Rail-grinding

[Semper_Vaporo]

But actually, the term “fireman” is a more appropriate one on the railroad, since he is actually pro-fire, while the other firemen are anti-fire. I think we should make the other firemen call themselves “anti-firemen”, or “firekillers.”

Re: Engineers. Don’t forget that steam plants refer to their operators as engineers (sometimes “Stationary Engineers”) as well.

I used to work with lots of Stationary Engineers, but they were a radio and electrical engineers… they just didn’t move much.

[BaltACD]

Read a article about Rail Grinders in Railway Age the other evening - LORAM states that the have approximately 250 different profiles that they grind the rails to - there are many considerations that go into what the proper profile for a rail is - tangent, curve high rail, curve low rail and the degree of curvature. The idea being to get the optimum rail profile for the territory and traffic handled - differing types of traffic also has a bearing on wear patterns of the rail.

[lenzfamily]

But actually, the term “fireman” is a more appropriate one on the railroad, since he is actually pro-fire, while the other firemen are anti-fire. I think we should make the other firemen call themselves “anti-firemen”, or “firekillers.”

Re: Engineers. Don’t forget that steam plants refer to their operators as engineers (sometimes “Stationary Engineers”) as well.

I used to work with lots of Stationary Engineers, but they were a radio and electrical engineers… they just didn’t move much.

Speaking first as a Steam Engineer, so described on my ticket when I first qualified, then renamed a Stationary Engineer, who has been out of the trade for many years, we’ve now gotten a new designation in the last ten years or so, at least in most parts of Canada. We’re Power Engineers. All that name changing since 1974. Gee, I must be getting older!

What hasn’t changed is that mostly they are still ‘stationary’ to the plant (understood as a station).

Charlie

Chilliwack, BC

[f45gnbn]

Actually we do call them stones. we put stone holders on the end of the motors and stone stops on them so the stone holder doesn’t hit the rail, and the stones are stored in stone rooms. I don’t know why they call them stones when they are manmade grinding wheels. But we refer to them as stones. Yesterday I was working on a 24 stone switch and crossing grinder and we are gearing up to build a 120 stone mainline grinder.

to answer other questions LORAM is still owned wholly by the Mannix family.

and we grind the rails for better fuel economy and to keep them from breaking. The railroads understand the value of grinding or they wouldn’t pay us for multi milion dollar machines here or abroad. Thankfully they do buy our machines so I have a job

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

For lots more info, here’s a link to a 10 - 12 hour short course - professional development seminar at University of Delaware in June 2013 titled “Rail Problems, Rail Maintenance, and Rail Grinding” ($795 per person fee):

http://www.engr.udel.edu/outreach/short-courses/Rail%20Engineering/RailProblemsMaintenanceGrinding/index.html

Note that Dr. Zarembski’s book The Art and Science of Rail Grinding, Simmons Boardman Press, 2005, will be part of the course.

• Paul North.

[John_WR]

But why pay $795 to the University of Delaware when you can just come to this forum and learn everything for free?

[zugmann]

For lots more info, here’s a link to a 10 - 12 hour short course - professional development seminar at University of Delaware in June 2013 titled “Rail Problems, Rail Maintenance, and Rail Grinding” ($795 per person fee):

http://www.engr.udel.edu/outreach/short-courses/Rail%20Engineering/RailProblemsMaintenanceGrinding/index.html

Note that Dr. Zarembski’s book The Art and Science of Rail Grinding, Simmons Boardman Press, 2005, will be part of the course.

• Paul North.

If he doesn’t knwo why they call them stones, can you get your $800 back?

[Convicted_One]

Uh yeah. I’m a journeyman machinist experienced in jig, centerless, cylindrical, surface grinding and honing and lapping.

Well, it’s great that you found something you are good at. Since the salvage business was obviously a sticking point for you. [:-^]

The simple answer here is, Nomenclature varies with culture. And railroading definitely has it’s own culture

. Highly likely,… the rail employee who started calling them “stones” probably grew up sharpening an axe (or whatever) on a real stone, and given the similarity….METAPHORICALLY applied the term he was accustomed to… onto the new material. Others who he was familiar with evidently did not have the same problem with this terminology as you do, and copied him. And that is how traditions can start from humble beginings.

[Convicted_One]

As my old man used to say “never argue with someone you have to educate first”.

My, that really explains quite a few things…

[BaltACD]

As my old man used to say “never argue with someone you have to educate first”. If any one out there has the intellect to understand the question and has a rational answer then maybe a PM , avoiding the rabble is the way to go.

Since you are not involved in railroad rail grinding - as the uneductated, why are you arguing. Many professions that do similar things have different terms for what those actions and/or objects are termed.

Simple terms from the automotive world -

Push = Understeer = Front tires losing grip with the road surface before the rear tires
Loose = Oversteer = Rear tires losing grip with the road surface before the front tires

Depending upon the community in which the terms are used, each is perfectly discriptive within that community. The definative reasons each community refers to things the way they do are among the insignifigant histories that are lost over time - the important thing is that within their communities they communicate the desired information.

[Anonymous]

Depending upon the community in which the terms are used, each is perfectly discriptive within that community. The definative reasons each community refers to things the way they do are among the insignifigant histories that are lost over time - the important thing is that within their communities they communicate the desired information.

