On 21/04/2011 11:32, Andy Breen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:25:50 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 21/04/2011 11:04, Andy Breen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:47:21 +0100, Mark Robinson wrote:

On 21/04/2011 09:33, Graeme Wall wrote:

Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean
electrickery.

Um. No. "Petrol motor" or "steam motor" are both perfectly acceptable
terms within the railway context (both terms having been used by
railways..) - "diesel motor" was rarer, but not unknown.


Steam motor actually makes sense in the context I was using as it is an
external combustion engine, as is an electric motor. An analogy that
breaks down as soon as you introduce hydro/wind/tidal power into the
equation :-)

Isn't a water turbine a hydraulic engine? ;-)

Told you the analogy broke down when you introduced water, it stops the
combustion...


But yes, I understand your point..



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail