Bachmann Online Forum

How many railroads are actualy railways?  Where are they located?  I've known for a long time that it was the C&O Railway, but the same is true of the N&W and the Southern.  All are obviously thought of as being southeastern railroads, though the C&O actually had tracks in Canada and upstate New York. 
What were some others?
Gene

In 1825 it was "The Stockton & Darlington Railway", although George Stephenson had built his first steam engine to run on a railway at Killingworth Colliery in 1814, and another at Hetton Colliery, Durham in 1822.

And in 1804 Richard Trevithick is acknowledged to have built the World's first steam engine to run on a railway at Merthyr Tydfill in South Wales.

The worlds first passenger railway goes I think to "The Oystermouth Tramway" of 1807 in South Wales, subsequently "The Swansea & Mumbles Railway" However, for many years it was only horse drawn.

Does anyone have any earlier contenders to set the precedent for Railroad v. Railway?

Regards

Stewart,

"precedent for Railroad vs. Railway" ? Maybe its just me, but nothing about Gene's post gave me the impression that his post was about which came first or which is "correct", but more about what the corperate fathers of a particular line chose to call it.

The B&O (1828) and the Strasburg (1832), two of the oldest charters in North America are both Railroads. Actually to be even more correct the term on their charters is Rail Road.

NMRA data sheet D9i.1, dated Oct 1956, is a list of AAR reporting marks and corperate names of North American roads. A quick scan shows Railroad, or Rail Road, having about a two to one edge over Railway, but lots of lines where offically Railways. and while a lot of the Railways are in the south, there are examples all over North America.

Two most notable ones are neither, the Southern Pacific Company and the Reading Company.

I don't know if this info is on the NMRA site, I have my original print version from when I joined in 1968.

Sheldon

Sheldon,
You are correct.  I'm not interested in the youngest, oldest, longest, shortest, etc.   Just "railway" vs "railroad."  I know that often a "railway" is called a "railroad" by those who don't know.  For instane the Hampton Hstory Museum has "C&O Railroad," or at least it did.  AFAIK, they have not corrected it after I brought it to their attention.  Of course the same museum labeled a picture of a C&O steam passenger loco as something like "the locomotive pulls its tender..." 
I didn't know that both the SP and Erie were neither...
Gene

A recent posting on the Yahoo Historic Sierra Railway group's "Today in Sierra History, 3/31":

"1937: The Sierra Railway is sold at public auction to the Sierra Railroad Company"

Interesting how the owners and names change over years. It's still the Sierra Railway with me!!

Happy RRing,

Jerry

It is my understanding that the two terms are used interchangeably. Many railroads, upon merger/receivership/reorganization, would maintain their main name and simply change the "Railroad" part of their name to "Railway" or vice versa.

SteamGene :  I was looking to the root of the usage of the words. They were obviously new to the lexicon.

Sheldon : I think it must be you, and that you are also given to mean "Corporate".

Matt : I think your explaination of the interchangeability of the words is what we are actually witnessing. New owners want to keep the goodwill in a name, with the least amount of change, and yet to give notice of the new management.

For me it is Railway, and Railroad is a very American thing.

Regards

Matt has it right..
the two terms were used randomly in the US, and usually changed because of reorganizations, bankruptcy, etc..
for example, here is the history of the various names of the Erie "Railroad"

New York and Erie Rail Road: 1832-1861
Erie Railway: 1861-1875
New York, Lake Erie and Western Railway: 1875-1893
Erie Railroad: 1893-1960

Often a railroad would go bankrupt, reorganize, and go back in business as a totally new company, and only change "road" to "way" in the company name,..but from a legal standpoint "Erie Railway" is a totally different company from "Erie Railroad"..even if its track, locomotives, employees, etc, didnt actually change...usually just management or ownership changed with a name change from "road" to "way or vice-versa..

where a railroad's name ended up just has to with the name it had when the last round of bankruptcy's were finished!

today the Susquehanna Railroad is technically the Susquehanna Railway..not many people know that..

Scot

Scot : Thanks for your confirmation.

Quote from: scottychaos on April 07, 2007, 10:18:24 PM
.........not many people know that..
Scot

Are you a Michael Caine Fan ?

Regards

Stewart,

I would think not so since Gene confirmed my understanding of his post.

And, I am an native born American, living in The United States of America, posting messages on the message board of the American division of a company that manufactures and markets models of American trains in America.

