Category talk:Railcars (self-propelled)

Archives Categories for discussion (3/2009)

First proposal

 Oppose I object the move to Railbus as this isn't the same as a railcar. It can be the same, in some cases, but if you go through the pictures of the subcategories of railcars you will find many examples that can be called railcars but by no means railbus. Perhaps this is a very European view but Commons should be there for all continents! -- Gürbetaler (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I understand, and on Wikipedia it is indeed primarly called a railcar - I was simply going by the description given in the cat, where it seemed interchangible. My intention was simply to provide better disambiguation to distinguish from Category:Rail cars. We could either rename this category to something like "Railcars (self-propelled vehicles)" (not ideal, just throwing out an example of what I mean) or possibly rename "Rail cars" to "Railway carriages" to ensure clearer disambiguation. Ingolfson (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

 Comment I would support a rename to something like "Railcars (self-propelled)". But we should maintain "Rail cars" because Americans will normally search for this term. I have also wondered if we should (re)introduce "Freight car" and "Passenger car" for better orientation as "coach" is only a street vehicle in America. Gürbetaler (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, we should definitely not reintroduce "car" because that is ambigious like hell. "Railway carriage" is much better (if I had my way I would call them "rail carriages", in fact, because I'd like to be consitent in only using "Railways" for specific railways on Commons). PS: Support the change to Railcars (self-propelled). I'll change the proposal. Ingolfson (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Support The explanation in brackets should prevent users from categorizing rail cars as railcars. Gürbetaler (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Support As per my previous note. Ingolfson (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Request - rename to Railcars

It has been proposed to move Category:Railcars (self-propelled) to Category:Railcars, Reason: "self-propelled" is a tautology. en:Railcar says with sources: The term "railcar" is also used in North America to refer to any kind of railroad car, including unpowered freight cars or passenger cars. This fact is a reason why i  Oppose the request. --ŠJů (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If there was already a sufficient need for Category:Railcars to support US needs, then it wouldn't be a redlink.

If there really is demand for that, then perhaps we should create Category:Railcars separately, as a disambiguation? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See the argument above: The explanation in brackets should prevent users from categorizing rail cars as railcars. A red link has also partly such preventive effect. The other thing is that Foroa, contrary to Commons rules, often delete old categories after moving them instead of changing the old category to category redirect or dissambiguation. --ŠJů (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose It is only a tautology in some parts of the world. Better safe than sorry. --Foroa (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose support Foroa-- Gürbetaler (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename (merge) to Category:Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars

 Oppose: the distinction between multiple units and individual motor coaches seems to be more relevant than the distinction (if any is) between motor coaches and railcars. Although there are some boundary cases, many trains are definitely fixed units and many motor coaches (railcars) are regularly separable, and the special subcategories are useful.

What are the boundary cases?

• A) articulated coaches. Some of them can be comprehend in both ways - as "indivisible units" as well as "articulated coach".
• B) stable trains compound from separable coaches. Although their motor coach is capable of independent ride and the number of trailer coaches is variable, the trailers are specially designed as supplement to specific motor coach in one type family.

However, these boundary cases are not a reason to omit proper categorization of clear cases. --ŠJů (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Support Please compare the situation in different countries. In the UK all railcars are categorized DMU or EMU, even if they normally run single. But as they have the basic capability to run in MU with other railcars, they are called DMU. See en:British Rail Class 153. Even railbuses like classes 142/143/144 are called DMU in the UK. Almost all modern railcars and motor coaches have MU capability and would in British terms be classified DMU or EMU. In other languages other points are used to distinguish vehicles. Swiss usage of motor coaches as locomotive replacement isn't correctly reflected with the term railcar. In Germany it's quite the opposite situation, apart from the (now closed) narrow gauge railways. In Italy the distinction comes along the borders of the companies. FS nowadays has railcars or EMUs/DMUs, but private railways still have those motor coaches, pulling anything available for a proper train. France doesn't have a tradition of motor coaches but Spain has. Now if you redirect motor coach to railcar, this doesn't correctly reflect the situation in the different countries. Defining a parent category containing all three terms allows to classify correctly for each country.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "railcar" has been rarely used in the UK since 1948. However the railbus was recognised as a distinct type apart from DMUs. Such railbuses were rare (Beeching removed the lines that should have used them altogether), but they and their archetype did exist. There was no view that, "All railcars are considered as DMUs". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to speak about bygone railcars. My point was or is: "Even railbuses like classes 142/143/144 are called DMU in the UK." I take this fact from the Platform 5 booklet for 2013.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So Commons now no longer covers "bygones"?! Are you planning to delete these images, as well as mis-categorising them? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You take a big effort in misinterpreting what I'm saying. Once again: There is no clear distinction between multiple units, motor coaches, railcars and railbuses and the distinction varies depending on the country and the time. Because of this fact I propose to merge the parent categories, especially in the by country categories. This allows to keep the national distinctions where necessary but to find a motor coach which is classified railcar in the respective country.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Little illustration of what I said: Category:Y1 is classified:

• Diesel multiple units by type
• Diesel multiple units of Sweden
• Kalmar Verkstad
• Fiat railcars

Now, is the Y1 a railcar or a DMU ??-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Railcar" is a widely used term, applied variously to almost everything. "Railbus" is a little more closely defined, having implications of lightweight construction and a 4 wheeler chassis (are there any bogie railbuses?). However the one term that we can give any precise definition to is the DMU: a railcar that can be operated in linked multiples. This is a technical aspect and is unambiguous. We should not abuse it by placing non-multiple units (almost everything before 1950) into it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but: Many vehicles today can be classified railcar & DMU or railbus & DMU today, as you can see from the Y1 example. But where do you put it then? Everywhere? Concerning bogie railbuses, see here: Category:Y6/Y7/Y8 and there was even an electric variety: Category:SJ X16-- Gürbetaler (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)