Talk:Railroad car

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. There seems to be strong opposition to the move and little support. Kyle Barbour 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Railroad car → Rolling stock — Railroad car makes little sense outside the USA, In Britain a car would mean a passenger carrying vehicle, a freight vehicle would be called a wagon. I recognize the term does not cover railcars or multiple units but feel that these are well catered for in their existing separate articles. —Oxyman 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. I must say, I oppose this move. I've never even heard the term rolling stock before. Per WP:ENGVAR, we use the term first coined when the article was created, unless you can give a significant reason why not. Part Deux 07:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2. I also oppose because rolling stock refers to all equipment (including locomotives), not just the cars. This article does not include any detail about locomotives because that information is covered elsewhere. Slambo (Speak) 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
   1. Comment: actually the rolling stock article is wrong - in my experience (over 20 years working for British Rail) the term "rolling stock" does not include locomotives - the usual phrase is "locomotives and rolling stock" or "traction and rolling stock (T&RS)", see for example this item in Janes' catalogue. -- Arwel (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
3. 'Oppose per Slambo. But most importantly, we should keep the article at the original spelling to reduce AME/BE conflicts. 205.157.110.11 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Slambo. Rolling stock certainly does include locomotives, for example see London Underground rolling stock and Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock, as well as several dictionaries. Kahuzi 01:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Checked Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990 edition), which defines "rolling-stock" to include locomotives. Kahuzi 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Dictionaries are descriptivist, not prescriptivist. In this case the dictionary simply does not reflect the usage which is current in the (UK) railway industry. -- Arwel (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• But trade journals such as Railway Age and railfan/modelling/history periodicals like Railroad History and Trains do reflect usage in the industry. In those journals, which I read regularly, rolling stock includes locomotives. Slambo (Speak) 11:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please Note that in Britain the "ROSCOs" (Rolling Stock Companies) lease locomotives as well as other rolling stock to the Train Operating Companies. So it is not true to say that current usage of the term "rolling stock" in the (UK) railway industry excludes locomotives. On the contrary, it includes everything that runs on the rails. Kahuzi 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please also note that, while this discussion is going on, a User:G-Man has changed the wording of the article Rolling stock to exclude locomotives.Kahuzi 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I have to agree that UK usage, at least in some circles, definitely includes locomotives and other powered vehicles in the category "rolling stock". Its certainly common usage amongst the heritage railway communities I am part of. The example of the Ffestiniog Railway has already been brought up, a railway company that predates British Rail by over one hundred years. Gwernol 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• As Ynhockey notes below, there is a content forking issue here. Failing a page move, there should probably be some sort of a merge that takes place. If rolling stock refers to both locomotives and "railroad cars", maybe a disambiguation page is in order over there. Dekimasuが... 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article Rolling stock

It seems that the article is a small stub, and talks about the same subject as this article (Railroad car). Moreover, {{Train topics}} links to this article with a link captioned 'rolling stock'. I think this should be amended. Either the other article should be turned into a redirect, or it should be expanded and the link on the template should be changed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Autotrain

Discussion moved here from the article:

Auto Trains. A comfortable, affordable way to travel with your car. Avoiding traffic tieups and high gasoline costs, they offer either sleeping quarters or couchettes for long trips. While available in Europe they are not yet in service in the United States except in Washington, D.C. and some parts of Florida and Virginia. Why? Possibly because car rental in the United States is relatively cheap (around $40 or less per day in most areas), and the distances traveled are more suitably covered by air travel. Also, passenger rail service is not very popular in the United States.

Further discussion should take place here. If an encyclopedic and well referenced paragraph can be made of this, then it could be added to the article in a more appropriate location. Slambo (Speak) 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Car vs. Carriage and Truck

In the USA its called cars, while in the UK its called Carraiges and Trucks. OK? Fila943 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Car vs Carriage

Last comment is incorrect. Merseyrail describe their train formations as either 3 or 6 car on their information displays at stations.