And I model American Railroad, Railway and Rail Road practices, as does Gene and most of those who post on this board.

As for my spelling error, well, you show me someone who has never made a mistake, and I will show you someone who has never done anything.

Stop trying to "convert" us or "save" us from our provincial selves, I for one don't need or want to be saved.

So for me it is Rail Road, Railway or Railroad, depending on what the sovereign owners of that company chose to call it.

Sheldon

I am only offering my thoughts and can't remember if I read this somewhere.
The British use railway and we (the US)  use railroad.  Very early ones in the US used railway because of the obvious British connections back then. As we became more Americanized, we used railroad.

Sheldon : I don't see this as a cause for you to get uptight.

Please don't tell us you are NOT getting uptight.

The words "Convert" and "Save" are yours.

Several in this thread have put forward quite plasible reasoning that has nothing to do with the insecurity you display.

Please do not tell us that you are NOT insecure.

AND, please listen to that guy you related who told you it was not appropriate for you to have guns.

Regards

Stewart

Gene,

Please accept my appoligies for letting this get out of control.

Stewart,

If one reads this thread fully, one sees that I was the one who pointed out the wide spread use of both terms here in North America. How about a little respect for what people or organizations choose to call themselves? I think that was at the heart of what Gene was driving at in the first place.

The C&O chose to be a Railway, The B&O chose to be a Rail Road, to call them by the other term is disrepectfull.

Sheldon

I think my whole point was two fold:
Which is actually more common?
Where does each occur?
As pointed out, the general public seems to attach "railroad" to all - even those interested do the same.  After all, it's MODEL RAILROADER, not MODEL RAILWAYER. 

Stewart,  while I disagree with Sheldon on most things political and social, I'd have no problem being around him while he is armed.  But then I spent most of my life around folks with weapons.  I've carried and used them myself and will again when I find it necessary.   Of course, right now, I should go to the range and practice if I thought it were necessary. 
Gene

SteamGene

As near as I can tell, the term Railway was ususlly associated with rail lines that cover short routes or areas, and did not run with the heavy rail and equipment found on the big main line systems. 

I remember as a lad starting to work for the CB&Q, I ask that question and someone told me it had to do with the land grant railroads.  I've look for that and can't find anything to back up that, but thats what I was told.  If the company received a land grant from the US government it was a railroad, if not it was a railway.  Wish i could find something definitive on this.  Oh well.   :)

Anyway hope this helps a little

Gene,

After a closer examination of that 1956 list, it appears that the least popular coporate use is the one word term Railroad, followed next by Railway and then Rail Road being most popular.

Railroad, as a one word term, seems to have become the generic term for all rail systems, at least in North America. Only a few of the companies call themselves that offically. Most are Rail Roads and many are Railways.

If you would like a copy of that 1956 list, contact me off board.

Sheldon

I find the conflict in names to be most interesting.  My first love and career was that of a flyer....I have only recently become involved with model railroading as a hobby.

We in the field of aviation have the same conflict.  Is it Airlines or Airways.  For example:  we have American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines.....but on the other hand, we have U.S. Airways, Republic Airways, British Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways etc.  It could go on and on, but I just wanted to point out that the Rail Industry is not alone in this.

Jesse

Thanks, Anoldrail.
Of course that concept runs afoul with C&O, N&W, and Southern!  I'm not sure about N&W or Southern rail, but I use code 100 to approximate C&O mainline rail.  The N&W Y-6b was heavy until you compare it to the C&O H-8! 
Gene

Gene : I think you create confusion with a false precedent.

Quote from: SteamGene on April 08, 2007, 06:32:17 PM
As I pointed out, the general public seems to attach "railroad" to all - even those interested do the same.  After all, it's MODEL RAILROADER, not MODEL RAILWAYER.  Gene

It is also RAILWAY MODELLER from Peco Publications for over 50 years.

What I am trying to work down to, is that there is another tribe that exists on the otherside of the hill, and their precedence might predate your own when setting the lexicon.

I do agree, "Railroad" is a typically American term.

May I please not have to go through an ordeal over this matter.

Regards

Canadian Pacific and Canadian National were both Railways.  I think most of the smaller ones in Canada are railways too.

