When referring to what pulls freight and passenger cars which word is more fitting, engine or locomotive?
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Experinced both in use by working railroaders. Another term often used is "power." On the New York area electrfied lines, an electric locomotive was often called a "motor." And on some lines in the early days of dielelization, both locomotive and engine were reserved for steam, with diesels called motors.
Whenever I hear CSX call engines in Selkirk (for fuel), they always refer to them as "power". Up here, I hardly hear any term referring to engines other then the railroad and the #. I believe locomotive is the proper term both for prototype and model, power is the one most often used by professional (railroaders and railfans), and engines is a term less proper but also used quite commonly. Just my opinion.
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
BoydWhen referring to what pulls freight and passenger cars which word is more fitting, engine or locomotive?
Over on the diesel side, to disambiguate 'diesel engine' meaning the motor inside from 'Diesel engine ' as a term for locomotive, the words 'prime mover' are often used.
Personally, I think context can be important when using 'engine' vs. 'locomotive'. Perhaps it's more a habit of 'people of a certain age' to refer to diesel locomotives simply as 'diesels' (perhaps as opposed to 'steamers') or to call them 'units' (there is some argument whether this is Dilworth's 'building block' sense or the word applied to a complex self-contained assembly like 'A/C unit' -- but everyone knows what is meant.
When I was little I looked at it a bit like 'plane' vs. 'aircraft' -- simple vs. a bit more complex and 'fancified' in language. But I have never had a problem calling a self-contained diesel-powered unit a 'locomotive'.
The problem with calling a diesel a 'motor' is that it mixes up a couple of traditions. Classically an electric 'locomotive' was called a 'motor' instead because it did not develop its 'power' internally (hence the slightly disparaging term 'motorman' instead of 'engineer', but this is obviously not the case for a diesel. On the other hand, in ships there is a clear distination between 'steamships' (or SS) and motorships (MS) and this could be applied to railroad power just as to boats...
I always thought that a locomotive was a vehicle capable of propelling a train of cars without propulsion whereas an engine was the assemblage of pistons, valves, rods and cranks that converted steam or air pressure that supplied the propulsion.
A car or a diesel locomotive contains an engine. Such an engine is sometimes called a motor, but generally speaking, it is either an internal combustion engine (gasoline or diesel, piston or turbine), or external combustion engine (mostly steam, but there are rare applications of external combustion Stirling or Ericsson air-cycle engines). A device for converting electric to mechanical power is properly called a motor as is an electric locomotive on occasion.
A steam locomotive, on the other hand, is mostly an engine with a boiler on top, hence the wide usage of steam engine. The term engine can also refer to the pistons, valves, rods and cranks portion of a steam locomotive, especially on a locomotive with divided drive said to have two engines or maybe two engine sets.
A multiplicty of locomotive units is a consist. Is it a CONsist or a conSIST? No one knows.
Whatever you do, don't call it a lashup
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Call it what you want, it really doesn't matter.
A bit of trivia. In Dicken's novel "A Christmas Carol" Scrooge spots what Dickens called "a locomotive hearse" rolling up the stairs of his house. Making a long story short, in the English of the time "locomotive" was a synonym for "self-propelled," in this case the ghostly hearse moving without any horses pulling it.
I prefer engine because that is the term used in all the rule books that I am aware of. Engine is defined and used in the rule books, locomotive is not.
Mac
Paul MilenkovicA multiplicty of locomotive units is a consist. Is it a CONsist or a conSIST? No one knows.
Unfortunately or fortunately, Kalmbach was an early and somewhat enthusiastic adopter of the term for any 'team' of locomotives under a common set of 'reins' -- as with some other things, it's a railfan-side use, and needs to be used with the usual caution (see 'Blomberg truck' for example) that those things sometimes need to get.
When I broke into the industry in 1965, the 1953 B&O rule book that was still in effect referred to the device that pulled trains as ENGINE. In Train Orders it would be appreviated as 'ENG' (Train Orders - when typed had to be typed in all caps, by rule - Billing typewriters on the railroad only had capital letters). In 1965 and thereafter the B&O was still operating Budd RDC cars - the lead car of multiples was referred to as ENG.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
PNWRMNMI prefer engine because that is the term used in all the rule books that I am aware of. Engine is defined and used in the rule books, locomotive is not.
Of course if you want the English pedant's resolution, you note that 'locomotive', like mother, is only half a word. That it is an adjective should get you thinking as to why, when 'locomotion' is established back into the 15th century as how to 'move from place to place'. And the actual original term is enlightening: the things are 'locomotive ENGINES' ('engines' also being the earlier meaning of 'contrivance' or 'motor' in the 'so mote it be' sense... see how this starts coming together etymologically?
