OGR Webmaster posted:No one will "DRIVE' the 1225. Someone may RUN it, but no one will DRIVE it.
The term "drive" is used in Europe and England, but not here. In the United States an engineer RUNS a locomotive, he does not DRIVE it.
Well Rich, once again, I guess it depends on the situation. When I was running for my engineer and he said"Drive 'em"....I "drove 'em"!!!
Big Jim postedWell Rich, once again, I guess it depends on the situation. When I was running for my engineer and he said"Drive 'em"....I "drove 'em"!!!
LOL! I understand.
Years ago when we ran the 765 on the New River Trains, the late Doug Dillon was often my pilot engineer. When we came out of a speed restriction and it was time to accelerate back to track speed, his favorite phrase was, "OK Richie...give 'er the gas!"
Now, this is the quote I was thinking about. CF SANTA FE: STEEL RAILS THOUGH CALIFORNIA, page 46:
By 1889, the Santa Fe network comprised 8,118 miles including the lines which it owned jointly to the extent of 50 percent with other companies. With the hub now in Chicago instead of Boston, its extremities rested in Galveston, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The Santa Fe strength began to drop as other railroads penetrated the stronghold. Economic conditions began to drop too, and so did the revenues of the Santa Fe. BRITISH BANKS, holding the majority of the bonds and reigns of the company, compelled President Strong to retire. Unfortunately, it was too late; the cancer had eaten more deeply into the system than anticipated, and at last the British interests refused to advance another penny of credit. Bankruptcy was staved for a time, but the end was inevitable. The crash came in 1893. .....
For two years the property remained in the receiver's hands, when reorganization committee was appointed by the representatives of interests in New York and LONDON. Their deliberations culminated in the creation of a new comapny under the tiltel "The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway"......
Also, no the same page there is a period TIMETABLE, not STOCK, (my memory bad), which says:
The Santa Fe trademark used above timetable employed the British lion in respect for the early financial assistance in the building of the railroad to California.
So, is the above the truth, or did the authors use myths I did not know about?
Maybe not myths, but just bad research?
Succinct description of the reorganization:
Santa Fe's OWN explanation of its heralds (see page 1035):
Santa Fe Railway Employee Magazine, 1908
Certainly there were investors who lived in England and other countries...but they in no way held a majority stake.
Thanks. Now it was interesting about the superheated steam article behind the heralds! Not the RR Magazines which are out today!
The August 31, 1889 issue of The Railway News (appears to be a British financial newspaper specializing in railroad investments) has a paragraph devoted to President William B. Strong's retirement. It does hint that he was forced out by "controlling banking interests." It doesn't say these were concentrated in England; indeed, "Boston" is quoted at length about the banking interests' proposed bailout for the railroad, but little hint as to where these "banking interests" are located.
The railroad was always an American company, but just like any other publicly traded company, it certainly had foreign share holders. "Purchased by British interests," however, makes it sound like it was a British owned and run company - which it most certainly wasn't.
I feel your pain Rich! I think I've just about given up correcting folks who use the term "boater" for "sailor". A boater is a straw hat worn by yachtsmen or at political conventions.
And one does not "drive" a boat either, unless it is under sail and they're going to windward. But only in that instance.
Jon 
Actually I wish all of you would stop correcting people. Something may not be correct in your eyes but it's become a rude habit around this forum. It's just as easy to explain the difference in a nice way.
KOOLjock1 posted:I feel your pain Rich! I think I've just about given up correcting folks who use the term "boater" for "sailor". A boater is a straw hat worn by yachtsmen or at political conventions.
And one does not "drive" a boat either, unless it is under sail and they're going to windward. But only in that instance.
Jon
Jon,
I completely disagree with you, I have been a "Boater" for more than 50 years. I might refer to anyone sailing almost any length sailboat as a "Sailor", but in the powerboats, especially under 20' in length we have always used the term "Boater".
