Talk:Railcar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Merge

merge Rail motor coach, Railbus and Railcar, and rename as single unit (rail)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.190.143 (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant

Nevertheless, such vehicles may soon operate in the United States as manufacturers such as Siemens, Alstom and ADtranz affirm that FRA-compliant versions of their European equipment could meet U.S. FRA standards.

By definition, wouldn't an FRA-compliant vehicle meet FRA standards? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - as no further debate listed, have amended the sentence to remove redundancy. Its-mrb (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reasons for noncompliance would be of higher interest? lack of track side safety systems like those found elsewhere? ZwergAlw (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trams

The current definition in the article is "A railcar (not to be confused with a railway car) is a self-propelled railway vehicle designed to transport passengers." This definition covers trams. Also, the article mentions trams a few times. Can anybody see a reason why trams should not be covered by this definition? Does anybody know of an official definition that would exclude trams?  Stepho  talk  20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the series of edits beginning here and ending here:
I still think it's a good idea to look an article through and give a thought to what it is about. Some words can also have a wider meaning in some places or contexts than the one the article is about – for example this word in the American sense of any railway waggon or coach. The current definition in the article says "railway", not "rail- or tramway" or something like it, and the text mentions trams only in the context of steam tramways and heavy North American interurbans, both of which are special cases.
It's always difficult to provide evidence something doesn't exist, but here are some online dictionaries from which the meaning "tram" is absent:
English Wiktionary
wikt:railcar
"1. (rail transport) A self-propelled railway vehicle for passengers, similar to a bus. …
2.(rail transport) A powered single railway vehicle designed for passenger transport, with a driver's cab in both ends; Not to be confused with motor coach/motorcar, which is a powered railway vehicle capable to haul a train. …
3. (Only in Canada and US) Any unpowered railway vehicle …"
Oxford English Dictionary (online, the free part)
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=railcar
"a. U.S. a railway carriage or wagon; = car, n.¹ 3a; b. a railway vehicle which combines the functions of a locomotive and a passenger carriage in a…"
linking to a page that shows there is no third meaning behind a paywall:
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/railcar_n?tab=factsheet#26950855100
"There are two meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun railcar. See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence."
Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/railcar
"noun
  • a passenger-carrying railway vehicle consisting of a single coach with its own power unit"
Even though the term has a much wider meaning in the USA, Merriam-Webster does not include "streetcar" in it:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/railcar
"1 a railroad car
2 a self-propelled railroad car"
90.142.52.139 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we agree that a railcar is a self-propelled rail vehicle for passengers. How does that rule out trams? A tram is a self-propelled rail vehicle for passengers.  Stepho  talk  10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tram runs on a tramway, not on a railway. For that purpose, it's generally lighter, narrower and shorter (between the articulations in the case of articulated trams), runs on lower voltage than an electric railcar, has another wheel profile, is equipped with brake lights and turn signals, laid out for fast passenger exchange at "bus-type" stops at the expense of comfort, etcetera.
Yes, a tramway could in the past be called "street railway" and the like, and I can't vouch for everywhere English is spoken, but generally that term would be more or less like saying "I take my horseless carriage to town". If you look around here on Wikipedia or among rail transport people on the Internet, you will find that the term "railway" generally excludes tramways. 90.142.52.139 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I overlooked American usage. I have mostly heard Americans say "trolley tracks" or "streetcar tracks". But that just moves the line to between "railway" and "street railway", with their respective self-propelled passenger vehicles "railcar" (etcetera) and "streetcar". 90.142.52.139 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are using circular definitions: a tram runs on a tramway, a tramway has trams, a railcar runs on a railway, a railway has railcars. Say nothing.
You are also relying on local conventions. Remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. What is called a tram in one country might be called a railway, streetcar, LRT (light rail transit) on just train in other countries. You need an objective definition. Best I can see, a tram is a railcar but a subset such that it tends to be small (although I have seen 3 carriage trams of 20 m each) and usually is mixed in with cars and pedestrians. Even with that definition, I can see examples that blur the lines. Sometimes it just comes down to the local operating company calling it a tram, LRT, train, etc and the local population just accepts that name.  Stepho  talk  22:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So "a mountain hut is a hut on a mountain" is also a circular definition and says nothing? If not, what's the difference?
As for local variations, grey zones and exceptions, I mention them myself. But if they always ruled out general definitions, we would be left with no working language, let alone any possibility of a Wikipedia article that isn't a catch-all. Every local tradition can't have its way. There is also the question of practicality: why have one article about railcars including or plus trams (whichever you prefer) and one about trams only? As you can see, this article still doesn't include town trams except for your photo. But please suggest a merger of the articles if you feel like it; I think that would be better than duplicating info about trams here. 90.142.52.139 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a mountain hut is a hut on a mountain" defines a mountain hut in terms of a hut and a mountain. Neither of those is defined in terms of a mountain hut. Not a circular definition.
"a tram runs on a tramway, a tramway has trams". This defines a tram as something runs on a tramway. And then defines a tramway as something that has trams. Each is defined in terms of the other. You can't define "tram" until you have defined "tramway". But you can't define "tramway" until you have defined "tram". So you can't define "tram" until you have defined "tram".
No need to merge articles. WP has plenty of instances where we have an article for the general case and more detailed articles for specific cases. Eg, locomotive and road switcher locomotive. Which is very similar to what we have here - the generic railcar article and the tram article for that particular subset of railcars.  Stepho  talk  00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Railcar&oldid=1236671903"