The use of terms can also be dependent upon whom you are talking too.
Last night we had to change engines on a train because the original engine didn't have cab signals. (It's a story unto it's self.) The new engine couldn't pass an engine consist test. It's where you test the air brakes to make sure all the MUed engines respond correctly to the lead unit. The engine's independent brake wouldn't bail off. It would set and release with the independent brake handle. The independent would set and release with the automatic brake handle. But with the automatic brake set, the independent handle wouldn't bail off the engine brakes. I also couldn't hear any air when moving the independent handle to the bail off position. Normally you hear a little hiss when doing so.
I dropped the air brake circuit breaker for 2 minutes, but that didn't reset it. The dispatcher, who had been an engineer in the same class as I was in, heard me talking to the conductor when I discovered the problem. He sent a message to the mechanical help desk.
When they called me and I described the problem using both the term bailing off and actuate. I did so because bailing off the independent is actually a slang term. It originated with the brake valve equipment used years ago and may have been correct back then. Now actuate the independent is the correct term, although I don't know of any railroaders in train or engine service who doesn't know what bailing off the independent means.
To shorten an already long post, he said I did all I could in the field. That it probably was a valve under the cab froze up. This engine wouldn't be able to be used as a leader so we need to change engines again.
Jeff
BaltACD Paul Milenkovic cv_acr 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. 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". I can understand by that definition that a crewed helper locomotive would be a separate engine? But what about distributed power units (DPU)? Are they part of the same rulebook "engine", or is some exception or clarification offered? DPU's have arrived in the period AFTER Timetable & Train Orders form of operation. At least on CSX, trains are identified in Train Messages by their lead engine number, only. Neither manned helpers or DPU units are separately identified in Train Messages.
Paul Milenkovic cv_acr 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. 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". I can understand by that definition that a crewed helper locomotive would be a separate engine? But what about distributed power units (DPU)? Are they part of the same rulebook "engine", or is some exception or clarification offered?
cv_acr 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. 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".
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".
I can understand by that definition that a crewed helper locomotive would be a separate engine? But what about distributed power units (DPU)? Are they part of the same rulebook "engine", or is some exception or clarification offered?
DPU's have arrived in the period AFTER Timetable & Train Orders form of operation. At least on CSX, trains are identified in Train Messages by their lead engine number, only. Neither manned helpers or DPU units are separately identified in Train Messages.
Actually the original DP technology, Locotrol - of which current DP is Locotrol version 3(?), appeared in the late 1960s. I know the Milwaukee used it out on the PCE which was TT & TO territory. I don't believe entrained engines are mentioned in movement authorities. They aren't in track warrants and I don't believe they were in train orders. I know that trains with double headed steam engines, terminal to terminal, on some railroads were addressed in the manner of: "No 91 engines 1234 and 4321 coupled" or "Extra 1234 and 4321 coupled East."
NP Eddie In 1970 I started my shift as an NP clerk at Northtown, Minneapolis. About 1AM or so I heard the engineer of BN 97 call for yarding instructions and where to want our motors and waycar? Both stayed on the train as the locomotives were refueled at the west end of Northtown.
In 1970 I started my shift as an NP clerk at Northtown, Minneapolis. About 1AM or so I heard the engineer of BN 97 call for yarding instructions and where to want our motors and waycar? Both stayed on the train as the locomotives were refueled at the west end of Northtown.
An old CB&Q man, no doubt.
Yesterday I heard CP dispatch down in Saratoga ask D45 how many "motors" they had. So I guess it really comes down to the person/railroad/region.
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
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
zugmann You really think railroaders are going to use a word as long as "locomotive"? That's a lot of syllables.
You really think railroaders are going to use a word as long as "locomotive"? That's a lot of syllables.
Easier to say engine when you got a mouthful of food.
54light15 In Germany the driver is called the "Lokfuhrer." Reminds you of somebody, doesn't it?
It does. It reminds the Germans of somebody too, but they've made peace with the word. Hey, they call airplane pilots "Flugzeugfuehers."
What surprised me was finding out that in East Germany they continued to call their national railway system the "Reichsbahn." I would have thought the Russians would have quashed terminology that had anything to do with "reich."
