Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Driving railway coaches

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
  • Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Category:Driving railway coaches}}--~~~~
  • On the log, add :
    {{Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Driving railway coaches}}
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Driving railway coaches[edit]

Scope of the category Category:Driving railway coaches and this subcategories like Category:Driving railway carriages by country is dubious. "Driving coach" can have two different meanings: "Motor car" (en:Railcar, Motor coach) or "en:Control car" (Control coach). Both those types of coach can be a part of en:multiple unit, but a railcar can not be a part of multiple unit often.

I'm know too little the English and US terminology. But scope of those categories should be better described and the content of them should be re-sorted. --ŠJů (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railcars (self-propelled) and Category:Rail motor coaches are identical themes, though the description contradicts. --ŠJů (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The category is meant for coaches with a cab. They are mostly used for push-pull trains. Those that are part of a multiple unit must normally be put under multiple units. There is quite a variety of terms for these coaches or carriages. American use is cab car or control car, British terms are driving trailer or combinations starting with "driving" like driving van trailer (DVT) or driving brake standard open (DBSO). I can't discover the term driving carriage in British rail literature but I admit I haven't read all books that exist... A native British speaker and rail expert may help us here. Gürbetaler (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose "driving coach" means coach with a cab. But there are two types of coach which have cab: motor coaches with cab and trail coaches with cab. Question arises whether the term "driving coach" ("driving carriage") means the second type only or the railcars and motor coaches are ranked among them as well. The second problem is, how much the vehicles must be connected to be told that it is "multiple unit". What is the decisive criterion? The compatibility toward other types? --ŠJů (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
A motor coach is normally expected to have a cab without mentioning this fact. However, the British designation system for multiple units calls them driving motor against driving trailer, but also non-driving motor for a vehicle in the middle of a consist but without cab. A driving coach is a vehicle without motor. -Gürbetaler (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
A multiple unit is either a consist with more than one motor car/coach/carriage in it or a vehicle or trainset with MU ability.Gürbetaler (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Railcars and Motor coaches are NOT the same thing. Simply said, railcars run single or with a trailer, motor coaches can replace locomotives. Sure, there isn't always a clear borderline between the two but description on the pages gives a good idea what belongs there. Gürbetaler (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the distinction between "railcar" and "motor coach". Both have a motor. Both are a passenger coach. Both can run single. Both can have one or more trailers (coaches), i. e. both can replace a locomotive. What's the difference? I don't know if it is somewhere made some difference, but we in the Czech Republic have a common term for both and I can't imagine how to make some borderline. Does it depend on size of a vehicle? --ŠJů (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it is also a linguistic problem. Railcar translates as Schienenbus or Leichttriebwagen in German and autorail in French. Motor coach is a Triebwagen or Schlepptriebwagen in German and automotrice in French. However, there is no exact borderline. And the translations I gave are not exact matches. But generally spoken, a motor coach is stronger than a railcar. Thus, a railcar can't pull the same number of trailers than a motor coach can.
After all it might be the easiest to merge the two categories, calling them Category:Rail motor coaches and railcars and this would be Triebwagen und Schienenbusse in German and automtrices et autorails in French. Gürbetaler (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Czech Republic have each of this types its own history (in 1920-s came the first ones to lokal tracks, in 1930-s the second ones as fast trains), however the official terminology knows only "motorový vůz" (Triebwagen) for both types. (By the way, is said that in 1936 were Czechoslovakian railways the most motorized railway company from Europe). "Autobus" is only one of slang nicknames of most used class 810. However there exist some "mezzo" types.
I think, we can keep such separation for countries, where it is generally established, but the international umbrella categories should be together. Alternatively (the best solution?), the Leichttriebwagen (Schienen buses, Railcar) should by a subcategory of Triebwagen (Motor coach). --ŠJů (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In German, der Leichttriebwagen ist clearly a subtype of Triebwagen. Does exist some common (superordinate) name in English for both? --ŠJů (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem starts at the point where British motive power booklets only know multiple units and nothing else. And that's a correct view for British railways. But looking at German, French and Swiss railways I know many vehicles that don't fit in the EMU or DMU category (see above: a consist with more than one motor car/coach/carriage in it or a vehicle or trainset with MU ability):
With the German category Triebwagen it would be easy, sure. But I don't know an exact english match. Gürbetaler (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
At Czech and Slovakian tracks, as i know, there was only one type (two prototypes) of motor coach/car, that couldn't be joined: ČSD Class M290.0 (Tatra 68). It very resembles File:Swiss Rail ABe 4 4 2704 AB 43.jpg File:OeBB-RBe2-4.jpg. It seems to be pointlees to create some special category "railcars in..." for this one type only. Most types of motor coachs have its un-motoring counterpart with compatible design (look), but such coaches can be drawn with common locomotive as well. Is it multiple unit, but isn't? Presently all Czech diesel motorcoachs/motorcars and all Czech diesel multiple units are categorized as Category:Diesel multiple units of the Czech Republic, which is not located into the international "motor coachs" category. It appears to me as not to be ideal. But I don't know why to solve it. Czech electric powered coachs are typically a part of electric multiple unit: exceptions was File:EM 400.jpg at the first Czech electrified railway (it is categorized as "electric multiple unit") and electric-powered coachs/trams at formerly narrow gauge suburban semi-tram tracks in the Ostrava surroudings: those coachs are received as trams. --ŠJů (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It is what I tried to explain. In many countries the two categories Category:Locomotives and Category:Multiple units would do. But in some countries it would not do and Category:Rail motor coaches or Category:Railcars (self-propelled) are needed in addition.- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

