Language question II


Markus <guerbetaler@...>
 

Next case: In German we call any motive power not chased
by Helena ;-) a "Triebwagen". English and American publications
mainly speak about "multiple units" and "railcars". Now I thought
that "motor coach" would be a general translation for Triebwagen
but it seems that this word isn't very well accepted.

Markus, Gï¿œrbetal


Nigel Emery
 

Markus wrote:
Next case: In German we call any motive power not chased
by Helena ;-) a "Triebwagen". English and American publications
mainly speak about "multiple units" and "railcars". Now I thought
that "motor coach" would be a general translation for Triebwagen
but it seems that this word isn't very well accepted.
In the UK we generally use the term multiple unit i.e. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU). Sometimes the term railcar is also used in particular when referring to the single car Class 153s.

The subject can cause debates of great length on UK groups with some insisting that to be a multiple unit the train MUST be capable of working in multiple with a similar train which for example would mean that the class 390 Pendolinos are not multiple units!

Nigel


+GF+ <ce68iii@...>
 

a "Triebwagen". English and American publications

Names that I have seen or heard in the US = RDC (Rail Diesel Car); self powered coach; DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit); and EMU (Electric Multiple Unit)

+GF+

www.internationalrailfair.com
www.ete.org


John Beaulieu <beaulieu@...>
 

Markus wrote:
Next case: In German we call any motive power not chased
by Helena ;-) a "Triebwagen". English and American publications
mainly speak about "multiple units" and "railcars". Now I thought
that "motor coach" would be a general translation for Triebwagen
but it seems that this word isn't very well accepted.
Markus, Gï¿œrbetal
In the US "Motor Coach" and "Intercity Bus" are the same. A nearby bus company to me is named "Lakeland Motor Coaches" They charter coaches to Sporting Events or for shopping tours to Minneapolis or much longer distances. "Motor Coach" implies a higher standard of seating for longer journeys, as opposed to the term "Bus", which is a vehicle used to provide Urban Transport.

"Railcar" with the "R" capitalized would convey recognition
to many people. Because of the rarity of this type of vehicle in the US a more specific reference would be best. In the US the Stadler built GTW 2/6 is considered a "Railcar", but "railcar" is also the generic term for any passenger or freight carrying vehicle. Holcim leases hopper railcars from General Electric Railcar Services to transported powdered cement in the US.

John Beaulieu


Guerbetaler <guerbetaler@...>
 

John Beaulieu wrote:
In the US "Motor Coach" and "Intercity Bus" are the same. A nearby
bus company to me is named "Lakeland Motor Coaches" They charter
coaches to Sporting Events or for shopping tours to Minneapolis or
much longer distances. "Motor Coach" implies a higher standard of
seating for longer journeys, as opposed to the term "Bus", which is
a vehicle used to provide Urban Transport.
o.k. Swiss use in German language is:
motor coach in the US sense = Car
bus = Bus

Lakeland Motor Coaches would be Seeland Carreisen in Switzerland.

"Railcar" with the "R" capitalized would convey recognition
to many people. Because of the rarity of this type of vehicle in the
US a more specific reference would be best. In the US the Stadler
built GTW 2/6 is considered a "Railcar", but "railcar" is also the
generic term for any passenger or freight carrying vehicle. Holcim
leases hopper railcars from General Electric Railcar Services to
transported powdered cement in the US.
I understand what you say but this leaves me even more perplex ...

No solution for "Triebwagen"?

Markus, Gï¿œrbetal


Michael Taylor in Binbrook
 

<<No solution for "Triebwagen"?>>

I admit to using railcars as the generic term to describe these things on my website, even when some are technically VT and some VS as in the DB 628/928 sets.
In Britain some sets are formed driving trailer-non driving motor unit-driving trailer (22-BB-22) and you can consider the 3-car set as a DMU or EMU. PKP EN57 sets also have a centre motor unit.

Perhaps a better term might be "Self-propelled".