By comparison, the common word for passenger train for many years was 'the cars', a clipping of 'steam cars', itself an abridgment of the sense of 'cars' as things requiring propulsion -- note the need to distinguish 'self propelled railcar' etc. from the popular use of 'cars' to mean steam trains. And the use of 'motorcar' to describe a vehicle driven by a self-contained power plant (regardless of whether internal-or external-combustion was used), and the clipping of that word in much of early automobile practice to 'motor' (as in Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Tesla Motors, etc. just as a bicycle came to be known as a 'wheel' (as in the League of American Wheelmen and, indeed, the current German word for a bicycle).
An interesting term of art comes, in steam 'locomotive' design, when you have something with individual steam motors driving or geared to some or all of the wheels, like the Roosen 19 1001 or the B&O W-1 or some of the more complicated Sentinels. We call these 'motor locomotives' with no concern about whether they use 'steam motors' or 'steam engines'.
Of course it gets worse when we take up 'motor tenders' which often as not unsuccessfully put a reciprocating 'engine' underneath... but no one likely cares by that point. And 'road locomotives' which are something else entirely...
Boyd When referring to what pulls freight and passenger cars which word is more fitting, engine or locomotive?
Did we answer your question?
If you're seeking to use a "proper" term for such units, see the previous replies.
In common usage, the answer is "yes."
If someone asks what the lead locomotive was on that last train that passed, they'll get the same answer as if they had asked what the lead engine was.
Because we generally only deal with passenger cars, that's our standard measure (ie, 85') for calling distances. It's not unusual, however, to hear someone call "motor," meaning the locomotive, when referring to the distance to a clearance point. No one among us seems to have a problem with that.
Seems like I've heard (or read) that when referring to multiple locomotives connected in a CONsist, the term locomotive applies collectively to all of them.
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...
We can use any word we want as long as we agree on the definition of that word.
OvermodThe problem with calling a diesel a 'motor' is that it mixes up a couple of traditions.
The few remaining CGW (Chicago Great Western) fans would proclaim, loudly,
"They're motors!"
charlie hebdoThe few remaining CGW (Chicago Great Western) fans would proclaim, loudly, "They're motors!"
I think Frisco, and perhaps MoPac, also systematically called diesels 'motors' to distinguish them from steam.
Our contracts use "diesel unit", which is simply shortened to "unit" in regular conversation. Older parts of the contracts going back to the steam era use "engine", and as was already mentioned so does the rulebook.
Yard assignments or any other crews without a train number will be designated by their lead engine number, and any written authorities will be addressed to it. "ENG" is still the approved abbreviation. But the Dispatcher is just as likely to ask for the lead unit's number before giving the authority.
"Consist" is the the term used to refer to multiple units coupled together and under the control of a single engineer. I've never heard "lashup" said at work, so I think it must be a railfan invention.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Overmod PNWRMNM I prefer engine because that is the term used in all the rule books that I am aware of. Engine is defined and used in the rule books, locomotive is not. As 'whistle' is and 'horn' is not, sometimes. If it makes sense to the community of users it doesn't have to be 'semantically precise' or satisfy pedants... and in the rule book context its use is fully understood.
PNWRMNM I prefer engine because that is the term used in all the rule books that I am aware of. Engine is defined and used in the rule books, locomotive is not.
As 'whistle' is and 'horn' is not, sometimes. If it makes sense to the community of users it doesn't have to be 'semantically precise' or satisfy pedants... and in the rule book context its use is fully understood.
Rules and other formal documents don't like to use multiple terms for the same thing... i.e. don't use "engine" in one rule and "unit" or "locomotive" in another. Pick one and use it consistently and there is no confusion. That doesn't mean other terms can't be used in real life, but the rules will be written in consistent language.
"Engine" is specifically defined as "A unit propelled by any form of energy, or a combination of such units operated from a single control, in train or yard service." Any other alternative terms are not defined and not used in the rulebook. (Note that the rulebook definition of "engine" means that any rules referring to "engine" apply equally to single units or multiple-unit consists - but not double headed steam engines. That's two engines for the purposes of how rules are applied. But I don't think this thread was about the subtleties and semantics of how operating rules are applied.)
Thus the rules are very specific about situations when they refer to "engine" or "train". Certain rules may refer to only one or the other. If they apply to both the rule wording typically includes "trains or engines".
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
As I recollect, the PRR referred to their electrics as "motors" too. I can remember small overhead signs at the end of catenary just to the west of Harrisburg station that read "AC motor stop."
Curt
charlie hebdo Overmod The problem with calling a diesel a 'motor' is that it mixes up a couple of traditions. The few remaining CGW (Chicago Great Western) fans would proclaim, loudly, "They're motors!"
Overmod The problem with calling a diesel a 'motor' is that it mixes up a couple of traditions.
You really think railroaders are going to use a word as long as "locomotive"? That's a lot of syllables.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Juniata ManAs I recollect, the PRR referred to their electrics as "motors" too.