Stewart, as Sheldon said, I'm looking at this purely from the persepective of a person living in the U.S.  I find it interesting that Britian uses "railway" almost exclusively.  However there doesn't seem to be any real systematic employment of of "railway" vs "railroad" in the U.S. as far as when the rail company was formed.  For instance, the B&O Rail Road was the oldest in the country, but the C&O Railway is a product of the 1880s. 
I'm really just looking for more U.S./Canadian "railways" and where they are.  Like I said, the general public AND the modelers seem to use "railroad" as a generic.  As a really good example, I should have named my model the Virginia Tidewater and Piedmont Railway, but I didn't.   It's a railroad.
Gene

 
"As a really good example, I should have named my model the Virginia Tidewater and Piedmont Railway, but I didn't.   It's a railroad."

Gene :   In deciding this, was it only as a purist to practice?

I am looking at this thread as an opportunity to explore the origins of the usage. Early track had the flange on the rail, and not on the wheels; maybe this is the root of flat treads running on a railroad - because they could equally also run on a normal road.

Regards

Stewart,
I wasn't thinking when I named the company and early decals have the "Tipee RR" name on it.  Since it's based on the C&O/Southern, both of which are "railways" and it dates to post War Between the States Virginia, "railway" would be the most logical.  But I'll stick with "railroad." 
IIRC, the flanged rails did not last long.   I think I remember that the original wheel flanges were on both sides. 
Gene

Gene : I think much of the learning from this thread is confirmed in the following Wikipedia pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_terminology (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_terminology)

The way the name changes are made are also borne out.

The articles also note that Railway appears prefered in the English speaking World, whereas Railroad is typically American.

Regards

Stewart,
I think I speak English.  Whist thou well, I kennst the mother tongue when she was a but a lass.
Gene

The Texas & Pacific called itself a railway, not a railroad.

As this thread so aptly demonstrates, two nations divided by a common language!

But I forget, we are just a "rabble" acording to Cornwalis.

Sheldon

I have historical info. Ownership , Deeds, Name changes, etc . for all R.R.s in Allegan Co. Mi. From begining to end , Rail Road, Railroad, Railway. are used at different times , no ryme or reason, just that was the name at the time.

#94 : Your time has come: where have you been?

I agree.

Regards

Seems to me I have been saying pretty much the same thing as #94 from the very beginning. I even put forth some evidence, but God knows there was no way Stewart would agree with anything I said.

Stewart, would you like a copy of the 1956 AAR list of companies and reporting marks? Oh, I forgot, it is more important what they called some first experiment in 1807 or what ever.

Sheldon

As far as I can tell it's a question of potayto or potahto, depending on the year or circumstances.  I do have to admit that for a new guy looking to pick up a little information on model railroading this thread did make for some interesting reading, thanks.  Rick

And now you can all go and read the home page of the National Railway Historical Society < http://www.nrhs.com/library.htm > and note with great glee how they use the term Railway or Railroad with impunity!

David,

Would that be the National Railway Historical Society in the UK?

That will break Stewart's heart.

Sheldon

Ah, that I should be so cruel! :P
Nope it's your side of the puddle! We only have the The Historical Model Railway Society ( or something like that!)
By the way, just for fun Google 'railway historical society' and see how many Railways that turns up! :D

Could we please get to the point of agreeing that the terms are used interchangeably: and more so in the US?

My interest in this string is how the terms evolved.

To confirm: it is The Historical Model Railway Society in the UK, and The National Railway Museum, York.

Please note the definite articles, viz. The Automobile Association in the UK, and The National Trust in the UK.

OK Stewart, that's fine,

While we are at it, maybe we can figure out the reasons for;

wrench vs spanner
elevator vs lift
flashlight vs torch
hood vs bonnet
gasoline vs petrol
box car vs van
truck vs bogie
tie vs sleeper
trolley vs tram
highway vs motorway
apartment vs flat
keeping right vs keeping left
fries vs chips

and, my all time favorite as an Electrician, why anyone would wire buildings with general use outlets at 220 volts?

and the one thing imported from aross the Atlantic I would most love to send back - the traffic circle.

Two things I love from the UK, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, but the Beach Boys and Billy Joel are high on my list too.

Also, 17th to 19th century English furniture is exquisite, as is most of the the Boston, New York, Phily and Baltimore furniture it inspired.

I live in a Queen Anne style house, the original modern floor plan.

But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and a gun. Some education, but definitly not enlightened.

