Railway terminology: Carriages vs cars vs coaches

[BanburyBlue]

Me and Mrs BanburyBlue are watching an episode of Sherlock on Netflix. In episode 1 on series 3, there is a bit where a London Underground worker calls in Sherlock as he notices that on cctv a passenger gets on the last tube at one station, but is missing by the next station. Now, the London Underground worker says that the passenger was getting into ‘the car’. He goes on to say that ‘car’ is the correct term, and not ‘carriage’.

Mrs BanburyBlue then asks me if this is correct . Now, I’ve always said ‘carriage’. But I thought I would ask you well informed folks what you think?

 

[Mills444]

I think they are pretty much interchangeable however cars is more of a American term so is in common usage on the tube whereas elsewhere is normally coach or carriage.

 

[BanburyBlue]

I think they are pretty much interchangeable however cars is more of a American term so is in common usage on the tube whereas elsewhere is normally coach or carriage.

So why is an American term more common on the tube. Saying that, there is something in the back of my mind, that an American chappy was very influential in the early days of the London Underground.

 

[D365]

Expressions like “four car train” seem to be more common on the national network than “four carriage train”. Though on the other hand, you get “this train is formed of four coaches”.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Expressions like “four car train” seem to be more common on the national network than “four carriage train”. Though on the other hand, you get “this train is formed of four coaches”.

Ah yes, I forgot about coaches. So l should rename this thread carriages vs cars vs coaches.

 

[swt_passenger]

So why is an American term more common on the tube. Saying that, there is something in the back of my mind, that an American chappy was very influential in the early days of the London Underground.

Charles Yerkes was his name, I believe.

 

[fgwrich]

So why is an American term more common on the tube. Saying that, there is something in the back of my mind, that an American chappy was very influential in the early days of the London Underground.

That would be a certain Mr Charles Tyson Yerkes - I wonder if the term may have remained prevalent on the Underground as a result. But yes, Carriage / Car / Coaches does all seem to be interchangeable.

Personally, when it comes to announcements, I prefer "This train is formed of XX Coaches" etc. I tend to use "Car" when talking more technically - ie, the new DLR stock being 3 car sets etc...

 

[AM9]

Expressions like “four car train” seem to be more common on the national network than “four carriage train”. Though on the other hand, you get “this train is formed of four coaches”.

I think that 'car' is the default term for fixed sets (i.e. multiple units) and they are normally referred to 3-car, 4-car etc. in official terms, i.e. TOPS sub-groups. Platform stopping points are also signed as 6-car or 8-car etc., especially where MUs are the main trains that stop there. There have been some changes recently for example describing trains as 'full length' or 'reduced length', as in the case of Thameslink FLU and RLU stopping points, but they are very type-specific signs.
'Coach' seems to be the preferred name in passenger-facing descriptions, especially in terms of seating locations e.g. 'coach A' etc. The main users of the word 'carriage' seem to be the media, and particularly the press that regularly brings up rail news items.

 

[harz99]

Me and Mrs BanburyBlue are watching an episode of Sherlock on Netflix. In episode 1 on series 3, there is a bit where a London Underground worker calls in Sherlock as he notices that on cctv a passenger gets on the last tube at one station, but is missing by the next station. Now, the London Underground worker says that the passenger was getting into ‘the car’. He goes on to say that ‘car’ is the correct term, and not ‘carriage’.

Mrs BanburyBlue then asks me if this is correct ‍♂. Now, I’ve always said ‘carriage’. But I thought I would ask you well informed folks what you think?

When I worked on LU in the 60s, we always referred to our train carriages as "Cars", ie a 7 car train, formed of a three car unit and a four car unit. Similarly the platform stopping point marker boards were always known as the seven car mark etc. etc.

 

[tpjm]

Interestingly I use different terms depending on who/what I’m speaking to/about.

Car - “6-car set”
Coach - “Coach A”, “formed of 6 coaches”
Carriage - rarely, but sometimes when talking to customers who don’t understand that you can’t add extra vehicles from a random siding into a DMU.
Vehicle - when talking technically and using phrases like “DMS”

 

[Camden]

I assume they are all correct. In terms of common parlance rather than individuals, London & Liverpool use "car" extensively (possibly Glasgow too?) in both speech and announcement. Elsewhere it appears to be "carriage" in speech, and "coach" in announcements.

It appears to have become a dialect difference today. In considering why the use of "coach" is common in announcements, while "carriage" is common is speech, might give clue as to how "car" became prevalent in the cities mentioned. Coach is quicker to say and clearer in an announcement than carriage. On busy city platforms, "car" quicker still, with frequent use lending itself to become common phrase.

 

[hwl]

Really simple:
Is it powered or part of a multiple unit, if so then car else coach etc.

London and Liverpool having EMUs longer than elsewhere are more practiced at using car.

 

[hexagon789]

I assume they are all correct. In terms of common parlance rather than individuals, London & Liverpool use "car" extensively (possibly Glasgow too?) in both speech and announcement. Elsewhere it appears to be "carriage" in speech, and "coach" in announcements.

It appears to have become a dialect difference today. In considering why the use of "coach" is common in announcements, while "carriage" is common is speech, might give clue as to how "car" became prevalent in the cities mentioned. Coach is quicker to say and clearer in an announcement than carriage. On busy city platforms, "car" quicker still, with frequent use lending itself to become common phrase.

