railroads grew up after American independence but before good international communication, 'islands' of technical terminology grew up.

Navigating that mess is difficult. As an Englishman living in California I use both sets of terminology. Sometimes it's easy (use American terms for American trains, British terms for British trains) but when talking about common concepts things get more difficult. I try and use both terms when I know them.

--Morven 00:34, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Multiple unit is set

Many multiple unit trains are semi-permanently coupled into sets; these sets may be joined together to form larger trains, but generally passengers can only move around between cars within a set. This 'closed' nature allows the seperate sets to be easily split to go seperate ways. Some multiple-unit trainsets are designed so that corridor connections can be easily opened between coupled sets; this generally requires driving cabs either set off to the side or (as in the Dutch Koploper) above the passenger compartment.

Odd to refer only to multiple unit train, not to multiple unit, which is such a set of railroad cars. - Patrick 00:17, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand your issue, Patrick, but perhaps it would be best to say "multiple cars = set"? Dysprosia 00:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is how I see it. A 'Multiple Unit' is a train containing multiple powered cars all of which are controlled by one driver. When one refers to a 'trainset' (or 'set') one is talking about a semi-permanently arranged formation rather than one created 'ad hoc' out of whatever cars are available.

In most DMU and EMU designs, sets are semi-permanently coupled units (two, three, four or more cars) with driving units at each end and non-driving units in between. These are only broken up and reshuffled 'on shed' (in the maintenance depot). Trains are then built of one or more of these 'sets' coupled together as needed for the capacity of that train.

Some designs of multiple-unit train have driving cabs at both end of every car and thus do not have the concept of 'sets' as above. The Pennsylvania Railroad's MP54 electric cars had this property, for example.

--Morven 00:36, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and there's the conflict between the European view of 'multiple unit' as being a train of self-powered passenger cars, and the American use of 'multiple unit' (normally shortened to 'MU') to mean a consist of locomotives driven from a single cab at the head of a regular passenger or freight train.

--Morven 00:39, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I got caught in an edit conflict with Morven, but I think this proves my case, so I'll paste what I was going to say anyway :)..

_Yes..._, I think there may be a bit of transatlantic terminological confusion creeping in here as to what exactly is a multiple unit, as the quoted text doesn't strike me as easily comprehensible. To take UK usage as an example, consider the class 158 train which is a multiple unit comprising 2 or 3 vehicles (depending on sub-class) permanently coupled together which normally runs as one DMU train of 2 or 3 cars. However more than one 158 (or compatible type of unit) can be attached together (the most I've ever seen in service was 3 3-car units during an Arriva Trains Northern strike day), and the 158 has end doors, so you can walk through from one unit to the next. On the other hand the high speed class 220 and 221 (Virgin Voyagers) which are 4 and 5 cars long respectively, are also DMU's and can be run with two units coupled together, but you can't walk between them as each unit has a pointy end. A set would only be a single DMU unit e.g. "220001 - a 4 vehicle set". -- Arwel 00:46, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Exactly. The 'set' is the 'field divisible unit'; it's multiple cars (any number of which can be powered) which can be considered one unit by anyone but the maintenance depot. When one says 'a class 158', for example, one means the 2 or 3 car set, not an individual car. --Morven 00:53, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So you both seem to confirm that multiple unit is another word for train set, except that at the top Morven seems to say that the whole train consisting of several train sets is called a multiple unit. - Patrick 01:57, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, not quite. A train set does not have to be a multiple unit at all -- in my days some time back as a programmer on TOPS I might refer to set BN91 which was a particular set of 7 or 8 (unpowered) carriages and a driving van trailer at Bounds Green depot in London, to which a locomotive had to be added at the other end from the DVT to make a train. In UK usage, by definition, any train which has a locomotive is not a multiple unit. Best to say that a multiple unit is a particular type of non-locomotive propelled train which is self-powered and can be run in multiple with other units of the same type (and possibly other types) if necessary (which is a definition which caters for the class 153, which is a single vehicle that runs on its own!) -- Arwel 02:46, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Revert

I just reverted Patrick's recent edit since in my opinion the added sentence confused the issue further rather than clarifying. I'll see if I can word things better if I have time later on today (or someone else can feel free). —Morven 16:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

other railroad vehicle

What is that thing called where there are two guys who pump some kind of lever up and down and propel themselves down the railroad?