Interesting, though, is that the term 'engineer' is specifically used to refer to Metroliner drivers, never 'motorman'.
Zug and Chris are right; no railroader will use 'locomotive' on the job. And 'engine' already says it perfectly. The question about 'unit' might involve whether one of the engines is the designated PTC 'controlling unit' in some contexts, perhaps including Federal mandated language, or whether a use of 'engine' covers this already.
v
OvermodInteresting, though, is that the term 'engineer' is specifically used to refer to Metroliner drivers, never 'motorman'.
I've heard engineman moreso than engineer.
I rarely hear "unit". Engines or power are what we use locally. Your use and localities may vary.
I have been re-reading "Leaders Count" by Lawrence Kaufman which details the history of the BNSF and came upon a similiar word use quandry: railroad vs railway. Apparently during the explosive growth of railroad entities an enormous % of them went bust and it was common to use "railroad" when they were functioning but "railway" when they had a dubious financial history. I am sure this too is up for many regional variations of use.
northeasterApparently during the explosive growth of railroad entities an enormous % of them went bust and it was common to use "railroad" when they were functioning but "railway" when they had a dubious financial history
It was a very common 'paper transaction' to change the name of an entity across bankruptcy or rapid reorganization, so it sounded very much like the previous company, and kept the same charter, and went to the same places with the same general staff ... but changed the name from something like "Norfolk and Western Railroad' to 'Norfolk and Western Railway' (or back again). Of course when this was done the ownership changed dramatically, usually with the common stockholders stripped -- but the railroad itself, perhaps not so much.
An extreme version of this shenanigans involves the early development of the Alton and Southern, an aluminum-plant railroad that got belt-line ambitions over the years. At one early point there were three "Alton and Southern"s with various little grammatical differences but very different corporate composition, mission, etc. -- bankruptcy or proxy fighting or hostile takeover or tactical blocking of one not affecting the others...
I personally usually say "engine" for all of them; steam, diesel or electric.
I would say "motor" only in reference to electrics. But I've rarely said it, mostly because I've never spent much time around electrics, and I'm not very interested in them. When I was growing up and became interested in trains, I was probably not within 800 miles of any electrified lines.
"Power," to me is somewhat more an idea word than a thing word. I think of "power" in RR usage as meaning the entire set of engines which will pull/push the train; whether that's a single unit, or six at the front, two in the middle, and two at the rear. "What have we got for power tonight?" Or "the power was insufficient for those grades." I also see the word used as a more broad term, like if the execs are discussing their power needs in the future.
But "engine," "locomotive" and "motor" are single things. Objects. And they can be pluralized, which "power" cannot, in this context.
No one would say "damn, we only get one power tonight." Or "we had to set out a sick power at Deadville Junction."
I use the word "locomotive" a fair amount (and to me it's synonymous with "engine:" steam, diesel or electric). But I think of it as more formal, a little more technical. I am probably more likely to write "locomotive" than to say it.
I mostly don't really care what people say. But when someone says "choo-choo" I become homicidal.
Lithonia OperatorNo one would say "damn, we only get one power tonight." Or "we had to set out a sick power at Deadville Junction."
I'd agree with the first part. The second only needs the removal of "a" to be something I'd expect to hear.
That's true, Larry.
Lithonia Operator No one would say "damn, we only get one power tonight." Or "we had to set out a sick power at Deadville Junction."
I've heard a few people say that at work, usually new guys. It sounds dumb, and then we make fun of them (even railroaders aren't completely hopeless at grammar).
A proper phrase would be "we already set out that b/o* unit at Deadville, the power's all good now".
*B/O stands for "bad order", which is railroadese for anything broken or defective.
I've used, and heard used, engine, locomotive, lead unit, leader, and motor. Depends on what the discussion taking place is focused on. Locomotive is usually when dealing with or describing mechanical issues. Also for job title, as in locomotive Engineer.
In my area, Engineer is used more often than Engineman. Rarely heard anymore is the slang term Hoghead. Which was more prevalent than Hogger in my area. The passing of such usage about equals the retirement of the old head CNW guys. The ones that worked with waycars and 4 and 5 men crews, time table and train orders.
About the CGW. Their rule book allowed the use of engine or motor in train orders.
Now for a different choice of term. Is it Mile Post or Mile Pole? I use mile post, but many others use mile pole. I have a theory that some railroads, CNW of which most of my territory is included, used a mile sign attached to a a communication pole. Most exCNW, and the people they trained, say mile pole. Myself, spending much of my youth around Rock Island people where they had actual concrete mile posts, I am used to mile posts. Either one is acceptable, I've never heard of anyone being corrected for using one or the other.
I've heard the US and England referred to as "two countries separated by a common language." I guess the same could be said about railroaders.
Jeff
For some reason I wasn't getting email notifications for this thread. iv read through 1/2 of the replies. Another way to say it could be "Train Engine".
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.