Railway or Railroad?
- Thread starter meddyliol
- Start date
NSWGR_46Class
Just call my Captain Rude
Railway is very much british thing
Railroad is very much a usa thing
From what I have been told a railway is a complete system trains, track, building etc.
And a railroad is just a company that runs trains which they may or may not own on track that the may or may not own.
As in the software made by Auran both the same thing
Railroad is very much a usa thing
From what I have been told a railway is a complete system trains, track, building etc.
And a railroad is just a company that runs trains which they may or may not own on track that the may or may not own.
As in the software made by Auran both the same thing
It should be noted that the history of the usage of the words "railway" and "railroad" in the United States is somewhat complex. In older times, "railways" in the U.S. were often electric interurbans and streetcar lines, while "Railroads" were steam powered, and usually employed larger and heavier equipment. However, this was not a hard and fast rule, and there are a number of examples of firms falling on hard times and after reorganization, having changed their corporate name from "XY&Z Railroad" to "XY&Z Railway", and vice versa.
ns
ns
Hi all
What mjolnir said in the last sentence was the major reason for the use of the term "railroad", not any of the others. During the late 19th century, a lot of the fledgling US railway companies were hit hard by the depression in the 1890s and some went into bankruptcy. To get around the various bankruptcy laws of the time, quite a few were renamed as railroad companies.
A prime example of this was the Union Pacific, which was called the Union Pacific Railway up until bankruptcy, then re-emerged as the Union Pacific Railroad. There are many examples of the terms being used interchangeably, so it would appear that the term "railroad" was one simply used to help companies start trading again under a "different" name after going into insolvency.
Cheers
Tony
What mjolnir said in the last sentence was the major reason for the use of the term "railroad", not any of the others. During the late 19th century, a lot of the fledgling US railway companies were hit hard by the depression in the 1890s and some went into bankruptcy. To get around the various bankruptcy laws of the time, quite a few were renamed as railroad companies.
A prime example of this was the Union Pacific, which was called the Union Pacific Railway up until bankruptcy, then re-emerged as the Union Pacific Railroad. There are many examples of the terms being used interchangeably, so it would appear that the term "railroad" was one simply used to help companies start trading again under a "different" name after going into insolvency.
Cheers
Tony
To continue the prototype discussion, one of the largest railroad companies in the US is the BNSF Railway (www.bnsf.com).
Apologies for the diversion from the original question.
Apologies for the diversion from the original question.
This subject came up a little while ago, in a thread about Thomas the tank engine. This is what I posted at the time.
Yes, Thomas is British or, at least, his creator was. But the idea that the word "railway" is British and "railroad" American has come about by a peculiar accident of history.
The first "inter-city" line in the world was between Manchester and Liverpool. In 1825 a Bill was presented to Parliament to authorise the construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad. There were serious inaccuracies in the details of this Bill and it was rejected. The following year, a revised Bill was presented to Parliament. Parliamentary rules, I believe, would not allow a "second chance" to a Bill that had already been rejected in that session. So the new Bill, which became an Act of Parliament, was for construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
This may be an over-simplified version of history, but at the time the terms railway and railroad were interchangeable. BTW I notice that there are many "railways" in the US.
HTH - Peter
Yes, Thomas is British or, at least, his creator was. But the idea that the word "railway" is British and "railroad" American has come about by a peculiar accident of history.
The first "inter-city" line in the world was between Manchester and Liverpool. In 1825 a Bill was presented to Parliament to authorise the construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad. There were serious inaccuracies in the details of this Bill and it was rejected. The following year, a revised Bill was presented to Parliament. Parliamentary rules, I believe, would not allow a "second chance" to a Bill that had already been rejected in that session. So the new Bill, which became an Act of Parliament, was for construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
This may be an over-simplified version of history, but at the time the terms railway and railroad were interchangeable. BTW I notice that there are many "railways" in the US.
HTH - Peter
In normal English usage it's railway in the UK and Australia, railroad in the USA and Canada.
Under British Rail the United Kingdom had one integrated railway system with track, signalling, train operation, etc over the entire country controlled by one organisation, whose efficiency (or otherwise) was highly debateable. Since privatisation we've had separate organisations supposedly looking after the track and other infrastructure, with a whole host of train operator companies running trains in different parts of the country. There are strong opinions regarding whether that's even worse than British Rail or not.
In the USA one railroad company can obtain "trackage rights" to operate trains on another company's tracks. There's also Amtrak which AFAIK owns no tracks, only runs trains (although I'm not sure whether Amtrak might own the NEC/Northeast Corridor tracks).
John
Under British Rail the United Kingdom had one integrated railway system with track, signalling, train operation, etc over the entire country controlled by one organisation, whose efficiency (or otherwise) was highly debateable. Since privatisation we've had separate organisations supposedly looking after the track and other infrastructure, with a whole host of train operator companies running trains in different parts of the country. There are strong opinions regarding whether that's even worse than British Rail or not.
In the USA one railroad company can obtain "trackage rights" to operate trains on another company's tracks. There's also Amtrak which AFAIK owns no tracks, only runs trains (although I'm not sure whether Amtrak might own the NEC/Northeast Corridor tracks).
