Talk:Train driver/Archives/2012

Rename

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose Patstuart^talk|edits 21:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be renamed for the sake of clarity ?

'engineer' is a word with multiple meanings, whereas 'train driver' is self-explanatory. This isn't a "let's get rid of US-terminology" plea, but a plea for clarity.

Anon.

Disagree. Any renaming that would be clearer would be to Locomotive Engineer, since most railroads have many types of engineers on their payrolls. To change this article to Train Drivers would be to demean the responsible position of locomotive engineer. There are many rail systems, employing various terms such as operator, motorman, train driver, locomotive engineer, and possibly others.

Perhaps an addition to the article, (showing where & what the operator of a train is termed) would be useful?

PS - An anonymous comment carries less weight than an account holder.Keo 08:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Keo, I'm curious. In what way would 'driver' be considered demeaning? I have been a train driver since 2003 (In the employ of QR, and holding the offical title of "Locomotive Driver"), and am a bit nonplussed as to how it could be demeaning, considering that 'driver' has always been the term of use in Australia.Johnmc 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just depends on the country. It's fine for where the official job title matches, in other locales it distorts the position. For instance, I believe India has Train Drivers, & their union is the Train Drivers Club. Sort of like the tram/trolley/streetcar/interurban/light rail discussion, no one term will cover everything. Maybe a list of different names for this position would help?Keo 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"An anonymous comment carries less weight than an account holder." It's a matter of users perceptions only. To some people, maybe this holds true, and it seems that user Keo is one of them. However, really it is force of arguments that count - that is my belief. I prefer to remain Anon - it helps to focus issues on arguments only, and not personalities.

Perhaps 'train operator' is a better term. Not all drivers/engineers are locomotive operators - e.g. multiple units. Strongly disagree with inclusion of the term 'engineer', but there is a point about the term 'driver'. Anon.

Agree with the rename. Adding tag. --!!!!

{{rename|Train operator}}

I disagree, no rename. Trains have conductor & engineer (in many countries). Comfortable, clear, & traditional. 64.12.116.136 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but only because 'Train Operator' sounds - to my ears - very PC-ish, and I would be interested to know where this term is actually used. As stated above, I am more comfortable with "Train Driver", but given these two choices, I would stick with "Railroad Engineer"Johnmc 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move. The use of the word engineer is very misleading. Train driver or train operator - I don't care which. Train operator is the term in use in the UK (so PC or not, it is and has been in use for some considerable time). As for the comment that 'all trains have a conductor and an engineer' - that is false (even switching 'train operator' for 'engineer'). Conductors are not in use on many trains in the world - e.g. all trains operated by London Underground. Indeed, not all trains have a driver - trains on the DLR, for instance, in the UK are entirely automatic - passengers sit in the front seats.--jrleighton 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go. I assumed that it was still "Train Driver" in the UK... how long have been called "Operators"?Johnmc 14:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ever since I was commuting up to London to Waterloo in the 1980s and 1990s and noticed that the railway calls them 'train operators'. Joe Public like me calls them drivers, but the term operator does seem to be the term in use :-)--jrleighton 13:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No rename, engineer is good entry point. Also, train operator is usually the company, not the person.205.188.117.65 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with rename. 'Engineer' is not a good starting point - it's misleading. 'Railroad engineers' do not engineer railroads - they operate trains. Also 'train operator' isn't usually the company at all (google for the term) - where there is confusion the term 'train operating company' is used.--218.102.176.235 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, no rename. Interesting idea about "train operator," so I googled the term: Of the top 10 results, one was employment ad for trolley train operator, undew IBEW, the electrical workers, not even an operating union. One was a news report about a metro system "train operator" leaving her train idling & unattended! The other eight entries were ALL operating companies, including one from wiki. I rest my case.