"Car" was in use on the Glasgow Subway from its opening, publicity material of the time referring to the trains as "roomy and commodious cars"(!), whereas I think London only began using it when Mr Yerkes became involved and then possibly when the first electric trains were introduced?

 

[John Webb]

'Coach' seems to be the oldest term, derived of course from 'stage-coach' as the earliest form of railway carriage was basically a stage-coach body on a railway chassis. I'm not so certain about 'carriage' - it seems to have followed soon after 'coach', and may be a reference to the practice of private carriages being carried on flat wagons at the end of passenger trains?
'Car' is of course an abbreviation of 'carriage' - I was only aware of this being used at first on the London Underground, undoubtedly under Yerkes's American influence.

 

[swt_passenger]

There’s a thread somewhere I think about a year ago discussing SWR changing from coach to carriage on displays, or maybe the other way round, I wasn’t that concerned either way...

But “X Car Stop“ markers are pretty commonplace on platforms everywhere surely, as already mentioned?

 

[Bletchleyite]

'Coach' seems to be the preferred name in passenger-facing descriptions, especially in terms of seating locations e.g. 'coach A' etc. The main users of the word 'carriage' seem to be the media, and particularly the press that regularly brings up rail news items.

Some TOCs have ATOS Annie configured to say "this train has N carriages", including LNR, and Chiltern even use the incredibly (but fittingly, for some reason) old fashioned "this train consists of N carriages".

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there a case for consistency? If onboard information such as displays for SDO shows “This is coach x of y” then should platform announcements and displays by necessity use the same wording?

 

[Taunton]

The Underground uses an extensive range of terms different to the national railway, generally Americanisms - control trailer instead of driving trailer, or motorman instead of driver for many years. Not just Yerkes as a lead investor, but much of the equipment, plant and rolling stock was imported from the USA. The early engineers that came with it wrote the operating manuals and set the style.

Glasgow didn't have this US involvement but much of the old system was reminiscent of onetime tramway practice. Tramcars were commonly shortened in England to trams, but in Glasgow always to cars, hence this spread to the subway.

 

[xotGD]

Let's not forget the use of 'bogies' rather than coaches. Something that I always found odd, as each coach is mounted on two bogies.

 

[Whisky Papa]

The unexpected use of "This train consists of 2 coaches" on a CIS display at Todmorden one morning caused panic to some potential passengers. I reassured them the train was in fact running, just short-formed, and that they didn't need to head out to the road outside. A quick call to Control got it changed to "2 carriages" pretty quickly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The unexpected use of "This train consists of 2 coaches" on a CIS display at Todmorden one morning caused panic to some potential passengers. I reassured them the train was in fact running, just short-formed, and that they didn't need to head out to the road outside. A quick call to Control got it changed to "2 carriages" pretty quickly.

Euston still uses "this train is formed of N coaches" and I haven't seen anyone rushing outside looking for the RRBs. Might well be why LNR changed to the quaint sounding "carriages", though "this is a 12 car train" would avoid the problem without being a bit olde-worlde quaint and is the terminology most users would use.

 

[Taunton]

Let's not forget the use of 'bogies' rather than coaches. Something that I always found odd, as each coach is mounted on two bogies.

But they weren't always, hence the need for a distinction when they replaced 4-wheelers (for vans, into quite recent times).

 

[YorksLad12]

I say car or carriage for the multiple unit stock, coach for anything hauled. But I can see how that would cause confusion if you're used to your service not running, to be told "two coaches"! With the 80x stock it depends on what mood I'm in.

My French correspondent always says "car". Just because.

 

[Richard Scott]

I say car or carriage for the multiple unit stock, coach for anything hauled. But I can see how that would cause confusion if you're used to your service not running, to be told "two coaches"! With the 80x stock it depends on what mood I'm in.

My French correspondent always says "car". Just because.

Don't the French use the word Voiture for coach which translates to car? Think German's use Wagen, also translating to car?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't the French use the word Voiture for coach which translates to car? Think German's use Wagen, also translating to car?

I think both of them just mean "vehicle". The French do use the word "car" to refer to a road coach, it's a shortening of "autocar".

 

[Richard Scott]

Fahrzeug would be vehicle in German. Wagen is used for a road car and a railway coach. In French Voiture also used for both. Agree they use the term car for road coach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wagen is more generic than Fahrzeug, Fahrzeug would only be used for a powered vehicle or one that moves on its own in some way e.g. a pushbike (being "a thing that travels", literally), whereas Wagen is basically anything with wheels.

 

[xotGD]

"Coaching stock". Or just "stock", as in "loco and stock".

 

[bramling]

Me and Mrs BanburyBlue are watching an episode of Sherlock on Netflix. In episode 1 on series 3, there is a bit where a London Underground worker calls in Sherlock as he notices that on cctv a passenger gets on the last tube at one station, but is missing by the next station. Now, the London Underground worker says that the passenger was getting into ‘the car’. He goes on to say that ‘car’ is the correct term, and not ‘carriage’.

Mrs BanburyBlue then asks me if this is correct . Now, I’ve always said ‘carriage’. But I thought I would ask you well informed folks what you think?

Underground is definitely "car". You'd go as far as getting a strange look from some staff referring to anything else.

I think same applies to Glasgow Subway, and Tyne & Wear Metro has a variation on this theme, referring to "Metrocar".

 

[YorksLad12]

Don't the French use the word Voiture for coach which translates to car? Think German's use Wagen, also translating to car?

"Car" is French for "because". I knew I was being too clever...