Discussion:
Odd use of railway train terminology
(too old to reply)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-13 11:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
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.

It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:

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"?!

As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
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.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-13 11:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 12:14:36 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> 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.
> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
> 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.
>
> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>
> 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"?!
>
> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 04:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 12:14:36 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
>> 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.
>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>> 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.
>>
>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>>
>> 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"?!
>>
>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>> 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.

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

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:30 +0100,
Peter Duncanson [BrE] <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> 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. One of the reports about this is
> on the (US) CNBC website:
> 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.
>
> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>
> 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"?!

> And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 12:44:38 UTC+1, Theodore Heise wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:30 +0100,
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> > 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. One of the reports about this is
> > on the (US) CNBC website:
> > 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.
> >
> > It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
> >
> > 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"?!
>
> > And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/13/2018 7:44 AM, Theodore Heise wrote:
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>> 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. One of the reports about this is
>> on the (US) CNBC website:
>> 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.

>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:

>> 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"?!

>> And "Queen Victoria rode the locomotive"?!

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> 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.
> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
> 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.
>
> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>
> 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"?!
>
> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> 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
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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13 Jun 2018 Katy Jennison <***@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:

> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> 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.
>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>> 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.
>>
>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>>
>> 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"?!
>>
>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>> 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
> 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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/06/2018 13:32, Peter Young wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2018 Katy Jennison <***@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>>>
>>> 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"?!
>>>
>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>>> 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
>> 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.
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13 Jun 2018 Katy Jennison <***@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:

> On 13/06/2018 13:32, Peter Young wrote:
>> On 13 Jun 2018 Katy Jennison <***@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>>>>
>>>> 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"?!
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/13/2018 08:32 AM, Peter Young wrote:

>>> 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.
>>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>>>
>>> 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"?!
>>>
>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>>> 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
>> 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.
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Perce 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".

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> > 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.
> > One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
> > 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.
> >
> > It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
> >
> > 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"?!
> >
> > As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> > 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

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.)

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/06/2018 13:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

>>> "rode the caboose"?!
>>>
>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>>> 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
>
> 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.)
>
>> 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).

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

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 9:19:37 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 13:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> >>> "rode the caboose"?!
> >>>
> >>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> >>> 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
> >
> > 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.)
> >
> >> 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).
>
> So it damn well ought to be on this side of the pond <mutter, harrumph,
> mutter>.
>
> > 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.
Quinn C
2018-06-13 21:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 9:19:37 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 13:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

--
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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > * 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.

/dps "AC or DC? Yes"
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-14 10:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > > * 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?

> /dps "AC or DC? Yes"
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-14 11:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 11:58:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > > > * 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?
>

No, a difference engine is something else entirely.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-14 13:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:41:33 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 11:58:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > > > > * 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?
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:41:31 UTC, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 11:58:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > > > > * 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 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".

> No, a difference engine is something else entirely.

Bravo!

--
John Varela
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-15 08:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-06-15 01:55:46 +0000, John Varela said:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:41:31 UTC, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 14 June 2018 11:58:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * 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 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".
>
>> No, a difference engine is something else entirely.

What about sorting engines?
>
> Bravo!


--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-15 10:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 14 June 2018 11:58:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> > > > * 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?
>>
>
>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * 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.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-14 13:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:22:59 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * 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.

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

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/14/18 7:48 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:22:59 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * 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.
>
> Those would be attended to by motoreers rather than engineers, no?
>
>> In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
>> to mention common usage.
>
> And they have an engine up front (usually).

Yes.

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pg2vg0$odj$***@news.albasani.net>,
Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 6/14/18 7:48 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> 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

--
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)
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-16 19:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/16/18 10:30 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <pg2vg0$odj$***@news.albasani.net>,
> Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 6/14/18 7:48 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> 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?)

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.

> Next lesson: "series" and "parallel".

As in "winding"?

--
Jerry Friedman
charles
2018-06-16 19:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pg3phs$m6r$***@news.albasani.net>,
Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/18 10:30 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <pg2vg0$odj$***@news.albasani.net>,
> > Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/14/18 7:48 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> 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?)

> 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.