Regards

Michael Taylor
Binbrook, Ontario


Illya Vaes
 

2007/11/13, Nigel Emery <groups@locodata.co.uk>:
In the UK we generally use the term multiple unit i.e. Diesel Multiple
Unit (DMU). Sometimes the term railcar is also used in particular when
referring to the single car Class 153s.
The subject can cause debates of great length on UK groups with some
insisting that to be a multiple unit the train MUST be capable of
working in multiple with a similar train which for example would mean
that the class 390 Pendolinos are not multiple units!
Funny. In the Netherlands, the official distinction is between a single
self-propelled (by diesel) car ("(diesel)motorwagen") and a unit
consisting of more cars ("(diesel)treinstel"), so the criterium isn't
being able to couple or not, but consisting of multiple units (where
the unit is a coach / car) or not. That was also how I interpreted the
UK MUs (so I'd have thought it a no-brainer that the class 390 is
in fact an EMU).


Andy Micklethwaite <jna74m@...>
 

At 23:37 13/11/2007, Markus wrote:
I understand what you say but this leaves me even more perplex ...

No solution for "Triebwagen"?
As Nigel said, even the English can't agree on what should be a multiple unit! I seem to recall discussion on this list about NPZs in this context not getting any agreement.

Railcar is a term used in Engand for such vehicles as the RBe4/4.
The Stadler units would probably qualify for EMU for almost everyone (maybe!).
Whilst "self-propelled" may be an accurate description, it is not a term in common usage.
So maybe there just isn't a single term that can be applied to all "Triebwagen".

Then of course US English usage is completely different.
HTH Andy.


Andrew Moglestue
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, "Illya Vaes" <illyavaes@...> wrote:


Funny. In the Netherlands, the official distinction is between a
single
self-propelled (by diesel) car ("(diesel)motorwagen") and a unit
consisting of more cars ("(diesel)treinstel"), so the criterium isn't
being able to couple or not, but consisting of multiple units (where
the unit is a coach / car) or not. That was also how I interpreted the
UK MUs (so I'd have thought it a no-brainer that the class 390 is
in fact an EMU).
In the Dutch trains though, you typically have more than one motor
coach per 'treinstel'. Many of the British types had only one vehicle
(usually one of the end vehicles) actually motorised and the others
would therefore strictly speaking be centre coaches and a driving
trailer. When the consists is running alone, the motor coach is not
working in multiple with anything. This would be analogous to the Swiss
situation where your typical Rbe4/4 or NPZ train has only one motorised
vehicle and the rest are trailers. Only in Switzerland the setup is
even looser because vehicles can more easily be shunted between
consists and so the actual consists are continually changing. In the UK
this is more rare and so in addition to the individual vehicles
carrying numbers, the consists are also sometimes numbered.

In the case of the Pendolino, I would venture to say that this is no
EMU because

- it cannot work in multiple with other sets of its type
- the motor coaches within the set cannot easily be shunted into other
consists where they could work in multiple with the motor coaches of
that consist.

Andrew


Manfred Luckmann
 

Andrew Moglestue wrote:
In the case of the Pendolino, I would venture to say that this is no EMU because
- it cannot work in multiple with other sets of its type
- the motor coaches within the set cannot easily be shunted into other consists where they could work in multiple with the motor coaches of that consist.
with this in mind the german ICE-1 would be no EMU
but ICE-2, ICE-3 and ICE-T would be EMUs
(and the ICE-TD would be a DMU)

wondering

Manfred


Heléna Moretti
 

Markus <guerbetaler@freesurf.ch> wrote: "Next case: In German we call any motive power not chased
by Helena ;-) a "Triebwagen". English and American publications
mainly speak about "multiple units" and "railcars". Now I thought
that "motor coach" would be a general translation for Triebwagen
but it seems that this word isn't very well accepted."

Reply: Well, firstly I think what people call them varies and always will, this is my view for whatit is worth.

Multiple Unit: Is 2 or more coaches powered by underslung engines, whether diesel (dmu) or electric (emu).

Railcar: A single coach version. These also equate to Motor coaches as in the RhB Bernina Units and many other lines in Switzerland. The key is they have seats in and as such are not locomotives even though they provide locomotion.

Motor Baggage Vans, like those on the old BVZ and FO, now MGB were referred to as "Parcel Railcars" in GB I think they were numbered 5599x and I saw many floating round Salop. The British versions had underslung engines and were railcars whereas the swiss ones have their motors inside the body and with a bit of teeth grinding I am forced to concede that these qualify as locomotives.