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,860,000 for train operator. (0.26 seconds)

SRA - Train OperatorsTrain Operators. Below is a list of Train operating companies, their addresses and also the name and address of the franchisee of each company. ... www.sra.gov.uk/passengers/tocs - 30k - Nov 16, 2006

Train OperatorView current San Diego Trolley Inc. employment opportunities. www.sdcommute.com/jobs/sdti/TrainOperator.asp - 17k -

Transport for London - Tube named UK's Train Operator of the Year ...Tube named UK's Train Operator of the Year. London Underground (LU) last night won the prestigious Train Operator of the Year award at the HSBC Rail ... www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=705 - 20k -

Operator Abandons Metro Train in Rush Hour (washingtonpost.com)A Metro train operator abandoned her train in a station during the evening ... She said Metro "made a mistake" when the train operator was allowed to leave ... www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38167-2004Aug3.html -

National Rail Enquiries - Train Operating CompaniesA portal into UK rail travel including train company information and promotions; ... Please click on a Train Operating Company's name for contact details, ... www.nationalrail.co.uk/tocs_maps/tocs/ - 29k -

uk train operators websites and the areas they cover, uk rail ...uk train operators,official websites of uk train operators.Names of the train operating companies in the uk and the areas they cover. www.uk-click.co.uk/rail/tocs.html - 7k -

South West Trains > HomepageThe South West Trains website gives information about using South West Trains, the United Kingdoms largest train operating service. www.southwesttrains.co.uk/ - 23k -

Train operatorTrain operator. Information and services for train operators. uk.bane.dk/visArtikel_eng.asp?artikelID=3378 - 20k -

One Railway - One RailwayTrain service information for East Anglia and services between London Liverpool Street, Colchester, Ipswich and Norwich. Formerly Anglia Railways. www.onerailway.com/ - 58k -

MTL (train operator) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMTL (train operator) ... MTL (Rail), a subsidiary of MTL Holdings was the Merseyside-based operator which was awarded two major rail franchises on January ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTL_(train_operator) - 12k -Keo 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point being made above. On the one hand it is stated above that 'train operator' would be confused with a company operating trains, and not a train driver/engineer; whilst on the other hand Google evidence is presented (I do not know whether it is representative - it may be, or not) that seems to bear out that 'train operator' is not confused with the company, because the company is known as a 'train operating company'. So why the issue against a move to 'train operator' ? Maybe I am missing something, but I think the point above about 'engineers' do not engineer railways is for me the source of the confusion over the use of the term engineer, and why I would prefer pretty much any term over the current 'railroad engineer' that does not contain the word 'engineer'.  :-) --jrleighton 11:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. In the US the Code of Federal Regulations says it is engineer, so it is. [1]

Oppose. I would prefer Train Driver, but as the yanks got precedence in this article, Engineer it is. Even here in Oz we know that the Americans call a driver an "engineer" for some unaccountable reason.   :-)   However, perhaps someone could elaborate on whether the term "railroad engineer" is in common use, as distinct from just "engineer" (in this context).

jrleighton, I believe that the Google evidence was not saying that the train operating company is known as the 'train operator'. I suspect that you have misread it.

Philip J. Rayment 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - My understanding is that the word engineer (US) as an equivalent to engine driver(UK) is perfectly valid in a railroad/railway context - certainly during the steam era. However both terms refer to the person who is in direct control of the speed and direction of a locomotive, regardless of whether it is connected to other rolling stock, so use of the word train is equally inappropriate. Also, I think the derivation of engineer in this case (perhaps a convenient shorthand form of locomotive engineman?) is not quite the same as in the engineering sense.

The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the following entry for Engine:

c.1300, from O.Fr. engin "skill, cleverness," also "war machine," from L. ingenium "inborn qualities, talent," from in- "in" + gen-, root of gignere "to beget, produce." At first meaning a trick or device, or any machine (especially military); sense of one that converts energy to mechanical power is 18c., especially of steam engines. Engineer "locomotive driver" is first attested 1839, Amer.Eng. Anyway, Thats my two cents/tuppence-worth. Regards, Lynbarn 10:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, from the point of view of one professional organisation all marine engineers and so on should all be called something else, but they aren't, and we don't have a point of view. Meggar 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I would have never found the article by the title name if it was "train operator". That has no meaning for me personally, and (I would guess) most of the web searching population of the USA. I do not know know of anyone (in or outside the industry) who calls the person who pulls the throttle of a locomotive anything but an "engineer". EmpireBuilder 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terminology