Sheldon

Sheldon, you forget the English phrase that got a lot of GIs in trouble in WWII whilst stationed in England.
"Nice meeting you.  Knock me up some time, will you?"
Gene

Gene,

And so they did!

Sheldon

Sheldon,

I believe the proper UK term for traffic circle is roundabout. How about that, you found another one.

Craig

While I’m new to railroad history and terminology, and by no stretch of the imagination could I claim to be knowledgeable, however...

QuoteOriginally posted by: SteamGene

How many railroads are actually railways?<snip…>

Being that the original question posed by the topic seemed to be more along the lines of the frequency of use of the term “railroad” as opposed to the term “railway.”

I would think this would wind up being really difficult to arrive at an even semi-accurate answer.

Firstly, it would have to be qualified as to a specific era. Secondly, another decision that would have to be made is, which name would take precedence; i.e. the name the company was incorporated under or the name that it did business and operated under (DBA), not to mention those companies that operated (DBA) under multiple names.

In checking just a few present day railroads/railways, I’ve come across that fact that some are both railroads and railways at the same time, when you look at the incorporated name and the DBA name.

---

QuoteOriginally posted by: Seasaltchap

<snip…> My interest in this string is how the terms evolved. <snip…>

With regard to the evolution of the terms “Railway” and “Railroad.” I would think that Railway would have come first. The reason I believe this, is in reading various old texts (i.e. circa 1700 â€" 1900) terms that predated railways/railroads e.g. pathway, roadway, wagonway, tramway, & highway etc. All had the suffix way in common. While in common everyday use these terms may have very well have been shortened to path, & road etc. for example.

However, in proper (or maybe formal) usage the suffix could imply a legal standing of the various types of routes. If I’m not mistaken in the UK there is a legal term Way-leave, which describes the legal right granted by the owner of the land to another individual for a specific type use (e.g. Iter = A foot-way, Adus = A foot-way and/or Horse-way, Via = A foot-way, horse-way, and/or cart-way) of a specified portion of their land, usually for a fee. My understanding is that Way-leave is similar to (but not exactly the same) the term easement in the U.S.

Another interesting point that I’ve run across is that in the UK the only private or governmental entity that can/could charter a ”Railway’ was by an act of Parliament. While tramways and such could be granted permission by a local governing body, if sharing a public road, or by private agreement (i.e. Way-leave) if the route didn’t cross public lands. Even though some so-called tramways operated in the same fashion as a railway carrying both freight and passenger traffic.

Just some interesting things I've run across in trying to find an answer.

Craig : We have the situation in Arizona where both "Traffic Circles" and "Traffic Roundabouts" are being used in public speech.

I cannot understand Sheldon's aversion to traffic circles, when they provide him with more freedom in his truck: whereas he is currently met with the authority of a Red Light.

Steve C. : Thank you.

The original posting by Gene is problematic because we have not agreed any difference between Railway and Railroad in order to apply a rule - beyond that which evolves to Sheldon's observations.

If it boils down to "Way" and "Road" regardless of whether it is "Rail", then "Way" at least, is in the literature back to Chaucer and further back to Roman times in the UK.

In the UK the term at Law exists of "Rights of Way" which had to be set by statute for the building of the canals and the railways, not only over public, but also private land in order to facilitate the purchase of land.

I am surprised for so many engineering types, that a reductionist mind was not applied in this way.

Regards

Stewart,

The traffic circle or roundabout is not the problem. The problem is stupid traffic engineers who make them too small for the 53' long truck trailers we should not have on the roads and the suburban mini van moms that don't know how to drive around them.

Whoops, I let a few more of my opinions show, oh well.

Those trucks should have been limited to 35' vans way back in 1957 and been deregulated then to allow them all to get on flat cars except for local delivery.

And the suburban soccer mom and the mini van, what a combination that is. Mini vans are the biggest joke. Most get the exact same mileage as similar sized SUV's, but mini vans are PC, SUV's are not. Wouldn't be caught dead owning a mini van. I want something with a frame under me. Still wish they made REAL station wagons, then I wouldn't want an SUV either.

If you want to know what a REAL station wagon is, do a search of "Checker Marathon" and see the station wagon they made from 1959 to 1980. And those things got over 20 mpg! The one I had with a 6 cylinder got almost 30 mpg.

