ukclique > railway

Nobody (27.08.2017, 01:15)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:47:59 +0100, Peter Crosland <g6jns>
wrote:

>On 26/08/2017 17:34, John Levine 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.


Which also indicates a slight variation from the meaning of rake,
which I've always considered to be a random/higgledy piggledy
collection not necessarily formng a complete train.
Anna Noyd-Dryver (27.08.2017, 02:33)
Scott <newsgroups> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:58:01 +0100, BirchangerKen <ken>
> wrote:
> How would you use 'consist' as a noun? Could you provide an example
> for context?


Pronounced "CON-sist", differently to "what does that consist of?"; a
typical usage might be "what's the consist of that train?", or "train xxx
conveyed preserved loco yyy in [the|it's] consist". Analogous to
"formation".

Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner (27.08.2017, 03:12)
<damduck-egg> wrote:
[..]
> 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.


I'm currently in the US, and have only noticed a couple of moving freight
trains so far. As far as I could see, both were top and tailed by pairs of
locos. I don't know if all four were under power, but I assume that would
be normal here? I didn't spot any mid-train locos, but in such long
trains, it would be easy to miss them.

Interestingly, they represented the past and the future: one was carrying
coal, and the other Vestas wind turbine components.

One cool thing: I was travelling on conventional and light rail trains that
in some cases shared formations, complete with many level crossings, but
not tracks, with freight trains. The modern electric units generated the
same bell and mournful horn blasts that the big freight locos do; but when
running on their own modern segregated tracks, they didn't.
Nobody (27.08.2017, 03:49)
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 00:12:30 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.ng> wrote:

[..]
>not tracks, with freight trains. The modern electric units generated the
>same bell and mournful horn blasts that the big freight locos do; but when
>running on their own modern segregated tracks, they didn't.


Gee, that sets the grey cells off trying to figure out where you are,
or have been, or will be... even,
hounslow3 (27.08.2017, 16:42)
On 27.08.17 1:12, Recliner wrote:
[..]
> not tracks, with freight trains. The modern electric units generated the
> same bell and mournful horn blasts that the big freight locos do; but when
> running on their own modern segregated tracks, they didn't.

Where in the United States are you?
e27002 aurora (27.08.2017, 17:00)
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:42:11 +0100, "hounslow3"
<hounslow3> wrote:

>On 27.08.17 1:12, Recliner wrote:
>Where in the United States are you?


One cannot answer for the OP. His description would fit the Los
Angeles County MTA's Blue Line to Long Beach.
Recliner (27.08.2017, 17:30)
hounslow3 <hounslow3> wrote:
> On 27.08.17 1:12, Recliner wrote:
> Where in the United States are you?


Denver
Graeme Wall (27.08.2017, 21:48)
On 27/08/2017 01:12, Recliner wrote:
> <damduck-egg> wrote:
> I'm currently in the US, and have only noticed a couple of moving freight
> trains so far. As far as I could see, both were top and tailed by pairs of
> locos. I don't know if all four were under power, but I assume that would
> be normal here? I didn't spot any mid-train locos, but in such long
> trains, it would be easy to miss them.


When I did the trip on the Canadian, I noticed CNR trains had the
assisting locos at the rear in classical banking fashion and CPR trains
inserted a loco(s) in the middle of the train.
Kevin (27.08.2017, 23:29)
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 believe it came in with TOPS (when was that? late 60s?)
Christopher A. Lee (28.08.2017, 02:29)
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 21:29:28 +0100, Kevin
<2011OMIT_THIS_BITnews> wrote:

>On 26/08/17 12:58, BirchangerKen wrote:
>I believe it came in with TOPS (when was that? late 60s?)


TOPS was an American system, originally developed by the Southern
Pacific.

Michael R N Dolbear (28.08.2017, 03:16)
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
news:nz2d

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.

This meaning is not in the OED so if you can provide them with printed
citations they would be interested.

For rake
1885 E. B. Ivatts Railway Managem. at Stations 554 Rake of waggons, a
string of waggons.
1901 Daily Record (Glasgow) 28 Nov. 3/2 A number of lads were riding on
a rake of hutches.
1940 L. A. G. Strong Sun on Water 224 The train I join is made up
locally. The rake of carriages does be waiting at the station, and a tank
engine comes in.
ColinR (28.08.2017, 14:22)
On 28/08/2017 01:16, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
[snip]
> This meaning is not in the OED so if you can provide them with printed
> citations they would be interested.


From the on-line version of the OED:

Rake: - fourth definition
Consist:

Both in the Oxford dictionary - but even though not mentioned, I believe
consist is an imported Americanism which the OED have accepted as in
common usage.
Michael R N Dolbear (31.08.2017, 04:59)
"ColinR" wrote in message news:49u1

On 28/08/2017 01:16, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
[snip]
> This meaning is not in the OED so if you can provide them with printed
> citations they would be interested.


> From the on-line version of the OED:


> Rake: - fourth
> definition Consist:


> Both in the Oxford dictionary - but even though not mentioned, I believe

consist is an imported Americanism which the OED have accepted as in
common usage.
==

The OED has no entry for consist (noun) I think you are looking at the
Oxford Living dictionary
Jeremy Double (31.08.2017, 09:13)
Michael R N Dolbear <me> wrote:
> "ColinR" wrote in message news:49u1
> On 28/08/2017 01:16, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
> [snip]
> Consist:
> consist is an imported Americanism which the OED have accepted as in
> common usage.
> ==
> The OED has no entry for consist (noun) I think you are looking at the
> Oxford Living dictionary


I would be very surprised if it were not in the OED, because it has made it
to the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

"consist
n.
the set of vehicles forming a complete train."

No note about this being an American usage, either...
Michael R N Dolbear (01.09.2017, 00:06)
"Jeremy Double" wrote

> Consist:
> consist is an imported Americanism which the OED have accepted as in
> common usage.
> ==
> The OED has no entry for consist (noun) I think you are looking at the
> Oxford Living dictionary


..> I would be very surprised if it were not in the OED, because it has made
it
to the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

..> "consist n.
the set of vehicles forming a complete train."

..> No note about this being an American usage, either...

Then prepare to be v surprised.

The first Concise was published before the OED was complete and they have
been on different update cycles ever since. I sent in an additional
definition for "Footcloth" and it will be several years before the OED
reaches "F" again.

Similar Threads