Are the terms "locomotive" and "engine" interchanable?
For example, is the NKP 765 a steam engine or a steam locomotive or both? What about diesels? Diesel engine or diesel locomotive or both?
In speaking, "engine" is shorter and probably used more. But what about in writing? Is using "locomotive" affected?
Any preferences?
I beleive it works like this, at least as far as steam lcomotives are concerned.
The whole unit is referred to as a "locomotive." Correctly, the "engine" part is the pistons, valves, drivers, rods, et al under the boiler.
However for simplicity's sake most people, myself included, just call it a steam engine and let it go at that.
Going further in correct useage, an "engine" is something that generates it's own power for operation, for example a gasolene engine or a diesel engine. A "motor" utilizes an outside power source, think electric motor.
However, I don't think anyone splits hairs over this, "motor" and "engine" being used pretty much interchangeably.
Diesels? Well, in a diesel locomotive there's the diesel engine itself, the alternator that generates the electricity, and the electric motors on the axles, simply put.
Diesel locomotive, diesel engine, what you call it really doesn't matter I suppose. It's just a diesel.
Flintlock76Diesels? Diesel locomotive, diesel engine, it doesn't matter.
There are those who refer to them as "motors," especially in the electric railroad world. I've heard the term motor used with respect to Diesels, too.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Right. It wasn't unusual for electric locomotives, think the GG1, to be referred to as "motors" back in the old days. I haven't heard of diesel locomotives being referred to as "motors" myself, but I guess it's possible.
I do know some old steam hands contemptuously referred to diesel locomotives as "streetcars" when they began to show up on the property!
As I recall, at least one engineer on the Seaboard referred to his new engine (in December, 1965), as a "motor." I had gotten off when #6 stopped in Athens, Ga., walked up to the head end--and the engineer invited me to step aboard his motor. I declined because I did not want anybody to get into trouble.
Johnny
I think it depends on the company. The CB&Q called their diesels 'motors'. I think this goes back to the days of doodle bugs and those articulated Zephyr trains.
They also referred to cabooses a 'waycars', and ground level dwarf signals as 'pot' signals.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
As long as they work as intended - real railroaders don't really care what they are called. However, when they stop working as intended the language gets more 'colorful'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The distinction between 'engine' and 'locomotive' with respect to diesel-electrics is often solved by referring to the diesel motor as the 'prime mover' to distinguish it unequivocally from the use of 'engine' as shorthand for 'locomotive'.
I always considered the early use of 'motor' (to mean diesel locomotive) as being shorthand for 'motor locomotive' -- much as the early word for 'automobile' was "motor" (short for motorcar, and it survives in the names General Motors and Ford Motor Company). The use with reference to electrics has 'teeth' in Pennsylvania Railroad practice (where Philadelphia semanticists didn't think 'locomotive' applied to tractive power that drew its energy from far away). One must however look at what the people operating PRR electrics called themselves when driving 'motors' and that term certainly wasn't 'motorman' on the PRR electrification itself, no matter what LIRR might have called the position. Or whether the vehicle in question was a Metroliner...
"Locomotive" was always a peculiar term to call the thing in the first place. That's scarcely rare when new technologies require names for what become their common nouns. We have 'cassettes' but don't call them 'compact cassettes', but we don't refer to CDs as anything but 'compact discs'. Or for that matter we have nothing but hard disks and nothing but disc brakes.
It may not be fully 'accurate' to call the thing that pulls a given train a 'locomotive' but we all know the thing meant. The term I think about using at times is the metonym 'the power' or 'motive power' with the (more-or-less implicit) understanding that it refers to the same thing.
Then there was the division of General Motors that was devoted to the construction of diesel power -
Electro-Motive Division (formerly and lately "Diesel" instead), more commonly known by its acronym as EMD. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-Motive_Diesel
And someone way back when (John W. Barriger?) wanted to call electric locomotives "electromotives".
- PDN.
Formerly EMC (either corporation or Company)
charlie hebdoFormerly EMC (either corporation or Company)
Yes, and all the way up to the GM acquisition their predominant product was gasoline engined vehicles. "Electro-Motive" is an adjective and referred to the transmission; it is not a construction parallel to 'locomotive'
Then there was the GE 'Steamotive' project, the glorious 5000hp two-unit steam turbine-electric. Had to distinguish it from "conventional" old steam locomotives, of course. (This was from the era that gave us "Boxpok" as a trade name for centers with square-section spokes, and implicitly expected we'd figure out how to pronounce it correctly...)
I've always wondered about that Overmod, just HOW do you pronounce "Boxpok?"
"Box-pock" or "Box-spoke"? Don't want to embarass myself if the subject ever comes up. I've never heard the word in causal conversation with other steam freaks. Maybe they don't want to emabarass themselves either?
It's Thirties advertising 'simplified spelling' -- ALWAYS "box-spoke". (Because, you know, that's what they are.) You give yourself away as fast with that 'other' pronunciation* as you would if you pronounced 'Reading' as in the act of siderohippological periodical perusal.
*In the interest of fair disclosure, I said 'boxpock' with the best of them until I was in my thirties, and changed only when I started looking at the goofy word hard and saw the hidden 'box spoke' in there... I suppose it is no more "wrong" than referring to a simple articulated as a Mallet; you get significant cred just for realizing what part of railroading Boxpok refers to.
Overmod*In the interest of fair disclosure, I said 'boxpock' with the best of them until I was in my thirties, and changed only when I started looking at the goofy word hard and saw the hidden 'box spoke' in there... I suppose it is no more "wrong" than referring to a simple articulated as a Mallet; you get significant cred just for realizing what part of railroading Boxpok refers to.