Power Cars like those on British HSTs, German ICE, French TGV, Swiss Class 450, Eurostars, are identifiable as being the power source and can be seperated from their coaches but not ran independently of them in both directions.

Fixed Formation sets like the Cisalpino are therefore multiple units.

Locomotives can be seperated from their train (even if some 460's spend ages before doing so) and then ran independantly in either direction (ie a cab at both ends or in the middle) and do not have passenger accomodation within them.

I know Marcus & I had a long debate on whether 450's are locomotives or not, there are many railfans who chase them as locomotives but I personally do not think they are. They are power cars as they cannot be powered independantly in either direction. I do prefer them to the new Siemans multiple units but that's another debate.

Heléna

--
Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Illya Vaes
 

2007/11/14, Andrew Moglestue <amogles@yahoo.com>:
In the Dutch trains though, you typically have more than one motor
coach per 'treinstel'. Many of the British types had only one vehicle
(usually one of the end vehicles) actually motorised and the others
would therefore strictly speaking be centre coaches and a driving
trailer. When the consists is running alone, the motor coach is not
working in multiple with anything.
[...]

This means that you insist on interpreting the "multiple" in DMU/EMU
as "multiple traction" - two or more traction packages working together.
What I was alluding to is the alternative interpretation of "multiple" as
"a set of individual units" - whether or not motorised.
I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong (though I tend to
disagree with your position), but I am saying that there's not just one
meaning of the word multiple here.

BTW, there were and are plenty of Dutch trains of the "British" type
you refer to. The Plan U (or DE-3) DMUs consisted and the ICM
three-car EMUs consist of a motor car, centre car and driving trailer
(in the ICM four-car EMUs, there's one motor bogie under the first
intermediate car, but the traction packages are in the motor car
as far as I know).
They're all called "treinstel" and even were in the days when the
distinction with single-car units (ie. DE-1) _was_ explicitly made
("we" are pretty damned lazy on the language front these days :-( ).


Andrew Moglestue
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, Heléna Moretti <helena.moretti@...>
wrote:

I know Marcus & I had a long debate on whether 450's are locomotives
or not, there are many railfans who chase them as locomotives but I
personally do not think they are. They are power cars as they cannot be
powered independantly in either direction. I do prefer them to the new
Siemans multiple units but that's another debate.

if being able to run in either direction when not coupled to anything
is the criterium, then many American types such as the E and F series
and also European types such as the Swedish machines on the Narvik line
are not locomotives.

Andrew


Andrew Moglestue
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Moglestue" <amogles@...>
wrote:


if being able to run in either direction when not coupled to anything
is the criterium, then many American types such as the E and F series
and also European types such as the Swedish machines on the Narvik
line
are not locomotives.
or indeed the Spanish 352 which had to be turned on a turntable or a
track triangle at the end of every trip because it had a cab at only
one end ... or for that matter most larger steam locos all over the
world that had to be treated similarly.

Andrew


talltim10
 

Markus wrote:
Next case: In German we call any motive power not chased
by Helena ;-) a "Triebwagen". English and American publications
mainly speak about "multiple units" and "railcars". Now I thought
that "motor coach" would be a general translation for Triebwagen
but it seems that this word isn't very well accepted.
Nigel wrote:
In the UK we generally use the term multiple unit i.e. Diesel Multiple
Unit (DMU). Sometimes the term railcar is also used in particular when
referring to the single car Class 153s.
The subject can cause debates of great length on UK groups with some
insisting that to be a multiple unit the train MUST be capable of
working in multiple with a similar train which for example would mean
that the class 390 Pendolinos are not multiple units!
My understanding was always that the multiple referred the fact that
there was more than one car in the unit, thus a railcar was the single
car version of a multiple unit. However, confusingly, these railcars
normally are considered part of the multiple unit family!
Personally I tend not to translate Triebwagen to anything in English,
because there is/was almost no UK equivalent. Firstly there have not
been that many single railcars, and of the ones there have been hardly
any were used as motive power for other vehicles). The ones that did,
could only pull one or two vehicles. There have never AFAIK been any
electric ones that weren't semi-presently part of a multiple unit. Thus
when thinking of a typical Swiss Triebwagen I think of it as a
Triebwagen!
(1) The GWR diesel railcars could pull a light trailing load, often a
milk van. Some of the 1st generation BR diesel railcars (sometimes
referred to as bubblecars!) had purpose built driving trailers making
them a proper Pendelzug! These were very similar to the driving
trailers built for DMUs.