My Mom is the original owner of a 1968 Stevens 17' Flat bottom, essentially an "SK" class race hull with recreational seating, it has a Corvette spec'ed 327, with a Forward/ Neutral Crashbox gearbox and a foot throttle, if you said to anyone WE knew that you "Sailed" that boat, you would be Laughed right off the water. When I was younger, my parents were in the Columbia Speedboat Club, and while we never raced our boat, even in the recreational classes, we attended many races, and trust me, the announcers always announced the next boat as "DRIVEN BY" the next driver, and these were serious races, put on by people who knew what they were doing.
My own boat is a 17' Bow-rider, when we are Salmon fishing or Crabbing, if I have to land a fish or tend gear, I will ask my Wife or someone else on board to "Drive", "Take the Wheel" or "Run the Boat" and all understand what I mean.
Heaven knows that I still struggle with teaching my Wife, Step Kids and other Land Lubbers, who didn't grow up around boats and the water, about Bow, Stern, Port and Starboard. At least my Wife has learned "Red Right Returning", and actually understands what it means.
A Family RULE, is that the boat doesn't leave the dock until everyone is wearing their PFD, and so far we have brought everyone back to the shore that has left with us, and even saved one teenager from drowning, when he foolishly tried to swim across a narrow part of a lake that we were canoeing on.
There are times when it is perfectly CORRECT, to use the term "Boater"
Doug
OGR Webmaster posted:challenger3980 posted:Rich,
I fear that your campaign regarding Run/Drive, is likely to end like the Lash up/MU issue
This is not "my" campaign. On the contrary, this is the way it is.
NO ONE in the United States "drives" a locomotive. That's not me talking, rather it is 200 years of US railroad history talking.
My Grandfather, his Son, my Father, and his Son, that would be me, Have all been, and since retired Locomotive Engineers. And I can state with all certainty, that not one time in all the time we have had the privilege of operating Locomotives over the years, with various different Railroads, not once have we encountered a "Steering wheel" to drive a Locomotive! You "RUN" an Engine, and drive a car.....
Sorry Doug... One can helm or pilot a vessel... But "driving" is an automobile term.
Regarding the term "boater", Rudder magazine (perhaps the best written and edited magazine ever) fought this battle through the 30's and 40's. WoodenBoat keeps this term out of their copy today. I'm sure they would be excoriated for using it today!
Jon
The Hat Store in Houston equates the "boater" hat as another term as a "skimmer"!
Now an egineer could be a driver. If his/her rough runner of the trains DRIVES the passengers or those in the caboose nuts!
Can we get this thread back on topic, please?
OGR Webmaster posted:Can we get this thread back on topic, please?
This thread's been off-topic for about 20+ posts... 
I had a good laugh the other day, someone referred to a steam locomotive fireman as a "stoker"... he thought the big engines had to have at least 2-3 stokers on them to shovel enough coal... 
J Daddy posted:What were we talkin about... oh yeah the 1225. So is anyone going to see her this summer?
I'll be working maintenance crew for many of the trips and trying my best to find time between work and summer classes to help with normal jobs and repairs that need done around SRI
Can I buy you a cup of coffee? 
steam fan posted:I had a good laugh the other day, someone referred to a steam locomotive fireman as a "stoker"... he thought the big engines had to have at least 2-3 stokers on them to shovel enough coal...
You...you do know that is an accepted term for a locomotive fireman? Right?
smd4 posted:steam fan posted:I had a good laugh the other day, someone referred to a steam locomotive fireman as a "stoker"... he thought the big engines had to have at least 2-3 stokers on them to shovel enough coal...You...you do know that is an accepted term for a locomotive fireman? Right?
No, no, I never in 50 years heard a fireman called anything but a fireman.... Maybe on a steamship they were referred to as stokers, but never heard that reference in regards to railroading.
Is would have to second that. I have never heard the term "stoker" used to describe a person works who the left side of a steam locomotive cab.
See glossary on page 11:
Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania
Sort of makes you wonder why mechanical stokers weren't called "mechanical firemen."