That is absolutely all true. People are free to rename things it if suits them, and it can be given more weight if more people understand the new name. There is much overlap in the meanings of terms.

I can see railroads calling them stones just for economy of words. Railroad communication has always had a noticeable jaunty terseness about it. Instead of call them “grinding wheels,” simply stones would definitely be railroad style.

[tree68]

It gets really interesting when a small group tries to push their idea on the rest of the population. Case in point - in 3/4 of the US, large fire trucks whose main purpose is to haul water are called tankers. These generally differ from engines/pumpers as they are not usually fully equipped for fighting fire (ladders, hose, etc).

However, as the result of the nationwide adoption of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the folks on the west coast, where one version of NIMS originated, seem to feel that such vehicles should be called tenders. And that’s how they are referred to in NIMS, unfortunately. It seems that over on the left coast (and in the intermountain west), they refer to firefighting airplanes as “tankers.”

Most of us around the country have ignored this and still call our trucks tankers.

I figure that if we’re going to rename something, let’s go with renaming a few airplanes, not tens of thousands of trucks… We can call them “water bombers.” That’s what they do!

[John_WR]

Depending upon the community in which the terms are used, each is perfectly discriptive within that community. The definative reasons each community refers to things the way they do are among the insignifigant histories that are lost over time - the important thing is that within their communities they communicate the desired information.

Fishermen might speak of “a reticulated lattice jointed at the interstices.” Most of them prefer to use a simpler word: “net.”

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

[snipped - PDN] . . . the folks on the west coast, where one version of NIMS originated, seem to feel that such vehicles should be called tenders. And that’s how they are referred to in NIMS, unfortunately. . . .

[:-,] The possibilities for fun with the historic precedent for that term will set the “word-players” here a-thinkin’, I’m sure . . . [:-^] [swg]

• PDN.

[BaltACD]

It gets really interesting when a small group tries to push their idea on the rest of the population. Case in point - in 3/4 of the US, large fire trucks whose main purpose is to haul water are called tankers. These generally differ from engines/pumpers as they are not usually fully equipped for fighting fire (ladders, hose, etc).

However, as the result of the nationwide adoption of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the folks on the west coast, where one version of NIMS originated, seem to feel that such vehicles should be called tenders. And that’s how they are referred to in NIMS, unfortunately. It seems that over on the left coast (and in the intermountain west), they refer to firefighting airplanes as “tankers.”

Most of us around the country have ignored this and still call our trucks tankers.

I figure that if we’re going to rename something, let’s go with renaming a few airplanes, not tens of thousands of trucks… We can call them “water bombers.” That’s what they do!

But bombing is so anti-PC - it’s downright militaristic.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Depending on what group is conversing, I have discovered several definitions of tanker:

1. A truck used to haul water to various fire engines.

2. A truck used to transport liquid cargo

3. A boat used to transport liquid cargo.

4. An airplane used to haul fuel and equipped to refuel other airplanes in mid-flight.

5. An airplane used to haul and drop water and/or chemical retardants for fighting forest fires.

You have to know the context when you use the term.

[Overmod]

Depending on what group is conversing, I have discovered several definitions of tanker:

1. A truck used to haul water to various fire engines.

2. A truck used to transport liquid cargo

3. A boat used to transport liquid cargo.

4. An airplane used to haul fuel and equipped to refuel other airplanes in mid-flight.

5. An airplane used to haul and drop water and/or chemical retardants for fighting forest fires.

You have to know the context when you use the term.

You left out “person operating a large armored vehicle.” If you are not careful, some literal-minded but insecure member of the armed forces will castigate you for that… ;-}

Your point remains eminently true.

[Overmod]

It gets really interesting when a small group tries to push their idea on the rest of the population. Case in point - in 3/4 of the US, large fire trucks whose main purpose is to haul water are called tankers. These generally differ from engines/pumpers as they are not usually fully equipped for fighting fire (ladders, hose, etc).

However, as the result of the nationwide adoption of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the folks on the west coast, where one version of NIMS originated, seem to feel that such vehicles should be called tenders. And that’s how they are referred to in NIMS, unfortunately. It seems that over on the left coast (and in the intermountain west), they refer to firefighting airplanes as “tankers.”

Most of us around the country have ignored this and still call our trucks tankers.

I figure that if we’re going to rename something, let’s go with renaming a few airplanes, not tens of thousands of trucks… We can call them “water bombers.” That’s what they do.

While we are here – let’s not diverge from discussing railroads, as there is a sterling example of this issue to be found there.

What is the ‘correct’ name for what is sometimes called an ‘auxiliary tender’ on a locomotive? On B&O it’s a water bottle. On N&W it is NOT a water bottle (as some would have you believe), it’

[tree68]

The problem is the need for bureaucracy to have Just One Term for a thing, …

Bingo.

And the railroad analogy of my FD example would be for the B&O to convince the FRA (or whomever) that “water bottle” was the correct term to use and have it codified in regulations and specifications, despite the fact that virtually every other railroad has another term for the car, and many are using the same term (ie, “auxiliary tender”).

But I digress, again…

[Convicted_One]

What I always find highly irritating is when people refer to cross ties as “sleepers” [:(!]