Tim




Tim David
Network Officer
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
Exchange St, Sheffield S2 5YT
' Tel: 0114 2211291
* Mobile: 07968 043244
7 Fax: 0114 221 1351
* Email: timothyd@sypte.co.uk


Bill Bolton
 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:05:44 +0000 (GMT), Helena wrote:

Multiple Unit: Is 2 or more coaches powered by underslung engines,
whether diesel (dmu) or electric (emu).
"Multiple unit" is a control approach. It involves a "master
controller" of some sort mounted on each powered unit and a "remote"
control facility (that is, it is "remote" from the master controller,
though it may be on the same vehicle) which sends command signals to
the master controller(s).

So a single powered car using the above control approach is using
"multiple unit" technology, whether or not there are other powered
cars controlled by the same command signals.

Multiple unit control works of *one* or more powered vehicles.

Cheers,

Bill

Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia


Andrew Moglestue
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, "Tim David" <talltim@...> wrote:
could only pull one or two vehicles. There have never AFAIK been any
electric ones that weren't semi-presently part of a multiple unit.
Thus
when thinking of a typical Swiss Triebwagen I think of it as a
The Southern region hat motorised luggage vans. I understand these
were pretty powerful and could haul trains including light freights.
They were also sometimes coupled into emu formations to improve the
power to weight ratio and saw frequent use on boat trains. In
addition, these units could be used for shunting and could venture a
short distance onto non-electrified track thanks to their batteries,
or could start up by themselves when working alone and coming to
stand between two live sections. Also, the driving trailers used with
the Class 73s on the Gatwick Express were rebuilt from old passenger
units retaining their power equipment, being able to give the train
an additional boost when needed, or dragging it home when the Class
73 failed.

Andrew


bob gillis <robertgillis@...>
 

Bill Bolton wrote:

snip
"Multiple unit" is a control approach. It involves a "master controller" of some sort mounted on each powered unit and a "remote" control facility (that is, it is "remote" from the master controller,
though it may be on the same vehicle) which sends command signals to
the master controller(s).
So a single powered car using the above control approach is using "multiple unit" technology, whether or not there are other powered cars controlled by the same command signals.
Bill is correct however, the MU does not apply just to motorized/powered
units. A number of railroads in the US had car pairs with one motorized
and one non powered/trailer car. The cars could be controlled from either car of a set.
and could be coupled into trains with many sets.

bob gillis


Max Wyss
 

I understand what you say but this leaves me even more perplex ...

No solution for "Triebwagen"?
As Nigel said, even the English can't agree on what should be a multiple unit! I seem to recall discussion on this list about NPZs in this context not getting any agreement.
One of the problems is that the concepts of the "Triebwagen" in the sense of the RBe4/4 does not exist in English speaking countries. And that can make things rather difficult.

I had a conversation recently with the editor of an English rail industry magazine, and I did ask him about terminology, and it really seems that there is not a generic term out there.

The "Triebwagen" in the sense of the RBe4/4, or the units on the Berninabahn would be "motor cars".

The "Triebwagen" in the sense of the Stadler GTW would be "EMU/ DMU" (where the "M" is intentionally ambiguous ... can stand for "multiple" or "motor".

The "Triebzug" in the sense of the Pendolino or others would be a "train set".


Railcar is a term used in Engand for such vehicles as the RBe4/4.
The Stadler units would probably qualify for EMU for almost everyone (maybe!).
Whilst "self-propelled" may be an accurate description, it is not a term in common usage.
So maybe there just isn't a single term that can be applied to all "Triebwagen".
But again, it is a question of available concepts ... which makes the life of a translator "interesting".

Max.


talltim10
 

Andrew wrote:
The Southern region had motorised luggage vans.
Also, the driving trailers used with
the Class 73s on the Gatwick Express were rebuilt from old passenger
units retaining their power equipment
True, I had forgotten them. But are they Triebwagens as they don't carry
passengers?

Tim