And, my offer still stands. Anyone interested in the 1956 AAR list of railroad corporate names and reporting marks can contact me off list. At least as 1956 goes, it tells us who was a Rail Road, Railway or Railroad in North America.

Sheldon

Sheldon,
I'm on my 4th Astro/Safari minivan and I love them. It really bums me out that they were discontinued. I never did like the Ford/Moper ones.
My Safari has ample headroom for a tall guy like me where most other vehicles don't.
I can haul 4x8 sheets of anything (train layout) without fear of them getting wet and without having to buy a pick up truck to do it.
I can spread out the sleeping bags and sleep in my van because there is enough room for a tall guy like me to stretch out. It good when we are traveling and come to somewhere where the motels are full.
It's small enough to get into multi-level parking garages which I couldn't do with full size vans.
It's all wheel drive, so I can traverse mountains and gullys. It helps when you are exploring abandoned railroad roadbeds.
I get about 18 mpg when I'm traveling so I can live with that. It's my all purpose vehicle to me.

Terry,

I agree, I drove an Astro years ago working as an electrical construction project manager, while not full sized they where actually a truck, built on the same driveline and platform as an S-10 pickup. In fact, they where all built right here in Baltimore and I worked several projects that where part of the installation of that assembly line. I would not class an Astro van as a mini van by any means.

Mini vans are front wheel drive station wagons like orginally made by Chrylser. But even with their little transverse V-6's they still burn as much gas as Blazers and Explorers. Gas mileage is a function of weight more than anything else and it is hard to make mini vans much lighter than medium sized SUV's, so they use the same amount of fuel.

Just keep this in mind.

Do SUV's guzzle gas?

Honda Insight
2 seats x 63 mpg = 126 seat-miles per gallon

Ford Explorer
7 seats x 18 mpg = 126 seat miles per gallon

Transit Bus
35 seats x 3.6 mpg = 126 seat miles per gallon

My dads 69 Checker Marathon wagon - loaded with the 5 of us, our stuff and pulling our Apache camper at 65 MPH
7 seats x 18 mpg = 126 seat miles per gallon

YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY

Sheldon

Stewart,

One other note, I prefer to live in a population density that requires few if any traffic signals, stop signs are more than enough where I want to be.

We used to have a stop sign here in the Village of Forest Hill, now it is a traffic light. That is one of the reasons we are looking to move soon.

When I first starting driving at age 16, it was a 4 mile drive to the nearest traffic signal, I hope to recapture that experiance in retirement.

Sheldon

Stewart,

I don't mind stopping at a red light if there is traffic. What I do mind is stopping at a light that is red for no good reason.  At 2:00 in the morning, on an otherwise desolate road, it is rather inconvenient to have to stop because "it's time". Unfailingly, the light will turn green at the moment another driver, on another leg of the intersection, shows up. He or she then sits at a red light because "it's time to stop".

Craig

Gentlemen,

The following publication may serve as an example that the interchangeable use of the terms "railway” and ”railroad” were present and in general use in England in 1843 and doesn’t quite seem to be uniquely American as thought.

From: Project Gutenberg [EBook #14753] (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14753/14753-8.txt)
Format: Plain Text; Character Set Encoding ISO-8859-1
Publication: BLACKWOOD'S EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.
No. CCCXXXV. SEPTEMBER, 1843.   VOL. LIV.
(No. 335, September 1843, Volume 54)

Article Title: A PLEA FOR ANCIENT TOWNS AGAINST RAILWAYS.

Steve C : I think 1843 is after the established use in the US. (you may have the wrong link)

I think something else is working here. As we see exemplified in this thread is the regular American insult of making Native English speakers use the words and the pronunciations that satisfy them: and they will repeat their preferance until the learning is taken onboard. Ever willing to be understood abroad, the Native English speaker will seek to accommodate them. I think we cannot exclude this from the usage in an article of 1843.

Sheldon : Arizona is the "Red Light Running Capital of the World" and we have weekly gun fights on the interstates. I think you may wish to consider this as a place to retire for good sport.

It was 240v, but to harmonize with the EEC it is now 220v. I think the answer to your question in the US, is that Electric Cookers and Water Heaters still require 220v. The complaint of most Europeans in the US is that while cheap, domestic appliances have no beef in them!

Regards

Stewart,

Arizona - I don't like the climate.

Having a choice, I would never heat my home, heat water or cook with electricity, it is very inefficient.

