Page 1 of 1
| Etymology of railway terminology Today at 09:57 #159415 | |
Anothersignalman
109 posts |
Flabberdacks suggested branching from my other thread to discuss the comparative etymology of various railway terms worldwide, e.g. the use of the term 'dock', and from my perspective, whether the Victorian Railways were the only place to use "double compound" in lieu of "double slip" (same for singles), and "delta" in lieu of "scissors" crossovers?
Log in to reply |
| Etymology of railway terminology Today at 12:44 #159417 | |
|
kbarber
1751 posts |
I have an idea the GWR used 'compound' for slip points. But then the GW was always a law unto themselves. Never come across 'delta'. South of the Border, dock was - as others have said - usually a siding (most often a short one) where loading/unloading would take place. Log in to reply |
| Etymology of railway terminology Today at 13:14 #159419 | |
|
TUT
537 posts 
|
kbarber in post 159417 said:I have an idea the GWR used 'compound' for slip points. But then the GW was always a law unto themselves. Never come across 'delta'.I think so as well. Remember, there are two ways of doing things. There's the Great Western way and the wrong way. Log in to reply |
| Etymology of railway terminology Today at 15:43 #159421 | |
|
clive
2794 posts |
Anothersignalman in post 159415 said:whether the Victorian Railways were the only place to use "double compound" in lieu of "double slip" (same for singles), and "delta" in lieu of "scissors" crossovers?I've come across "compound points" meaning points interlaced with a diamond crossing; in other words, what's more normally known as "slips". With, of course, "single compound" and "double compound". From the context, I've got the impression that these were the formal names for the constructs, with "slip" being a colloquialism used by those down on the tracks. To me, "delta" indicates three lines meeting with three or six points so that trains from any direction can head out in either of the other two directions. Log in to reply |
| Etymology of railway terminology Today at 16:36 #159422 | |
flabberdacks
641 posts |
Even just comparing Sydney and Melbourne terminology is a head-spin. Possession / Occupation 4-car set / 4-car unit Set the route / Pull the route (Set for a train / Pull for a train) Block the points / Sleeve the points Etc etc could go on for ages. I think Melbourne's more 'lever frame' language is a cultural thing from having large lever frames running the whole network until late in the piece, going almost straight from big levers to the computers at Metrol in 83 with only a very short power signalling era in between, and a further long time taken to get rid of the rest of the levers from the suburban area. By 1983 in Sydney there were NX panels running the CBD, Strathfield area and Campbelltown, Broadmeadow was commissioned that year I think, but power signalling had been around for decades even then, with prettymuch everything from Auburn to Penrith getting power frames with rotary or toggle switches instead of levers in the late 50s. (This is an extreme generalisation just to outline my point). So it may have been that fewer and fewer Sydney signallers were 'pulling' or 'sleeving' anything which caused the lingo to change over the years. Use of the term 'dock' in Victoria to describe the act of bringing a train into service from a siding is something I've not heard nor read an equivalent of anywhere else. I like it. But I suspect the lack of a train description arrangement until, what was it, the 1970s? meant that the train that came to your platform to form the 0648 up was your "6:48 dock" and it just stayed that way down the generations. Even now, having had a train describer for 50 years, plenty of people insist on that terminology rather than trying to find '3504' on a timetable or graph. Also when it comes to running Flinders Street, the signallers, inner area train controllers and the fleet controllers all have the timetable represented to them in time order, so it's much easier to refer to a train as "the 7:51 Ringwood arrival" rather than its train describer number. Much quicker to find. Log in to reply |