I wonder who wrote that Glossary? It is written for "Grades 9-12/Ages 15-18".
I think they left something (oil) out of the fireman definition or they didn't include "Oiler" as a separate definition.
"Fireman – A railroad worker who feeds the locomotives fire with wood or coal, adds water and greases the parts as needed. "
I've never heard the term "stoker" used to refer to a locomotive fireman either. It is not used in the union title either. What do they call them across the pond?
Big Jim posted:I wonder who wrote that Glossary? It is written for "Grades 9-12/Ages 15-18".
Maybe written by some "academia" individual that had/has never gotten their hands dirty working on ANYTHING, let alone a steam locomotive?
I think they left something (oil) out of the fireman definition or they didn't include "Oiler" as a separate definition.
"Fireman – A railroad worker who feeds the locomotives fire with wood or coal, adds water and greases the parts as needed. "Being in Pennsylvania, the person probably never heard of an oil burning steam locomotive. Plus, I'm not aware that "greasing the parts as needed" was EVER part of the Fireman's job responsibilities.
I've never heard the term "stoker" used to refer to a locomotive fireman either.
Neither have I.
It is not used in the union title either. What do they call them across the pond?
How about "Fireman"? At least that is what they were/are named in Germany, when I visited there.
How about "Fireman"? At least that is what they were/are named in Germany, when I visited there.
Actually the name for the Fireman in German is Der Heizer. Which translates to "the Heater"
smd4 posted:See glossary on page 11:
Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania
Sort of makes you wonder why mechanical stokers weren't called "mechanical firemen."
Well, there were "Iron Firemen," but they were stationary...
Rusty
I never said it was common. Probably like "Driver," it was likely used more in the early years.
I want to drive 1218.
Farmer_Bill posted:I want to drive 1218.
What is a 1218...a BUS?
If you want to DRIVE it, it sure ain't a locomotive!
Rich, I wish you would care as much about the disgraceful grammar (as clear an indictment of the US educational system as one could find) as you do about "driver" and "lash up."
Appoint a few "editors" who can clean up the grammar on OGR to make it more readable for those of us who care about such things.
Pingman posted:Rich, I wish you would care as much about the disgraceful grammar (as clear an indictment of the US educational system as one could find) as you do about "driver" and "lash up."
Appoint a few "editors" who can clean up the grammar on OGR to make it more readable for those of us who care about such things.
I agree. However, any of us that try THAT will quickly be accused of "correcting folks' mistakes"! We sure wouldn't want THAT would we?
Pingman posted:Rich, I wish you would care as much about the disgraceful grammar (as clear an indictment of the US educational system as one could find) as you do about "driver" and "lash up."
Appoint a few "editors" who can clean up the grammar on OGR to make it more readable for those of us who care about such things.
Yeah, What He said!!!
Doug
Pingman posted:Rich, I wish you would care as much about the disgraceful grammar (as clear an indictment of the US educational system as one could find) as you do about "driver" and "lash up."
Appoint a few "editors" who can clean up the grammar on OGR to make it more readable for those of us who care about such things.
Carl, I care about such things too and would love to be able to do that! But in today's "Anything is OK." society, I would quickly be branded as the "OGR Grammar Police" and ridiculed. There is no right and wrong now, you know. 
Besides, that would quickly become a full-time job for someone and we can't afford that.
I absolutely HATE the way our language is mangled today. I see people use the non-word "prolly" when they mean "probably." They don't know the difference between "loose" and "lose." (If that bolt comes LOOSE, it will fall out and you will LOSE it.") I cringe when I see someone say the have become "orientated" to something. The word is "oriented." Or they have done some "preventative" maintenance on something. The word is "preventive." And don't get me started on there, their and they're.
The misuse of the pronoun "I" is everywhere! I hear people use "I" in a conjunctive phrase when they should use the pronoun "me." For example, "Dad gave a gift to my wife and I." is wrong, yet you hear that all the time. Take the conjunctive phrase out and you would not say, "Dad gave a gift to I." The correct use of the pronoun in a sentence like that is to say, "Dad gave a gift to my wife and ME." But NO ONE uses it properly any more...and they don't seem to care.