They coulda left the "e" on the end of "boxpok." I always thought this was a case entrapment.
And I still want to pronounce "mallet" as if it were a type of hammer.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Ahhh, "box-SPOKE!" Thank you Overmod! Now I can sleep at night!
And Paul, when I was a boy I had a box of locomotive flash cards where I first saw the term "mallet." I thought it was "mal-LET" like the hammer as well! Made sense to me at the time, I figured they called it that because it "hammered" the rails. Eight years old, what did I know?
Locomotive or heavy hammer? Context, contetx.
There are many words like that.
jrbernier I think it depends on the company. The CB&Q called their diesels 'motors'. I think this goes back to the days of doodle bugs and those articulated Zephyr trains. They also referred to cabooses a 'waycars', and ground level dwarf signals as 'pot' signals. Jim
CGW also used "motor" for their diesels. I'll have to check when I get home, but I think either term, engine or motor, was authorized for use in train orders. There's a few co-workers who call them motors, too.
We also call the dwarf signals "pot" signals.
Jeff
I have been told by several managers that in Canada the term "dwarf" is no longer to be used, at the risk of offending certain citizens. "Low-Mast signal" is the new name.
But I have yet to see this in writing from any official source, so it may be a joke that has taken on a life of its own.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
jeffhergertWe also call the dwarf signals "pot" signals. Jeff
Dwarf and Pot were used interchangeably during my career.
The question of "engine" or "locomotive" gets a little interesting in the case of articulateds which have two engines or, in the case of Triplexes (or is that Triplici?), having three engines per locomotive.
ChuckAllen, TX
NKP guyAre the terms "locomotive" and "engine" interchanable?
From the dictionary--Motive power: any power used to impart motion to machinery; any source of mechanical energy.
Technicalities aside, rule books often use "Engine" and not "Locomotive".
1962UCOR definition of "Engine" as used throughout the rulebook:
"A unit propelled by any form of energy, or a combination of such units operated from a single control, used in train or yard service."
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
cefinkjr The question of "engine" or "locomotive" gets a little interesting in the case of articulateds which have two engines or, in the case of Triplexes (or is that Triplici?), having three engines per locomotive.
Very true for steam locomotives -er- reciprocating steam locomotives. In power plant parlance, steam "engine" meant a reciprocating engine, where a steam turbine was specifically called a turbine.
FWIW, a steam locomotive was originally called a "locomotive engine" which then got shortened to locomotive over time.
To me, an engine is something that burns fuel, releases energy, and uses the energy to do work. Whereas a motor gets its energy from somewhere else; hence a GG1 is a "motor," as it gets its juice from the catenary.
Not sure the above is technically correct, but that's how I have always thought about it.
I follow auto racing. In England it is usually called "motor racing," which I think is incorrect. And our own most famous track is "Indianapolis Motor Speedway." Also incorrect? ??
Diesel locomotives have engines and (traction) motors.
Having said all that, I usually refer to steamers, electrics and diesels all as railroad "engines!"
Still in training.
LithoniaOperator To me, an engine is something that burns fuel, releases energy, and uses the energy to do work. Whereas a motor gets its energy from somewhere else; hence a GG1 is a "motor," as it gets its juice from the catenary. Not sure the above is technically correct, but that's how I have always thought about it. I follow auto racing. In England it is usually called "motor racing," which I think is incorrect. And our own most famous track is "Indianapolis Motor Speedway." Also incorrect? ?? Diesel locomotives have engines and (traction) motors. Having said all that, I usually refer to steamers, electrics and diesels all as railroad "engines!"
LithoniaOperatorYes. In two books I am currently reading, articulateds are said to have two or three engines; I think that each pair of cylinders, along with their respective drivers, rods, valve gear, etc. is one "engine."
That is standard practice when referring to reciprocating locomotives, and serves to 'disambiguate' the terms 'engine' and 'locomotive in discussions of locomotive technology. I think we have covered the importance of context in the semantics of this distinction in threads here in the past, but I bring the issue up again here. I assume one of the books you're reading is Wiener, and if I recall correctly he has a section on the use of 'engine' that covers the distinction we use.
It's much the same with the evolution of 'engine' and 'motor'. An engine, of course, could be any piece of complicated apparatus, the 'enginer' in Shakespeare certainly had little to do with steam, no matter how much he did with compressed combustion products! [Note the semantic etymological difference between 'engine' and 'machine'] Likewise a 'motor' is a device that imparts driving force, as in the old Masonic phrase 'so mote it be' (which means the same as Picard's 'make it so', for the Trekkies here. Peter will know if English boats still have motors, not engines. (And when was the last time you heard someone talk about an 'outboard engine'?)
The word in "Motor racing" is following the use I described earlier, shorthand for 'motorcar' (itself derived from self-propulsion in a far better term than the contemporary 'horseless carriage'.
Note that in reciprocating-locomotive discussions a 'motor locomotive' means something very specific: a locomotive or 'engine' in which multiple-cylinder motors drive the axles. This is more than a little by back-formation from "motor" in automotive practice, where the thing is usually integrated as a power unit whether it is steam- or combustion-gas actuated. As noted, it's an interesting convention that turbine drive of any kind is never referred to as 'motor'.
Be careful with the 'two cultures' here: locomotive people use some words very differently from the humanists on certain grammar sites...
I have never heard a railroad employee refer to the internal combustion machine that pulls trains as a “locomotive.” They have always referred to it as an “engine.” “Engine” is not just confined to the machine under the hood. The term is handy because it rolls off the tongue. “Locomotive” is just too much of a mouthful. Also, as a side note, if you notice, it is common for people to call a locomotive a locomoitive. They see that “o” and “i”, and put them together like “ointment.”
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.