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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pg3phs$m6r$***@news.albasani.net>,
Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 6/16/18 10:30 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:

>> 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

--
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)
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-17 08:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 6/16/18 10:30 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <pg2vg0$odj$***@news.albasani.net>,
> > Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/14/18 7:48 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> 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?)
>
> 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.
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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:18:23 GMT, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
wrote:
[]
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@85.214.115.223>,
Kerr-Mudd,John <***@invalid.org> wrote:

>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:58:24 GMT, ***@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
wrote:

> In article <***@85.214.115.223>,
> Kerr-Mudd,John <***@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <***@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-06-17 08:18:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

>
> [ … ]
>
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 6/16/18 10:30 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <pg2vg0$odj$***@news.albasani.net>,
> > Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/14/18 7:48 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> 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?)
>
> 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.

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

[car electric motors]
>
>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 06:23:28 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 6/14/18 7:48 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:22:59 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> * 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.
>>
>> Those would be attended to by motoreers rather than engineers, no?
>>
>>> In American law, though, gasoline-powered cars are motor vehicles. Not
>>> to mention common usage.
>>
>> And they have an engine up front (usually).
>
>Yes.
>
>> 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
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/DieselElectricLocomotiveSchematic.svg/950px-DieselElectricLocomotiveSchematic.svg.png

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Dingbat
2018-06-15 00:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 5:52:59 PM UTC+5:30, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * 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.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-15 08:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-06-15 00:00:20 +0000, Dingbat said:

> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 5:52:59 PM UTC+5:30, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * 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.)


--
athel
Peter Young
2018-06-15 09:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15 Jun 2018 Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2018-06-15 00:00:20 +0000, Dingbat said:

>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 5:52:59 PM UTC+5:30, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> * 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.)

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2018-06-15 00:00:20 +0000, Dingbat said:
>
>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 5:52:59 PM UTC+5:30, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> * 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?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Wolff
2018-06-15 13:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <***@peterduncanson.net>
posted:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-06-15 00:00:20 +0000, Dingbat said:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 5:52:59 PM UTC+5:30, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/18 4:58 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:19:09 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:24:43 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>> * 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 4:32:00 PM UTC+5:30, PeterWD wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Duncanson [BrE] <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:19:04 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
> >On 2018-06-15 00:00:20 +0000, Dingbat said:

> >> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * 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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:42:11 -0400, Quinn C
<***@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * 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.
>
>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * 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.
>
> 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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:41:46 UTC, Tony Cooper
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >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".

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.

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15 Jun 2018 23:36:38 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:41:46 UTC, Tony Cooper
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >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".
>
>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!".


>> 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
Mack A. Damia
2018-06-16 01:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>> 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.

But paranormally?
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-16 11:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:19:49 AM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 16 June 2018 12:46:41 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:19:49 AM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> > >On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> > >> 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.
> >
> > 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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 05:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 16 June 2018 12:46:41 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:19:49 AM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>> > >On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>
>> > >> 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.
>> >
>> > 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.
>
>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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>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 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-06-16 19:26:09 +0000, Mack A. Damia said:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 09:44:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2018-06-16 19:26:09 +0000, Mack A. Damia said:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 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
Tony Cooper
2018-06-17 16:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:00:11 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 09:44:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-06-16 19:26:09 +0000, Mack A. Damia said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 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.

*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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:25:50 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:00:11 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 09:44:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> ><***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2018-06-16 19:26:09 +0000, Mack A. Damia said:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:41:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
> >>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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 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.

> *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
Permalink
Raw Message
Tony Cooper <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:12:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
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
Permalink
Raw Message
* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:34:40 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:34:40 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:36:15 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:34:40 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:02:22 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>>>> * 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > 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?

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, Quinn C queried:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 9:19:37 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2018 13:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:19:33 UTC, Katy Jennison
<***@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:

> On 13/06/2018 13:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> >>> "rode the caboose"?!
> >>>
> >>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> >>> 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
> >
> > 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.)
> >
> >> 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).
>
> So it damn well ought to be on this side of the pond <mutter, harrumph,
> mutter>.
>
> > 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.

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
> seems to call them 'wagons'.
>
> http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/clearance.htm
>


--
John Varela
Richard Tobin
2018-06-13 13:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <85e4f27b-9ed2-47ea-965c-***@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

>> 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).

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

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-13 13:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>> > One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>> >
>> > 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"?!
>> >
>> > As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>> > 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
>
>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.)

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

>
>> 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.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
John Varela
2018-06-14 00:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:54:51 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >
> >> > 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.
> >> > One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
> >> >
> >> > 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"?!
> >> >
> >> > As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> >> > 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
> >
> >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.)
>
> 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

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:14:52 PM UTC-4, John Varela wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:54:51 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> > >> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> > >
> > >> > 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.
> > >> > One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
> > >> > 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.
> > >> >
> > >> > It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
> > >> >
> > >> > 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"?!
> > >> >
> > >> > As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> > >> > 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
> > >
> > >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.)
> >
> > 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
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Lo, on the 6/13/2018, Peter Duncanson [BrE] did proclaim ...

