Hornby A4

Any PW engineer would laugh in your face!

We're modellers and, lots of modellers, rightly or wrongly, use the term frog. End of.

MBQ

Let's see some pictures of your layout then.

MBQ

Hi Richard,

There's no problem with calling a common crossing a "frog". It's the traditional 19th-century term, it's still the usual term in the USA, and it's becoming common again here in connection with cast crossings.

My objection is to calling a turnout a "point" (singular). A point is a single point blade, or more specifically the tip of it. For the obvious reason that it forms a sharp point. Two such blades form a "set of points" or "switch". To create a turnout you take a set of points, a crossing, and link them together with closure (or closer) rails.

Calling an entire turnout a "point" makes no sense at all, and is not railway-like. If you look at the lever, the plate says "Points No. 3" (plural) because those are the bits the rodding is connected to, not the entire turnout.

regards,

Martin.

"MartinW" wrote

I follow the logic of your arguement and agree entirely, but does it really matter what expression is used to describe an object providing it is (fairly) universally understood?

If one of my model shop customers asks for a point, I get them a turnout and everyone is happy. Peco refer to them as turnouts, Hornby call them points.

John.

In my 1940's/50's railway childhood ( 4 members were GWR and a close Uncle type neighbour was LMS) the references were always to points. Turnout & switching was american to them. It is however rather difficult to remain in the singular when referring to a single set so where is the problem? A great deal of american jargon seems to have found it's way into UK mocelling circles.( consist etc).

Regards

Some years ago we rode on the Rocky Mountaineer, a railtour from the Rockies to Vancouver. There were several American gents that I got talking to and by the end of the trip they were happily referring to engines, engine drivers, points and sleepers.

Hi John, Sailor,

But that's the problem, it's not universally understood. In writing the instructions for Templot I have to use terms which will be understood world-wide. It's not easy -- in the USA modellers use "point" correctly to mean a single switch blade.

It's true that railway signalling and operating staff mostly refer to points (always plural) because that is the business end of a turnout which most concerns them, and to which the levers, locking and rodding are connected.

But to the permanent-way staff they are and were turnouts. If you look at track drawings they are called turnouts (or on the GWR, "leads").

Turnout is also the correct engineering term in the USA, although in that case operating staff call them "switches". The same principle applies -- the engineering name for the moving points is applied to the whole thing, because that is the part of a turnout which most concerns operating staff.

regards,

Martin.

Hi Martin, I absolutely agree, points are always plural, often prefixed with "set of" (usually implied) indicating they are made up if sub-components. I assume the "point" bit is from Jerry, but he's on stop here so I only see bits of his posts second hand.

Cheers Richard

If you have everything on display, customers can just point and say "ugh" or "it" and everyone is happy. OTOH when you're on a text based unternational forum no-one can see what it is you're pointing at and the written word becomes more important. Peco sells their products world-wide so they have to find terms that are widely understod. Hornby sells only to Brits and ex-colonials so "points" is understood.

Greg.P.

They must have been particularly smart yanks!

Greg.P.

Certainly I don't recollect any of them bearing the name Bush ;o)