John
WileeCoyote
Eatibus Almost Anythingus
Another variation in railroading terms between the US and Britain is that of the person driving the train, Britain it is Engine Driver, US it is Engineer. Here in Germany we also have some variations between certain areas but merely to avoid confusion (or perhaps to just barrel down its path) I will leave that for later:hehe:
WileeCoyote
WileeCoyote
There are many other examples:
switches (USA); points (UK) - so I use the word junctions instead
trucks (USA); bogies/bogeys (UK)
passenger cars (USA); carriages or coaches (UK)
freight train (USA); goods train (UK)
ETM (end of train marker); FRED (flashing rear end device)
John
switches (USA); points (UK) - so I use the word junctions instead
trucks (USA); bogies/bogeys (UK)
passenger cars (USA); carriages or coaches (UK)
freight train (USA); goods train (UK)
ETM (end of train marker); FRED (flashing rear end device)
John
John wrote of situations in the U.S. where there are trackage rights. Trackage rights agreements do exist, but the circumstances of history which gave rise to various trackage rights agreements often make quite interesting reading. One somewhat common set of circumstances was that one railroad operated between two points, A and D, by way of two intermediate points B and C. A while later, a second railroad was organized to construct a route between two other points, E and F, there route would also pass through intermediate points B and C. The earlier railroad would sometimes agree to trackage rights as a means of eliminating competition from the new carrier between B and C. Other times trackage rights were caused by governmental action.
Sometimes, if the second railroad had the money and backing, it would choose not to participate in a trackage rights agreement, as very often the road which owned the property would have language in the agreement which prevented the tenant railroad from providing service to points over which they were operating via trackage right. So both railroads built essentially parallel lines between (using the example above) B and C. It sometimes happened that if the local government of C had enough political influence, it could force the two railroads to use one set of tracks within its jurisdiction.
Finally, there were other means used besides trackage rights. One of the more common was the "joint subsidiary". Most major railroad terminals in the U.S. were actually operated by joint subsidiaries, and some still are, for example, Chicago Union Station, which is actually owned by an independant railroad company, The Chicago Union Station Company. At one time, CUS co was owned by several railroads: PRR, GM&O, CB&Q, and MILW, and even today, it is owned by at least two, Metra and Amtrak. Similarly, the Belt Railway of Chicago was jointly owned by most of the major carriers that came into Chicago. In Texas, the Burlington and Rock Island railroads had a joint subsidiary, variously named through the years, which operated from Ft. Worth through Dallas, to Houston, roughly paralleling the present IH 45.
Lastly, besides owning most of the right of way in the North East corridor, Amtrak does own right of way in other places. One which comes immediately to mind is in the corridor between Chicago and Detroit.
ns
Sometimes, if the second railroad had the money and backing, it would choose not to participate in a trackage rights agreement, as very often the road which owned the property would have language in the agreement which prevented the tenant railroad from providing service to points over which they were operating via trackage right. So both railroads built essentially parallel lines between (using the example above) B and C. It sometimes happened that if the local government of C had enough political influence, it could force the two railroads to use one set of tracks within its jurisdiction.
Finally, there were other means used besides trackage rights. One of the more common was the "joint subsidiary". Most major railroad terminals in the U.S. were actually operated by joint subsidiaries, and some still are, for example, Chicago Union Station, which is actually owned by an independant railroad company, The Chicago Union Station Company. At one time, CUS co was owned by several railroads: PRR, GM&O, CB&Q, and MILW, and even today, it is owned by at least two, Metra and Amtrak. Similarly, the Belt Railway of Chicago was jointly owned by most of the major carriers that came into Chicago. In Texas, the Burlington and Rock Island railroads had a joint subsidiary, variously named through the years, which operated from Ft. Worth through Dallas, to Houston, roughly paralleling the present IH 45.
Lastly, besides owning most of the right of way in the North East corridor, Amtrak does own right of way in other places. One which comes immediately to mind is in the corridor between Chicago and Detroit.
ns
hogger1961
New member
Same thing, basically. For every explaination you get, I could provide an exception. I would say, however, that the term Railroad is used more in the states than other parts of the world. I lived in the U.K. for 3 years and do not recall hearing the term "Railroad" used much at all, except maybe when referring to something with that word in its title. A totally baseless guess would be that in N. American the rails often were laid down before wagon trails or other routes of communication. In Europe, conventional roads existed long before the advent of motive power. And in other parts of the world trains were introduce and/or built by persons from Europe, (By European I am referring to everybody from the British Isles to East Asia) who would no doubt pass on the terminology.
Just a guess. But whichever term you choose to use is fine. I wouldn't worry about it much.
Cheers, Ray
Just a guess. But whichever term you choose to use is fine. I wouldn't worry about it much.
Cheers, Ray
I believe that is the same post you made not in a thread about TTTE, but in response to my question on page 59 of the UK Screenshots thread why they had named the first movie Thomas and the Magic Railway instead of Railroad.
I'd say freight train is used much more in the UK now than goods.Goods sounds more like a mixed freight train which are rare in the UK now.Most freight trains are almost always carrying one particular type of load i.e. containers,cars,coal,stone,petrochemicals or infrastructure make up most of it.