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13 Jun 2018, Peter T. Daniels wrote

-snip-


> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13 Jun 2018 "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

>>> 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.
>>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>>>
>>> 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"?!
>>>
>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>>> 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

> 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.)

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".

>> 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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:46:12 +0100, Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 13 Jun 2018 "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>>>>
>>>> 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"?!
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>>>> 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
>
>> 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.)
>
>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".
>
>>> 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.
>
>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:29 UTC, Tony Cooper
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:46:12 +0100, Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Jun 2018 "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> >>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >
> >>>> 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.
> >>>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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"?!
> >>>>
> >>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> >>>> 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
> >
> >> 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.)
> >
> >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".
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> >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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Jun 2018 00:18:11 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:29 UTC, Tony Cooper
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:46:12 +0100, Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 13 Jun 2018 "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 8:13:23 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> >>> On 13/06/2018 12:14, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>>> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It gives some information about the history of the rayal train:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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"?!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
>> >>>> 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
>> >
>> >> 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.)
>> >
>> >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".
>> >
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> >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.

Also called a "bogie": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogie
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-17 08:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
John Varela <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:29 UTC, Tony Cooper
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:46:12 +0100, Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk>
> > wrote:

> > >> 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.

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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Peter Young
<***@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <85e4f27b-9ed2-47ea-965c-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net says...
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:26:29 +0100, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
> In article <85e4f27b-9ed2-47ea-965c-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@verizon.net says...
> > 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


> Janet.
Katy Jennison
2018-06-13 20:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/06/2018 20:34, HVS wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:26:29 +0100, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
>> In article <85e4f27b-9ed2-47ea-965c-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> ***@verizon.net says...
>> > 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Katy Jennison noted that:
> On 13/06/2018 20:34, HVS wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:26:29 +0100, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
>>> In article <85e4f27b-9ed2-47ea-965c-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>> ***@verizon.net says...
>>> > 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
Permalink
Raw Message
on 6/14/2018, Snidely supposed :

> /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
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@snitoo>,
Snidely <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

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

And ATSF is what, blue?

-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)
Snidely
2018-06-15 08:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just this Thursday, Garrett Wollman explained that ...
> In article <***@snitoo>,
> Snidely <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> /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
Permalink
Raw Message
* 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-06-14 22:14:54 +0000, Quinn C said:

> * 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.

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


--
athel
Quinn C
2018-06-15 21:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
* Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> On 2018-06-14 22:14:54 +0000, Quinn C said:
>
>> * 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.
>
> "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").

--
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
2018-06-13 22:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:34:14 +0100, HVS
<***@REMOVE-THISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:26:29 +0100, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:
>> In article <85e4f27b-9ed2-47ea-965c-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> ***@verizon.net says...
>> > 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".
>
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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/13/2018 3:48 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 7:43:44 PM UTC-7, RH Draney wrote:
> On 6/13/2018 3:48 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > 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

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

/dps
Peter Young
2018-06-13 20:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13 Jun 2018 Janet <***@home.com> wrote:

> In article <85e4f27b-9ed2-47ea-965c-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@verizon.net says...
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Duncanson:
> One of the reports about this is on the (US) CNBC website:
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/inside-the-royal-train-meghan-markle-will-be-riding-with-the-queen.html
...
> 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"?!
>
> As I understand it "caboose" is as defined here:
> 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.

It's missing one key word. Until they were made mostly unnecessary
by new automation around the start of this century, cabooses were
typically attached to the end of *freight* trains. You'd never see
one on a passenger train.

> I think in BrE that would be "guard's van".

Yes. Or in 1840, before the era of continuous brakes, the term
"brake van" would also be used.

> 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.

Ignorance. Someone who thinks "train" and "locomotive" are synonyms.

Dignitaries do get to ride with a train's driver/engineer/motorman
on special occasions sometimes, and maybe even operate the controls
under supervision -- one notable case was the opening day of the first
subway line in New York. But that, of course, was an electric train.
I haven't heard of any cases of royalty doing it on a steam train
and I'm sure Victoria would not have wanted to.

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/McClellan_Motorman_of_First_Subway_Train_(1904)

--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The only proven use of antimatter is the production
***@vex.net | of Nobel Prizes in physics." -- Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Loading...