This isn't a request for a rename, but a question: how does the terminology for this job vary across the globe? (And yes, I've read the discussion above.) Here in the UK, "train driver" is almost universal in popular parlance, with "engine driver" old-fashioned and "train operator" seemingly barely used outside the industry. If I said to someone that I was a "railway engineer" they'd probably assume I was out there mending the track. Conversely, is plain "train driver" ever used in the US? And what about other English-speaking countries? 86.132.137.180 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here in New York, the term "Train Operator" is used (mostly on the subway). Railroads use the term "Engineer". Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Australia follows the UK in calling it "Train Driver". My official QR job title is "Locomotive Driver", but this is rarely used on the job. Johnmc 05:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A clearer distinction between North American and British & Commonwealth usages is still needed at the head of this article. A "railway engineer" in the UK does not drive trains, nor does a "train operator" – which means a company operating trains. -- Picapica 13:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Locomotive engineer

In the UK a Locomotive engineer is a person who designs, builds or repairs locomotives. The term is never used for a driver. The redirection from Locomotive engineer to Railroad engineer is therefore completely inappropriate for a UK reader. See also Chief Mechanical Engineer. Biscuittin 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed - see also: William Adams (locomotive engineer). Who was it who said we (US/UK) were two nations separated by a common language? Perhaps, to avoid confusion, there should be two articles - Locomotive engineer (USA) and Locomotive engineer (UK) Regards, Lynbarn 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have amended the Locomotive engineer page to UK usage, with a link to Railroad engineer for US usage. Hope this will do. Regards, Biscuittin 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Even more terminology!

Firstly, the initial description of "a person who operates a railroad locomotive and train" is not altogether accurate, since one can be a train driver without having anything to do with a locomotive. Here in Great Britain, for example, the vast majority of passenger trains are multiple units, which are not generally considered to be locomotives. Why not simply "a person who operates a train"?

Secondly, I agree with Picapica that the list of terms at the start of the article needs sorting out. As Picapica points out, in the UK "railway engineer" and "train driver" and "(train) operator" mean three very different things. Maybe the simplest thing to do would be to add a "Terminology" section to the article itself. Loganberry (Talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In New Zealand those who operate Locomotive hauled trains are known as 'Locomotive Engineers' or LE's for short. Those that operate Multiple Units are known as 'Multiple Unit Drivers' or MUDs for short. In the UK a higher proportion of Trains are of the multiple unit type and people that repair trains are known as Engineers wheras in New Zealand people who repair trains are known as fitters and servicepersons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Locomotive engineer

The locomotive engineer article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. Wikipedia articles are created based on concept, not dictionary definition. The concept represented on the locomotive engineer article is "a person who designs, builds or repairs locomotives". The concept represented on the railroad engineer article is "a person who operates a railroad locomotive and train". These concepts are different, but they are similar enough to be addressed on one article. The locomotive engineer article has been in existence for over a year without becoming any more than a two-sentence stub. Unless a significant amount of information is added to the locomotive engineer article in the near future, there is no proper justification for maintaining it on its own. Neelix (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The concepts are not similar, they only refer to different aspects of the same object - in this case - "Locomotives". An engineer (UK/commonwealth usage) refers almost exclusively to the design and/or fabrication stage of construction, whereas this topic strictly concerns the operation of the finished article. locomotive engineer will live or die on it's own merits, but it's not in any way suitable to be absorbed in this article. Perhaps the Locomotive article may be closer to the mark? Johnmc (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging with locomotive would be satisfactory. I will switch the merge suggestion accordingly. Neelix (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't - that's the wrong page.

The article locomotive engineer (UK) does not stand on its own.

I'm converting it to a disambiguation page - if anyone has better ideas then please discuss on the talk page over there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Deletionmaster

There is no article referenced for Jeanice McMillan and you will probably remove this reference. But please do NOT remove this reference to Jeanice McMillan. She died with her hands at the emergency brake, and she did all what could be done to avid the unavidable disaster. So I would not like to see this reference removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.95.168 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the significance of your addition here. I'm sorry, but to me this looks like a case of recentism, indeed liable for deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No new objection: done.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Deletionmaster I have now added the missing reference for Jeanice McMillan and I await NO MORE DELETION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.95.168 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't shout. The point of WP:RECENT is that what's hit the news recently isn't necessarily notable in the broad, historical perspective of a more general Wikipedia article. By way of example: enginemen Benjamin Gimbert G.C. and James Nightall G.C. (heroes of mine, btw) aren't mentioned here. Why not motorman Leslie Newson? They are all mentioned in Wikipedia articles, but haven't taken a place here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)