A handcar. jdb ❋ (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

...which is a type of Maintenance of way vehicle. It's not included in this article because it's not (typically) a revenue-generating car, and it's not one that is coupled to other cars to form a train. slambo 11:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Military cars

I wonder hwat role the gauge differences have played and still play.... remember the invasion of german reich into russia... --Gerfriedc 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Name in English outside North America

I thought we called "items of rolling stock" railway carriages or just carriages?
That's what I and many others in Australia have always called them, and I would assume the same for the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, etc. 203.164.184.10 13:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic mess

The introductory paragraph

A railroad car (or, more briefly, car, not to be confused with railcar), also known as an item of rolling stock by English-speakers outside North America, is a vehicle on a railroad (or railway) that is not a locomotive — one that provides another purpose than purely haulage, although some types of car are powered. Cars can be coupled together into a train, either hauled by a locomotive(s) or self-propelled.

remains, despite (or because of?) the efforts of many contributors, a thorough mess. It tries to be everything to everybody, and fails.

"An item of rolling stock" is hardly, I would submit, an everyday, trip-off-the-tongue "item of vocabulary" in anyone's English... The fact is that US+ "railroad car" equals grosso modo UK+ "railway carriage/wagon". Or to put it the other way round: "railway carriage" = "railroad (passenger) car"; "railway wagon" = "railroad (freight) car". The correspondence is not perfect: it's time to get out the Venn diagrams.

And as for "hauled by a locomotive(s)"... When did you ever hear tell of "a locomotives"? Locomotives, by the way, do not just haul (pull): they often propel (push) too.

I'm not saying I have all of the answers -- but I do have quite a lot of the questions. -- Picapica 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You raise some excellent points, to which I'd add it tries to define what a railroad car is not before it defines what it is. This is the wrong way around: much better to start with a positive definition. I need to think about this; if I can come up with something better I'll suggest it here. I'd love to see any other ideas that anyone else has too! Best, Gwernol 21:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about the following for the opening paragraphs:

A railroad car — also known, especially in the UK, as an item of "rolling stock" — is a vehicle designed to carry passengers or freight by rail. The term is sometimes abbreviated to car. Cars can be coupled together to form a train which is moved by a locomotive or is self-propelled.

Most cars carry a revenue-generating load, although there are specialized non-revenue cars for the railroad's own use such as Maintenance of Way vehicles. The two principle revenue generating uses for cars are the carriage of passengers by passenger cars or coaches, and of freight by freight cars or wagons.

I think this is clearer? Comments welcome, obviously. Gwernol 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Gwernol. Am working on a version too, but will have to post that and my comments later (my lunch-hour is up now!) -- Picapica 12:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, the main problems with this article as I see them are --

1) "Railroad car" as a term encompassing both passenger and freight railway vehicles is essentially AmE*: it can be translated only periphrastically into BrE*. "A boulder the size of a railroad car" is imaginable, both as an idea and as a sentence. "A boulder the size of an item of railway rolling stock" just sounds comical! In my view, the article should therefore simply go ahead and deal expressly with the American concept -- while not neglecting to explain that it is American, and (foot)noting BrE usage. [* shorthand for US+Canadian, UK+Australian, etc.]

2) We already have a pretty thorough Wp article dealing with the "Passenger car" (although it does fail to mention that in BrE "passenger car" is as likely as not to be taken to mean "automobile"!), and there is accordingly some degree of duplication in what appears in the present "Railroad car" article. We don't, though, have a separate article for "Freight car", which redirects here. Ideally, the "freight car" information here should form the basis of a new, separate article, parallel to that dealing with passenger cars. Once that has been done, "Railroad car" ought to be no more than a one- or two-paragraph explanation of the term pointing to the substantial entries for "Passenger car" (railway carriage/coach, etc.) and "Freight car" (railway wagon/van, etc.)

The new article would begin with something like:

Railroad car is a term used in American English to denote a vehicle – such as a passenger car, freight car, or railcar trailer – running exclusively on rails but (unlike a locomotive or railcar) not capable of moving under its own power.

In British English, such vehicles are generally known as railway coaches or carriages when designed for passenger use, and as railway wagons when used to convey freight.

There would then be "See also"s for Passenger car, Freight car, etc. What do you think? -- Picapica 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you bring up some important ideas here. I agree that "railroad car" is an AmE term. However the notion of a railway vehicle, whether it is for passengers or freight, is common on both sides of the Atlantic. I agree that "A boulder the size of an item of railway rolling stock" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue :-) However in the UK people do refer to "rolling stock". However the BrE term "rolling stock" includes locomotives, while as you point out "railroad car" means every type of rail-borned vehicle except locos.

Actually the more I think about this, the more I like your proposal. We create the article Freight car with content from this article. We then make this article about the AmE term "railroad car" with an introductory paragraph or two and links to Passenger car and Freight car. We also create Rolling Stock which is a para or two on the BrE term that links to Passenger car, Freight car and Locomotive.

