Can a single 153 be called a train?

[GatwickDepress]

On a quiz show recently there was a question along the lines of 'what type of vehicle is the Flying Scotsman?' The contestant didn't know the answer (and guessed aeroplane) so the answer was given as 'train'. My wife and I shouted at the television that it's a locomotive not a train. But were we right?

A locomotive is a train but not all trains are locomotives.

 

[al78]

I actually think Andrew is technically correct.
Of course it is not going to change (nor should it) but just because a rule book calls it something or because it is in common usage does not mean it is correct.

For instance throughout the world we talk about the sunrise in the morning, and nothing will ever change that, but of course it is not technically correct as it is in fact the earth setting.

It is correct, as the term "sunrise" is relative to an observer on the earth (from an observer on the earth, the sun rises in the sky). It is all about frames of reference.

 

[edwin_m]

"When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Despite being from Lewis Carroll this is actually true. If a meaning is ambiguous then it can be defined for the context, as it clearly is in the Rule Book. It isn't even a recent thing either - think of all those Victorian block instruments with a setting that wasn't called "Train, locomotive or self-powered railcar on line".

 

[PHILIPE]

Going back to the days of extensive use of Bubble Cars, I have heard these referred to as Single Power Cars.

 

[ComUtoR]

Just to add more to the mix. My traction manual says that a single 4-Car is a Unit and two or more units coupled together is a Train.

 

[Flamingo]

Well, I always thought that a single 153 was called a "Burger Van"...

 

[Clip]

And someone had as their signature on here of Hammond compalining to Clarkson that his single car unit was not a train as a train is made up of many carriages

At the end of the day it doesnt really matter and its obvious it was a bit of lightheartedness which really wasnt meant to be so serious as others have made it.

 

[Deepgreen]

Semantically, a train must comprise two or more coupled vehicles - camel (when roped together) train, road train, etc. A simple string of non-coupled units/items/animals is not a train. For the railways, though, the term describes any vehicle or number of vehicles occupying the railway. 'Flying Scotsman' is generally known as a locomotive, but at a stretch could be defined as a train as it comprises two coupled vehicles - locomotive and tender. It is, however, very annoying when the media decribe a locomotive as a train!

It's not just a slow news day, the news has actually stopped!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Perhaps then a 153 should be called a MPV in that it can be a single carriage (train) worked empty or with passengers, or coupled in multiple with other 153's or compatible rail vehicles that can also be worked empty or with passengers.

 

[AndyNLondon]

I actually think Andrew is technically correct.
Of course it is not going to change (nor should it) but just because a rule book calls it something or because it is in common usage does not mean it is correct.

But "correctness" in the English language is set by common usage. We don't have an equivalent of the Académie française to lay down rules, and dictionaries are there to describe the language and how it is used, not to proscribe how it should be. So, if common usage is to call a single rail vehicle such as 153 a train, then it's a train.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Lets settle this...

Are Class 153 units called "trains" by the legal authorities and government?

Yes.

Problem solved

 

[Phil.]

According to the Rule Book, the term train includes a "light locomotive, self-propelled rail vehicle or road-rail vehicle in rail mode".

Ah, at last, the correct answer.

 

[Deepgreen]

Ah, at last, the correct answer.

Not really "at last" - that was way back at post 15!

 

[Johncleesefan]

Lets just use the current operational rule book definitions to describe our TRAINS. Too much confusion for very little gain.
153s are defined as single power cars and a train at the same time

 

[cmovcc]

railways act 1993:

“train” means—
(a)two or more items of rolling stock coupled together, at least one of which is a locomotive; or
(b)a locomotive not coupled to any other rolling stock;

“locomotive” means any railway vehicle which has the capacity for self-propulsion (whether or not the power by which it operates is derived from a source external to the vehicle);

“railway vehicle” includes anything which, whether or not it is constructed or adapted to carry any person or load, is constructed or adapted to run on flanged wheels over or along track;

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Lets just use the current operational rule book definitions to describe our TRAINS. Too much confusion for very little gain.
153s are defined as single power cars and a train at the same time

And that makes me REALLY want to see a 153 at each end of a rake of mk3s on the ECML

 

[JamesRowden]

It's only just occurred to me, but my dictionary says a train is "a number of things in a string... as... railway carriages or wagons."
Maybe that's why a trip from Crewe to Derby doesn't seem like a train ride any more!
Perhaps part of the fun is being part of the train!
A

This reference might clear things up:

As for train, that is a word with a long history. It derives from French words meaning “to drag; pull; draw along”. It came into English in the fourteenth century in the sense of “delay”, but was then applied to something that is dragged along, such as an extended part of a robe or skirt which trails on the ground. It soon took on the additional sense of a retinue or group of attendants trailing along behind some person of importance, and also of the artillery and wagons of equipment that travelled with an army, so leading to phrases such as train of artillery and, much later, wagon train. Out of this came the idea of a number of persons or things travelling one behind the other. When the first railways were constructed, the phrases train of wagons and train of carriages were employed and these were quickly abbreviated to our modern standard term.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/trains.htm

So it would seem that, when using the historical meaning, a 153 is a carriage, and a longer multiple unit is a train of carriages. But, that would mean that there would be no single word for a vehicle which runs on a railway. Therefore I would conclude, considering the evolution of words to optimise our language, that there is one word `train' to mean multiple entities following in a line, and another word which means `railway vehicle' which include one/multiple carriages/wagons/locomotives. The confusion is that some things meet both definitions of `train'.

 

[Johncleesefan]

And that makes me REALLY want to see a 153 at each end of a rake of mk3s on the ECML

Wonder how much attraction that would cause. The poor old boys wouldn't have a chance in hell pulling that ha

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Wonder how much attraction that would cause. The poor old boys wouldn't have a chance in hell pulling that ha

Double head and double tail? Imagine people turning up for the London train at Donny and seeing 153's hauling their normal HST set all the way to London! Be a bloody good laugh

 

[PHILIPE]

If you traveled from the platforms from one railway station to another, one would say you were travelling by train whether it be a 153 or anything else.

 

[Johncleesefan]

Double head and double tail? Imagine people turning up for the London train at Donny and seeing 153's hauling their normal HST set all the way to London! Be a bloody good laugh

Don't forget to arrange them so the driver gets the pleasure of driving from the toilet seat (no 2 end) both ways.

The train is delayed due to lack of horses available

 

[edwin_m]

Is this thread a train of thought?

 

[Flamingo]

Is this thread a train of thought?

Very good...

 

[GarethJohn]

If we are going to be so pedantic Is a 153 even a Diesel Multiple Unit if it's alone?
And can a Pacer truly be called such or even a train.
Shouldn't the message be '' That funny. wobbly looking thing arriving at Platform 4 is going to try and get you to your destination''

 

[AndrewE]

I'm glad I asked...!
Thanks to all for the contributions.
A

 

[2HAP]

I think I prefer the description used by the Bluebell Railway -

Self-shunting carriage.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Perhaps I should train myself to not comment on this thread any more... can anyone recommend a good coach?

....dashes to get coat....

 

[Ladder23]

does it matter