I know "reich" is the German word for empire, but still.
Walter P. Chrysler and W.O. Bentley were both railroad engineers but did not drive trains. I suppose in Britain the term of "driver" differentiates the person who works in the engineering department as those two men did. In Germany the driver is called the "Lokfuhrer." Reminds you of somebody, doesn't it?
I recall when I was a kid, taking a class trip to New York City on the Long Island RR. The guy who was collecting tickets had "Trainman" on his cap badge. I asked where the conductor was. He said, "He's in the front car, driving the train." So, I guess there were no engineers on the LIRR.
Backshop Don't forget stationary engineers, the ones who run power plants. They are the opposite of operating engineers, who operate heavy construction machinery, which once included "steam shovels", that also had firemen.
Don't forget stationary engineers, the ones who run power plants. They are the opposite of operating engineers, who operate heavy construction machinery, which once included "steam shovels", that also had firemen.
I suspect this is how the engineer name came to railroads, as being in charge a steam locomotive is legally no different than running any other steam boiler/power plant.
We are officially called "locomotive engineers" these days to distinguish us from the other types.
Motorman or locomotive operator would probably be a better choice if railroads were invented from scratch today, but engineer has been in use for so long that there is no point in trying to change it. Out here motorman refers only to a streetcar or light rail operator.
We use "engineman" as well, but I've never heard "mile pole", and we did used to have all the milepost signs stuck on telegraph poles (some are still visible in the ditch, beside their standalone replacements).
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Those of you who are married - overlook Domestic Engineers at your own peril.
And don't forget engineers who work in the engineering dept. of a railroad. Are those "railroad engineers?"
CSSHEGEWISCHThere are also building engineers, operating engineers, flight engineers, engineers on fire trucks, the list goes on.
Some older rule books would use the term enginemen for rules that broadly could include firemen and hostlers. For specific rules aimed at the actual train or engine operation. they would use engineers.
Just as the term trainmen includes brakeman.
You guys have it all wrong. They're "conductors." Just ask the cub reporter at your local newspaper...
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...
For a while, the company wanted to call us copier repair technicians "engineers." We all laughed at that, we didn't need fancy titles. They gave up.
There are also building engineers, operating engineers, flight engineers, engineers on fire trucks, the list goes on.
Overmod Flintlock76 zugmann I've heard engineman more so than engineer. Sounds like a carry-over from the old PRR days. I dimly remember that there was consternation at some point, probably in the rage for professional licensing after the St. Francis Dam debacle, that the word 'engineer' as a trained professional couldn't be distinguished from 'engineer' as that guy who runs the engine on a railroad. One of the proposed 'disambiguations' that kept 'engineer' reserved for professionally college-trained people was to use 'engineman' as the alternative. We'd probably have to find a yet more politically-correct version of it now, as 'engineperson' doesn't cut it. (I would propose 'enginefighter' (by comparison to 'firefighter' and 'warfighter' as nonsexist euphemisms) but that's too self-parodic even if perhaps true much of the time.
Flintlock76 zugmann I've heard engineman more so than engineer. Sounds like a carry-over from the old PRR days.
zugmann I've heard engineman more so than engineer.
Sounds like a carry-over from the old PRR days.
I dimly remember that there was consternation at some point, probably in the rage for professional licensing after the St. Francis Dam debacle, that the word 'engineer' as a trained professional couldn't be distinguished from 'engineer' as that guy who runs the engine on a railroad. One of the proposed 'disambiguations' that kept 'engineer' reserved for professionally college-trained people was to use 'engineman' as the alternative.
We'd probably have to find a yet more politically-correct version of it now, as 'engineperson' doesn't cut it. (I would propose 'enginefighter' (by comparison to 'firefighter' and 'warfighter' as nonsexist euphemisms) but that's too self-parodic even if perhaps true much of the time.
We have Locomotive Engineers and Mechanical Engineers as well as Aeronautical Engineers - we have many, many kinds of engineers - just specify.
zugmannI've heard engineman moreso than engineer.
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".
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
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.
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."
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.
That's true, Larry.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.