"Ken Parkes" wrote
That's very difficult. 'Chassis' is an accepted model railway term for that entire part of the loco which includes the mechanism, mainframes etc.. I'm sure most people know that the term 'chassis' is not a prototype expression, for which there is no equivalent that I'm aware of.
John.
Since the flat bits have been sorted out can we turn our attention to the vertical bits? Is it possible to erradicate "chassis" and "chassis frames" from this group when referring to the two bits to which everything else is bolted/rivetted/screwed ?
Ken.
Your tramway locos had them by law, AFAIK.
Regards, Greg.P. NZ.
British railways only became a single entity in 1948. Until that year there were separate companies and each used it's own terms for everything. In addition, there could well be separate official and end user terms for individual items. The four companies had been grouped in 1923 from numerous minor and major companies so there are endless possibilities. I think, and I certainly don't go along with it, that irritation arises when US terms are (mis)applied. An example other than "pilot" might be "engineer" being applied to the loco driver. "Engineer" is of course a term applied to those who have achieved a specific level of education and who feel a need to protect their status.
Regards, Greg.P. NZ.
Some time in around the year 1106, I believe.
"Frames"?
It depends on contextual useage. On a diesel loco it is just that. On a steam loco, the pilot is sometimes that, but the leading truck is also called a pilot truck or pony truck, and sometimes just the pilot. That whole area that is over the leading truck, from the front coupler back to the cylinder casting and ahead of the smokebox is generally referred to as the pilot deck, which is why I used the term. It is presently the only way I know to describe that area. I am still trying to learn proper British terminology. Which, in turn, is how I wound up getting imbedded in this thread.
wrote
Learning is a continuous process. I've been a enthusiast for and a student of Britain's railways for most of my 57+ years, and I'm still learning.
Welcome to the club.
John.
"Greg Procter" wrote
No Greg, frames wouldn't include the cylinders, motion etc.
jOhn.
Well, there's another bump in the semantic road. When I said "British Railways", what I meant was railroads in England in a general sort of way, not BR specifically. Actually, my interest at this point is before 1948. Let us say between 1900 to
1948 with special emphasis on the span from 1925 to 1945. It is also somewhat localized on the LMS, GW and SRy, with major interest in LMS. My other interest is on the LWS and, more specifically, the 59 and 66 class locos, and their operations.when US terms are
Understand that, but, like I said in another post, I can't speak a language that I haven't learned yet, so, for the present I will need someone to translate from North American to British for me until I can get up to speed. So far I've encountered only one horse's arse. There is always at least one on every board.
For what it's worth, I spent ten years when I was in my 30's as an engine driver on a North American railroad, and yes, we were called "Engine Drivers" As far as I know, ours was the only company to do so. The term has fallen from use with the merger of the company into a mega-railroad, and now they are "engineers" just like everyone else. I still refer to myself as a former engine driver.
Actually it *does* include cylinders, for the simple reasons that the cylinders are often an integral part of the frames 'structure', indeed IIRC some USA 'cast bar frame' loco's have one piece frames / cylinders casting.
How about posting a summary of your experience as a locomotive driver, your experience with steam locos and your experience with diesel locos. I do not have a clue about the depth and scope of your experience as you so clearly seem to have with mine.
translate from North
It's a matter of who you believe, the one solitary voice or the (at least) two people who are saying the same thing...
their
driver, your
Been a railway enthusiast all my 40 plus years, 20 years of which have been spent either working / driving on both steam, electric or diesel traction, either full sized preservation or miniature railways - the only reason I'm not now actively involved with preservation is due to health issues.
There's an entire minefield out there for you to walk through! =8^)
when US terms are
to the loco
Here in NZ we spoke a mix of British and US english, largely due to the fact that we had been British but found around 1890-1900 that US products suited our conditions better. The following year our own manufacturers figured out how to make them even better ;-)
It was only an example :-) I'm sure you can see how annoyance arises when one asks an "engineer" for engineering advice only to find that all they know is how to drive a locomotive.
Regards, Greg.P. NZ
The majority are always right! ;-)
You want to include all that!?! Ok, that bit is the "engine", even though most people don't distinguish between the engine and the entire locomotive. The term seems to be usable in both Britain and the US.
Regards, Greg.P.
the fact that we had been
conditions better. The following year
I though one breeds sheep, not manufacturer them...! :~P
But that's about all.
I can only guess what _you_ do with sheep - NZ had about a dozen firms that built locos at various times.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required