ukclique > railway

BirchangerKen (26.08.2017, 13:58)
People on here use the word 'consist' as a noun to mean the formation
of a train. I was unaware of the term for most of my life, only
encountering it when I bought a PCRail simulation of Champaigne,
Illinois about 15 years ago.

Has this classic American verbification been used for long in the UK?
I'm not aware of it being used on the Underground, despite Yerkes
bringing in some American terms such as car for carriage. Or did it
arrive with EWS?
Scott (26.08.2017, 14:02)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:58:01 +0100, BirchangerKen <ken>
wrote:

>People on here use the word 'consist' as a noun to mean the formation
>of a train. I was unaware of the term for most of my life, only
>encountering it when I bought a PCRail simulation of Champaigne,
>Illinois about 15 years ago.
>Has this classic American verbification been used for long in the UK?
>I'm not aware of it being used on the Underground, despite Yerkes
>bringing in some American terms such as car for carriage. Or did it
>arrive with EWS?


How would you use 'consist' as a noun? Could you provide an example
for context?
hounslow3 (26.08.2017, 14:04)
On 26.08.17 12:58, BirchangerKen wrote:
> People on here use the word 'consist' as a noun to mean the formation
> of a train. I was unaware of the term for most of my life, only
> encountering it when I bought a PCRail simulation of Champaigne,
> Illinois about 15 years ago.
> Has this classic American verbification been used for long in the UK?
> I'm not aware of it being used on the Underground, despite Yerkes
> bringing in some American terms such as car for carriage.


I have always heard of consists in the United States as "stretches."
Roland Perry (26.08.2017, 14:28)
In message <6lo2qcpah75ak1plm8u6jbdciu2hfavi47>, at 13:02:10 on
Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Scott <newsgroups> remarked:

>How would you use 'consist' as a noun? Could you provide an example
>for context?


Consist: "(rail transport) A lineup or sequence of railroad carriages or
cars, with or without a locomotive, that form a unit.

The train's consist included a baggage car, four passenger
cars, and a diner."

Scott (26.08.2017, 14:55)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:28:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland>
wrote:

>In message <6lo2qcpah75ak1plm8u6jbdciu2hfavi47>, at 13:02:10 on
>Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Scott <newsgroups> remarked:
>Consist: "(rail transport) A lineup or sequence of railroad carriages or
> cars, with or without a locomotive, that form a unit.
> The train's consist included a baggage car, four passenger
> cars, and a diner."
>


Thanks for that. I should have asked Mr Google first. It's like a
'rake' then?
BirchangerKen (26.08.2017, 15:18)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:55:55 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:28:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland>
>wrote:
>Thanks for that. I should have asked Mr Google first. It's like a
>'rake' then?


I'd use rake for carriages. Perhaps formation as a general term.
BirchangerKen (26.08.2017, 15:20)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:04:41 +0100, "hounslow3"
<hounslow3> wrote:

>On 26.08.17 12:58, BirchangerKen wrote:
>I have always heard of consists in the United States as "stretches."


That's new to me, but sounds better to my British ears than consist.
Peter Crosland (26.08.2017, 15:35)
On 26/08/2017 12:58, BirchangerKen wrote:
> People on here use the word 'consist' as a noun to mean the formation
> of a train. I was unaware of the term for most of my life, only
> encountering it when I bought a PCRail simulation of Champaigne,
> Illinois about 15 years ago.
> Has this classic American verbification been used for long in the UK?
> I'm not aware of it being used on the Underground, despite Yerkes
> bringing in some American terms such as car for carriage. Or did it
> arrive with EWS?


It has been around for many years in the UK and is interchangeable with
rake.
Scott (26.08.2017, 15:40)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:20:16 +0100, BirchangerKen <ken>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:04:41 +0100, "hounslow3"
><hounslow3> wrote:
>That's new to me, but sounds better to my British ears than consist.