And our split phase system of delivering both 120 and 240 volts to homes in North America works very well and provides much greater personal safety. 200 volts is the "killing threshold" of electricity, 120, while it can be deadly, is in 95% of cases not, The precentage is similarly reversed for voltages over 200.

We cook on gas and heat our water with the oil fired boiler that heats our home.

A recent study demistrated that much better efficiency is acheaved by each home having its own oil or gas fired heating plant than by using that same oil or gas at a central location to generate electricity to run heat pumps.

I have no question about the superior quality of European appliances, but their cost puts them in the diminishing return catagory, just like their cars. I can aford those things, but over the long haul, two or three much less expensive products are cheaper to own and satisfiy the utility of my needs just as well as that one expensive product. I would rather have the money in my pocket than feed my ego with a BMW. My Fords do just fine. There is always a threashold of quality that is necessary and than that which is too expensive or the benifits of which are not noticed or realized in actually owning the product.

Case in point. The BMW 7 series vs the Ford Crown Victoria - I will not argue that the Ford is just as good a car, it is not. But from the standpoint of what it costs and what my NEEDS are, it is a much more cost efficient car. The BMW may last twice as long and deliver higher performance, but I don't NEED the performance, I am satisfied with the performance of the Ford. The Ford is just as safe and costs 1/3 of what the BMW costs, so for my purposes, the Ford is 33% more cost effective. In this case, that is $30,000 still in my pocket over the expected sevice life of the BMW or two Fords. And, in terms of practical reliablity, they are equal or the Ford has a slight edge since higher performance cars often have reliablity problems and/or higher maintence costs. I know, I worked in the BMW shop.

But what do I know....

Sheldon

Stewart, old chap, I happen to be a Native English speaker.  I just happen to speak a different dialect, just like a Cornishman speaks differntly than a Northcumberlander. 
Gene
A.B., English,
The College of William and Mary in Virginia

Sheldon,
Your statement that 200v is the "Killing Threshold" of electricity is not entirely correct. An AC current of 60mA at a frequency of 50/60 Hz can induce ventricular fibrillation resulting in death. Depending on body resistance and the path of the current, a supply as low as 50v could prove fatal. Residual Current Breakers are generally set to trigger at a flow of only 30mA, well below the danger area. Any voltage of above 40v should be considered to be dangerous depending on conditions.

Dave.

Dave,

I agree, you are correct and I know all that, but the fact remains, without going into long scientific explainations that would make most of those reading this fall asleep, 200 volts, more less, is the point where electricity becomes likely fatal for any and everyone, regardless of age, body weight, health, fault currents, ground paths, etc, etc,.

As an electrician for many years I was bit by 120 more times than I can remember, never actually injured by it. In fact, after a while, your only thought is "Gee, I shouldn't have touched that" or "That was stupid of me". But, I was bit above 200 volts only once, at 208 volts and I was not well grounded. That is an experiance I consider my self lucky to have survived and would never wish on anyone.

And so my basic question remains - why would anyone wire buildings with general use outlets at 220 volts?

Sheldon

Stewart, Dave, and whoever,

One more point of clarification here. Water heaters, ranges, dryers, air conditioners and other 240 volt appliances are either hard wired or are seldom pluged and unpluged as apposed to vacuums, lamps, toasters, hair dryers, etc.

Portable devices with cords are subject to all sorts of mishaps, do we really want 240 volt extension cords getting cut by accident?

The likelyhood of injury is greatly reduced by hard wiring or limited access to cords (like dryers and ranges), as apposed to portable devices that are plugged and unplugged routinely. And the higher voltage is only used on those few items who's wattage make a higher voltage an advantage.

Sheldon

Sheldon,

I'm very surprised that I haven't seen you mention the terms amperage or load.  Over the course of my career as an electrician I was shocked numerous times, just as you were. I've been shocked while working with 120, 208, 240, and 277. The 240 volt experience was very painful as my grounded hand was directly contacted by a live, uninsulated wire. No harm done, though. On the other hand, some idiot who had done some renovation to a house decided to break the basement lighting circuit in a 4-gang box in the kitchen. On a service call my voltage tester demonstrated that the kitchen lighting circuit was dead and I proceeded to separate wires. Imagine my surprise when I broke some neutrals and found myself against a wall, unable to breathe. Turns out the basement lights - seven 150-watt lamps â€" were on at the time. That was only 120 volts but the load was quite high. Having electricity pulled through your body can be a very unpleasant experience regardless of the voltage. Load is a notable consideration when determining the safety of a particular voltage.

