Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?


What do mean, no engine? Unless the trains are pulled by horses, or
the passengers have to get out and push, there must be something -
some sort of mechanism or machinery - inside the train to make it
move. In other words, an "engine." How could it move without one?

On 21/04/2011 09:24, pippa.moran wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?


What do mean, no engine? Unless the trains are pulled by horses, or
the passengers have to get out and push, there must be something -
some sort of mechanism or machinery - inside the train to make it
move. In other words, an "engine." How could it move without one?

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

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:33:41 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

Tell that to Arthur Daley!

B2003

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 08:24:16 on
Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Graeme Wall remarked:
Have a look here
http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee
for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon,


I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads:

It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney,
known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site,
passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several
months illness.

Dated a little over a month ago. I'm sure it was reported here, or
was it utl?

Here is utl, Roland.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always
a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...)

Cheers

mark-r

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.

Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always
a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...)
No.
The use of "engine" for electric motor is unheard of.
Technically it may be called a "machine".

Calling a motor an engine is as daft as calling a cl. 45 Peak a
hexadecimalcycle.


--
Peter 'Prof' Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling and curiosities at
www.vulpeculox.net

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.

Some steam motors:

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSE.../steamotor.htm

These, of course, are "steam motor" for the actual working gubbins.
"Motor" was also used by railways to describe entire trains - steam
railcars were more normally known as "motor cars" during their heyday,
and "motor trains" could be steam (or electric, or petrol, or diesel)
powered..

Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always a
motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...)

And, to complicate things further, a Victorian (or earlier) engineer
would have referred to each cylinder of a steam or gas engine as an
"engine". If you read contemporary accounts of the design of early
locomotives you'll find considerable attention paid to the way the two
engines in the locomotive were linked. A modest example might be:
"this scetch will shew you my Ideas in the way I would combin the tow
engines to gether" (G. Stephenson, introducing his design for what
eventually became "Locomotion")

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself

On 21/04/2011 09:58, d wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:33:41 +0100
Graeme wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

Tell that to Arthur Daley!


That's a mo'or me old china.

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

On 21/04/2011 10:47, 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.

Doubly pedantically, a motor *is* an engine (an engine isn't always
a motor, though, cf siege engine, difference engine, database engine...)

Cheers

mark-r


**gger, out-pedanted :-)

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

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 :-)

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