By the way, I have given up on my "lashup" crusade. If people want to sound like a silly fool when talking about multiple unit consist by using that goofy word, let them have at it. I will chuckle quietly...
I have to move on now. I'm prolly gonna have sumpin to eat before I go to bed. When my head hits that piller, I will quickly become orientated to the bed and fall fast asleep.
Know-it-alls are fun to play with.
Matt01 posted:Know-it-alls are fun to play with.
There you go...a PERFECT example of being ridiculed for trying to do things right.
Matt, go play somewhere else.
I also cringe at some of the grammatical errors here and on other forums but I think Rich is right to not take those on, for several reasons. First, as grating as they may be, they have nothing to do with model or real trains and this isn't really the place for the moderators or anyone else to fight that battle (although I will forever acknowledge the moderators' right to do so if they desire. It's their ballpark after all ). Second, participants in this hobby are a diverse group and come from a variety of backgrounds. Even if one should have learned proper grammar and vocabulary in elementary school, many individuals went on to work in fields where they used their hands for most of their career and had minimal dealings with the written word, and perhaps did little reading on their own time, for whatever reason. It's the old use it or lose it deal. I've known such people who were very intelligent (keeping in mind the BIG difference between intelligence and education). Not knowing someone's background, I am not one to correct or judge them for errors such as this when they often know far more that I do about the actual subject at hand, especially when they are my elders.
As for railroad terminology, those discussions or debates seem like more fair game for this forum. Sometimes right and wrong terms and very distinct and other times they may not be. My take on it is that many of these terms come from usage, rather than having been carried down from the mountain by Moses on a stone tablet. The right term is generally considered the one most railroaders use. But if a different term creeps into the jargon and gains wider usage, it could very well replace the old one and become the "right" one. Liking it or being annoyed by it doesn't change that. The switch vs. turnout discussion pops up now and then and the two seem to be used interchangeably among modelers and real railroaders although my admittedly limited railroading knowledge leads me to understand that they are not interchangeable. In any case, vocabulary evolution seems to be taking place and "switch" seems to be winning that one.
I deal with similar discussions in the natural world, where I work as a park naturalist. The Baltimore Oriole had it's name changed by the powers that be to the Northern Oriole back in the 70s due to observed interbreeding with another oriole species. In the 90s they decided that not enough interbreeding took place to justify lumping the two together and they separated them again and we now have the Baltimore Oriole back. During all these changes the "knowledgeable" birders were correcting the ignorant slobs who used the "wrong" term when pointing one out. It didn't matter that the birder correctly identified what he was looking at and the second one knew what bird he was talking about (and isn't that the purpose of vocabulary and communication anyway?). He used the wrong term. Oh, the humanity! There's a fine and often amusing line between being knowledgeable and being a nerd, in quite a few fields.
Now that we have covered all of that, Rich does the FWRHS plan on offering throttle time with 765 this year? I know you guys offered it a few years ago, but don't know if it's been offered since. I know a couple of people that would likely be interested.
Dieselbob posted:Now that we have covered all of that, Rich does the FWRHS plan on offering throttle time with 765 this year? I know you guys offered it a few years ago, but don't know if it's been offered since. I know a couple of people that would likely be interested.
I too would be interested in such an event.
OGR Webmaster posted:Can we get this thread back on topic, please?
Who is going to "engineer" the 1225 this year?
We do not have any plans for a throttle time event with the 765 this year.
OGR Webmaster posted:...... By the way, I have given up on my "lashup" crusade. If people want to sound like a silly fool when talking about multiple unit consist by using that goofy word, let them have at it. I will chuckle quietly... ......
Is the term "lashup" ever correct?
I heard the term used when Steve Lee and John Rimmasch were discussing UP steam engines.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
