Talk:Mixed train

Terminology
Thank you for your kind and informative comments. Realizing that the page still requires enormous work, I would recommend the contributor who does the next major rewrite examine the numerous pages that link to this one (which I failed to do), since I now realize they contain much useful information. My attempts merely lifted the UK section content from abysmal to fair.

I was unaware of the existence of international English, agreed to by the International Union of Railways, that followed Wikipedia guidelines. I am a Brit, who has lived decades in Canada, so am equally comfortable in British English or North American English. Apart from the term “railroad”, which is only used by a small percentage of Canadians, Canada has adopted US railway terminology, though on rare occasions one hears the odd Brit term. Over the years, I have been constantly surprised by the negligible overlap between Brit/US railway terminology. Since we are talking about numerous terms, I have in ignorance previously used some Brit railway term, and received a blank response from Canadians. I am unaware of any other field where North Americans are speaking in what seems to be a completely different language. No doubt this issue has arisen in the past. Please direct me to the respective Wikipedia discussion pages so that I can gain a better grasp of the subject.

This reminds me of a story I read in a Canadian newspaper about 30 years ago. It dealt with a break-in at a UK facility where armoured cash trucks delivered their money. The thieves laid railway sleepers over a ditch, drove across them, cut through a fence, and robbed the place of its significant cash holdings. When our city newspaper redrafted the Reuters content, it read about a gang of criminals placing railway sleeping cars (ie. coaches comprising sleeping accommodation) over a ditch, and driving across the top of them, apparently without being noticed. The “sleepers” beneath the rails in Brit English are “ties” in North America.

Through exposure to American TV series/films, Brits/Commonwealth citizens have a better general grasp of American terminology than vice versa. The average American or Canadian does not understand narrative written in British railway terminology. Quite a number of North American Wikipedia pages link to this page. Since Wikipedia should be informative for the average person, how can we help the potential 360 million Wikipedia readers in North America who do not understand British railway terminology? DMBanks1 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Those are good questions. The basic Wikipedia policy is WP:ENGVAR which states that "English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other" and goes on to deal with the difficulties that sometimes arise. It's not even just a question of American and British English. Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, India and other countries all have their own versions of English and, outside of North America, there may well be around half a billion English speakers. Because of ENGVAR, in practice, articles stay in the language version of the initial editors, so you'll find plenty of articles like railroad tie in American English (a term unintelligible to the rest of the English-speaking world). However, with rolling stock it's worked quite well. When I began editing railway articles I realised that they mainly used American terminology and focussed on American practice, which is often quite different. So when I've created articles I focussed on Europe and the rest of the world and used the glossary of the International Union of Railways (UIC). So you have articles like boxcar and covered goods wagon which complement each other quite well. And the great thing is that a North American would naturally type in 'boxcar' and get an article on practice in North America, while the rest of the world would go for covered wagon and find the UIC classification of those wagons used by the rest of the world, but not North America. With articles like this one, where there could be confusion, WP:ENGVAR recommends glossing: for example, the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car .... I hope that helps.


 * I like your story about the robbery. It reminds me of when I was travelling through the US and we stopped at a motel. We had a baby, so I asked for a double room with a cot. A short while later I saw two men manhandling a large single bed into our rather small room and they said "we don't think this is going to fit in there." So I said, "we only wanted a cot." "This is a cot." "No, a cot, you know for a baby." "Oh, you mean a crib!" "Er… I suppose so." Two nations divided by a common language! Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * When travelling with a baby in the US, finding nappies can also be difficult, since shops only carry diapers.


 * Using your bonnet/boot example, these words are common to all English-speaking countries, except North America with its hood/trunk. British English countries do have subtle variations in vocabulary (even within the same country), but the same is true within N. American English. So in essence, English only comes in two major groupings.


 * As you mention, there is enough unique material to have separate Brit and N. American pages in many instances. The challenge is where this is not the case. Too many unnecessary railway stubs already exist on Wikipedia without creating more. Another example is zig zags and switchbacks. I consider the former is a subset of the latter (refer Talk:Zig zag (railway)).


 * On that note, I noticed “switching”, a glossing for “shunting”, was deleted. Was this inadvertent? Also in the opening, train…passenger and freight appear to be redundantly linked since they are each commonly used words in English requiring no explanation of meaning. DMBanks1 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You make a good point in para 2 and I think the challenge is how to steer a balanced middle course with each language region honouring the other.
 * I don't have the full UIC glossary to hand and the short version I have doesn't mention zigzags or switchbacks. A quick look at the literature suggests both terms are used interchangeably in North America, while one source suggests that zigzag is the British term and switchback the American one. We'd need to check a range of authoritative sources to reach a conclusion.
 * Yes it was inadvertent and I've reinstated it. In essence, the first occurrence of such a word should be glossed. After that it depends on context; I'd certainly try and refer to US terminology in sections that are specific to North America. In whole articles I'd use whatever the regional language is (Indian, Australian, etc.), but clarify any regional terms with the international/American/British equivalent as need be. It's not an ideal situation. Maybe one day Wikipedia will be clever enough to present topics in the regional English of one's choice; in the meantime we just have to do our best. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Mixed trains in California
Mixed train At one time I read that the State of California forbids mixed trains. Could some one be able tot a quotation from the state law? Peter Horn User talk 14:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)