By the way, I think I'm right in saying that in US terminology a railcar is considered to be a railroad car. In other words your proposed paragraph would need to change a little. How about:

Railroad car is a term used in American English to denote any vehicle that runs exclusively on rails with the exception of locomotives. Railroad cars may carry passengers or freight. Other types of railroad car include railcars and maintenence of way vehicles.

Wikipedia rules

I remember reading somewhere in Wikipedia that the rules state that, an invention should be called what the country of origin terms it. Surely you will admit that railways as we know them were invented in Britain? therefore Rolling Stock or Railway coaches would be a more appropriate term Oxyman

The article Rolling stock

It seems that the article is a small stub, and talks about the same subject as this article (Railroad car). Moreover, {{Train topics}} links to this article with a link captioned 'rolling stock'. I think this should be amended. Either the other article should be turned into a redirect, or it should be expanded and the link on the template should be changed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Not moved. There seems to be strong opposition to the move and little support. Kyle Barbour 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Railroad car → Rolling stock — Railroad car makes little sense outside the USA, In Britain a car would mean a passenger carrying vehicle, a freight vehicle would be called a wagon. I recognize the term does not cover railcars or multiple units but feel that these are well catered for in their existing separate articles. —Oxyman 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

I must say, I oppose this move. I've never even heard the term rolling stock before. Per WP:ENGVAR, we use the term first coined when the article was created, unless you can give a significant reason why not. Part Deux 07:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose because rolling stock refers to all equipment (including locomotives), not just the cars. This article does not include any detail about locomotives because that information is covered elsewhere. Slambo (Speak) 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Comment: actually the rolling stock article is wrong - in my experience (over 20 years working for British Rail) the term "rolling stock" does not include locomotives - the usual phrase is "locomotives and rolling stock" or "traction and rolling stock (T&RS)", see for example this item in Janes' catalogue. -- Arwel (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
'Oppose per Slambo. But most importantly, we should keep the article at the original spelling to reduce AME/BE conflicts. 205.157.110.11 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Slambo. Rolling stock certainly does include locomotives, for example see London Underground rolling stock and Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock, as well as several dictionaries. Kahuzi 01:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Checked Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990 edition), which defines "rolling-stock" to include locomotives. Kahuzi 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries are descriptivist, not prescriptivist. In this case the dictionary simply does not reflect the usage which is current in the (UK) railway industry. -- Arwel (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
But trade journals such as Railway Age and railfan/modelling/history periodicals like Railroad History and Trains do reflect usage in the industry. In those journals, which I read regularly, rolling stock includes locomotives. Slambo (Speak) 11:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please Note that in Britain the "ROSCOs" (Rolling Stock Companies) lease locomotives as well as other rolling stock to the Train Operating Companies. So it is not true to say that current usage of the term "rolling stock" in the (UK) railway industry excludes locomotives. On the contrary, it includes everything that runs on the rails. Kahuzi 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please also note that, while this discussion is going on, a User:G-Man has changed the wording of the article Rolling stock to exclude locomotives.Kahuzi 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree that UK usage, at least in some circles, definitely includes locomotives and other powered vehicles in the category "rolling stock". Its certainly common usage amongst the heritage railway communities I am part of. The example of the Ffestiniog Railway has already been brought up, a railway company that predates British Rail by over one hundred years. Gwernol 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As Ynhockey notes below, there is a content forking issue here. Failing a page move, there should probably be some sort of a merge that takes place. If rolling stock refers to both locomotives and "railroad cars", maybe a disambiguation page is in order over there. Dekimasu が... 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Autotrain

Discussion moved here from the article:

Auto Trains. A comfortable, affordable way to travel with your car. Avoiding traffic tieups and high gasoline costs, they offer either sleeping quarters or couchettes for long trips. While available in Europe they are not yet in service in the United States except in Washington, D.C. and some parts of Florida and Virginia. Why? Possibly because car rental in the United States is relatively cheap (around $40 or less per day in most areas), and the distances traveled are more suitably covered by air travel. Also, passenger rail service is not very popular in the United States.

Further discussion should take place here. If an encyclopedic and well referenced paragraph can be made of this, then it could be added to the article in a more appropriate location. Slambo (Speak) 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Car vs. Carriage and Truck

In the USA its called cars, while in the UK its called Carraiges and Trucks. OK? Fila943 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Car vs Carriage

Last comment is incorrect. Merseyrail describe their train formations as either 3 or 6 car on their information displays at stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stethomson90 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OP-14526.jpg

The image Image:OP-14526.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)