I don't know. A 'stretch' could mean a section of track so might
create confusion.
Christopher A. Lee (26.08.2017, 17:53)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:58:01 +0100, BirchangerKen <ken>
wrote:

>People on here use the word 'consist' as a noun to mean the formation
>of a train. I was unaware of the term for most of my life, only
>encountering it when I bought a PCRail simulation of Champaigne,
>Illinois about 15 years ago.
>Has this classic American verbification been used for long in the UK?
>I'm not aware of it being used on the Underground, despite Yerkes
>bringing in some American terms such as car for carriage. Or did it
>arrive with EWS?


I never saw it until I moves to the US. It's gramatically incorrect,
like a lot of Americanisms.

I also never saw "standee" either, until then. But apparently the
predecessors of London Transport also used that. Again, possibly due
to Yerkes or the early American designed electric stock.
John Levine (26.08.2017, 18:34)
In article <7363qc1psosum36kiqkrpal355fbu3o7a9>,
Christopher A. Lee <c.lee> wrote:
>I never saw it until I moves to the US. It's gramatically incorrect,
>like a lot of Americanisms.


It's grammatically fine, a noun that happens to look like a verb.

Says here that we yahoos have been using the term since 1898:



R's,
John
Peter Crosland (26.08.2017, 19:47)
On 26/08/2017 17:34, John Levine wrote:
> In article <7363qc1psosum36kiqkrpal355fbu3o7a9>,
> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee> wrote:
> It's grammatically fine, a noun that happens to look like a verb.
> Says here that we yahoos have been using the term since 1898:
>


This is an American dictionary rather than an English English one!

The Oxford English dictionary defines it as, amongst other things, as

Noun "A set of railway vehicles forming a complete train."

INMHO this is definitive.
BirchangerKen (26.08.2017, 20:00)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:53:31 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<c.lee> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:58:01 +0100, BirchangerKen <ken>
>wrote:
>I never saw it until I moves to the US. It's gramatically incorrect,
>like a lot of Americanisms.
>I also never saw "standee" either, until then. But apparently the
>predecessors of London Transport also used that. Again, possibly due
>to Yerkes or the early American designed electric stock.


London Transport used standee when they started introducing buses that
were designed to have standing passengers at any time. Previously most
buses allowed 5 standing but only when no seats were available. I
think the first time I heard the word was in relation to the XMS buses
introduced on Red Arrow route 500.
damduck-egg (26.08.2017, 21:01)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:35:20 +0100, Peter Crosland <g6jns>
wrote:

>On 26/08/2017 12:58, BirchangerKen wrote:
>It has been around for many years in the UK and is interchangeable with
>rake.


It is has become quite common amongst some of those who dabble with
model Railways.
DCC or Digital Command Control is a system where each prime mover has
it's it own chip that be can addressed by a digital coded signal to
control the vehicle unlike the varying of voltage and polarity that
those of the Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang era would have been using.
Track for DCC is always live with a high frequency AC current with the
control signals embedded with it and after a few years of different
systems the world basically agreed on the ones established by American
modellers so their terms prevail.
One of them is Consist which for the modellers purpose is controlling
two or more locos together as you would need to when say double
heading but also remembering that in North America multiple locos are
controlled together frequently and they will often be distributed
along the train to save strain on couplings and other considerations.
whether the full size railroads call that consisting I don't know but
that is what it has come to mean for modellers.

G.Harman
John Levine (26.08.2017, 21:05)
In article <Gb-dnZ-neoDSKTzEnZ2dnUU78dfNnZ2d>,
Peter Crosland <g6jns> wrote:
>This is an American dictionary rather than an English English one!
>The Oxford English dictionary defines it as, amongst other things, as
>Noun "A set of railway vehicles forming a complete train."
>INMHO this is definitive.


I'd say that's reasonably consistent with what the American dictionary says.

Does the OED put the accent on the first or second syllable? The
American one says first syllable. I've never heard it pronounced, only
seen it written, but I can believe it.

R's,
John

Similar Threads