⇐In the context of this category, a Driving coach is one which is used to remote control a locomotive at the far end of a train. This is the British English usage. The USAian equivalent is Control Car. Multiple units are self contained-fixed formations with driving coaches at their outer ends (these go in a separate cat depending upon their power source). This is the European usage - in the USA a multiple unit is something different. Single-car self-propelled coaches are usually treated a multiple units. HTH Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussion. A full category description was added on April 3. It seems to answer the question that triggered this thread. No further action seems required. -- User:Docu at 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

How to organize Category:Rolling stock ?[edit]

We are now back on the question how to categorize within rolling stock. We could start from the UIC numbering scheme and define the main categories

  • motive power (Triebfahrzeuge) exchange code 90-98
  • coaching stock (Reisezugwagen) exchange code 50-79
  • freight rolling stock (Güterwagen) exchange code 00-49 and 80-89
  • service vehicles (Dienstfahrzeuge) exchange code 99 and 60, 40, 80

Gürbetaler (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

By country first, then within the countries based upon the local terminology and then create super cats to bring the similar vehicles together. UIC numbers are not very useful as they don't have sufficient granularity in the motive power category. There are some categories in Category:Rolling stock which might bear some investigation: [:Category:Motive power] adds no value. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
UIC numbering isn't an ideal utility. It's no practical. But we can to have a respect to them. We cannot give priority a criterion of motive power to the prejudice of other relevant criteria. It means, multiple units (94 and 95) should be categorized together and inserted as a group into both tractive and driven vehicles. But the beginning question (which is disctinction between railcars / rail coachs / multiple units) isn't facilitated by the UIC numbering. I think, they can be differentiated within some countries and can not be differentiated in other countries. Btw, UIC numbering of tractive vehicles includes the traditional national numberings, which can use some specific criteria. --ŠJů (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to understand the UIC numbers as "master criteria", I just mentioned them to show more clearly about what I am speaking. I would like to know why Category:Motive power doesn't add any value. It is the only way to bring locomotives, multiple units, motor coaches and railcars together. And basically I agree with ŠJů that there are national preferences as to whether a vehicle is a railcar or a motor coach or a multiple unit (or even a locomotive). And if I am not mistaken, Railwayfan2005 said more or less the same.
First thing that we should decide on: Would coaching stock and freight rolling stock include motorized vehicles? Are there better terms for the four categories I proposed above?Gürbetaler (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What about trams? Is this the fifth main category?

Next step are the attributes that are "normally" to be used with the above main categories:

  • electric
  • battery
  • diesel
  • steam
  • fireless
  • gasoline
  • hybrid
  • gas turbine
  • horse

and on a second level:

  • narrow gauge
  • rack
  • rubber-tyred
  • linear motor
  • monorail
  • miniature
  • historical or heritage
  • postal
  • military
  • mining
  • touristic
  • rapid transit

The main categories should be sorted

  • by country
  • by manufacturer
  • by colour (don't know why, but Wikimedia is for everybody...)

Gürbetaler (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) updated 7 April 2009

Batteries are electric. Diesel, gasoline, etc are Internal Combustion. Two steps back though. What do you believe to be broken with the current structure? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
My question is, if the above main categories are accepted or if it should be
  • locomotives
  • multiple units, motor coaches and railcars
  • trams
  • passenger stock
  • non-passenger stock
  • freight rolling stock
  • self-propelled service vehicles
  • service vehicles
And we could also discuss to bring the attributes on two levels:
  • electrically-powered
    • electric
    • battery
  • internal combustion
    • diesel
    • gasoline
    • gas turbine
  •  ???
    • steam
    • fireless
  • hybrid
  • animal-powered
    • horse
  • cable-powered

Gürbetaler (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To me the second option makes sense, something needs to be done soon because what we have is very confusing, another thing is that Europeans have all kinds of codes, that to me and i believe the rest of the world is very confusing, on both sides we may have to give up some technicalities in order to come up with a neutral, user friendly approach, i´m not a technical genius in all these terminologies but i do love rail travel, imagine the regular folk who wants to understand what's going on, lets get on it, Prost Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see a new contribution to this subject! I support what you say. Just two questions:
  • Is it o.k. to put luggage vans or mail vans under "non-passenger stock" or could we get on without this category?
  • Do you prefer the two-step attributes (e.g. internal combustion - diesel) or only one step (e.g. diesel)? In other words, would you like to find "diesel" as subcategory of locomotives or rather "internal combustion" which is then split into "diesel" etc.?
-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Gürbetaler, I do not know if i´m the right person to answer technicalities like these, but, i believe, on a "regular folk" point of view, luggage vans and mail vans should be under "non-passenger stock", and diesel, gasoline... under internal combustion, if this makes any sense?.
On the "How to organize Category" dilemma, i went a step further and made up a basic chart in order to keeps sections organized, see in Spanish Wikipedia "Unidades de tracción ferroviaria" on bottom of page (I´m active on English Wikipedia also) which i think helps organize "Rail traction units". There is still also a lot of confusion among English and Spanish speaking Wikipedia about Tram and Light rail which i have been slowly straightening up in the Spanish Wikipedia.
In order for all this to be understandable, in this rapidly changing world, I would suggest doing doing some simple "Graphic Drawings of rolling stock", people now days capture images very well, let me know if you are interested, we could work this out together, i´m a graphic designer and have several maps and technical drawings done already (Configuración automotriz). Please let me know your thoughts Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't yet seen such a thing on WikiCommons but I know them from Yes, I would find it a good idea to have a nvaigation help for the "normal user". Will you make a proposition?--Gürbetaler (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And could you help in the discussion on the Category:Rolling stock discusion page whether trains are a subcategory of rolling stock or if rolling stock is a subcategory of trains. Thank you!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion. Please open new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 13:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)