Craig

Craig,

Yes, you too are correct, becoming the neutral path in any circuit under load is a very dangerous situation. Again, I was trying to make my point about 220 volt general use outles in Europe with out long technical explainations. In fact, Dave's earlier statement about lower voltages generally depends on such an externial load other than your body to be harmfull, since our bodies are low in resistance and seldom create high current levels on their own.

In the situation of being caught in the neutral of an active circuit, the danger is a complicated factor of the available fault current, your body weight and resistance, your health and the load on the circuit. But as you point out, it is a more dangerious situation than just touching a hot wire.

My point in the begining of this is more about the hazzards to users, not to technicans working on the system. And, I will say that in my career in the field, I never knowing worked anything over 120 hot past a the point of simple testing. End users with cord connected appliances are known to do amazing stuff, why give them such a deadly level of power to play with? This opinon is also boosted by the fact that my father was a volunteer fireman.

I am retired from actually working in the electrical field, but now work as a Residential Desginer, Historic Restoration Consultant, and Real Estate Home Inspector. So I still design electrical systems for homes, old and new, on a regular basis. In my days in the electrical industry, I was not just an electrician, but was also an electrical Design Draftsman and designed power and control systems for commercial and industrial buildings.

Sheldon

Sheldon,

When I was a toddler I stuck my mother's car key into a live duplex outlet. I can't imagine what that would have been like had the outlet been 220. I agree that it is difficult to understand the mindset behind high voltage GU electrical service.

UK records show 5 deaths domestically, and 25 work related in a population of 60 million. www.oxford.gov.uk/planning/new-electrical-regulations.cfm (http://www.oxford.gov.uk/planning/new-electrical-regulations.cfm)


US records show 376 overall, excluding 47 from lightning and over 150 from tasers in a population of 300 million.www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm)

Flexing the figures for the populations, I think the higher voltages in the UK do not bearout the arguments. Indeed the experience of deaths in the US may be more than twice that in the UK.

What I see is very flimsy equipment that is only just engineered for the job, and a culture of "wing-nuts" and those little orange adapters to get around the earthing pin on the appliance!


Regards

Stewart,

Yawn

Could we please get to a consensus on "Railway or Railroad"?

Gene : I think it is more than just a change in dialects.

English owes a lot to its Gernanic influences, where Native English has since moved from the guttural to the rhythmic.

The original authors of the Constitution seriously considered publishing it in German, and not in English.

German is a language of building prefixes and suffixes to get to where you want to be. This is most prevalent in American speech, hence the German influence. This makes for a mouth full and a very guttural language, which is not where Native English is going.

Sheldon's list is by no means representative: viz Acclimated v. "getting used to" ... new climate[OED].

Sheldon : Opinions are a dime a dozen.

What are they backed with: yawns?

Regards

Stewart,

You have no point on the electrical issue since I had allready concided that Americans are poorly behaved in this area.

My opinion on construction matters, based on experiance and education, has at the very least been highly regarded by both my clients and by several courts in this land. My personal success in this area is reward enough and your opinion on that subject is of no value. Just like I said about the BMW vs the Ford, I'm happier with the money in my pocket than with the ego trip of excess or even recogintion beyond those who know first hand the quality of my skills.

I will now ask the question I have resisted up to now. If the UK is so wounderful, why are you here?

I am not a big risk taker personally, but better to live in an open field and chose the safest spot, then be herded in a fenced pen.

My yawn was simply an expression of what I have been saying all along about Europe, no malice, just indifference.

Why is that? Why do you confuse indifference with malice? As I said before, I met with the other tribe, I respect his choices, but have no desire to change my own. You do not know what is better for me, no matter how inlightened you perceive yourself to be.

I, unlike Gene, am not an English teacher and how we came to use which word is of little interest to me. I will leave that discussion to the two of you.

I am however of German heritage, speak a little German, and live in a state heavily settled by German speaking peoples. But ultimately WE chose to be Americans. The problem I see with many immigrants today is an unwillingness to assimilate and become Americans.

Sheldon

Quote from: atlanticcentral on April 15, 2007, 11:51:11 AM
My yawn was simply an expression of what I have been saying all along about Europe, no malice, just indifference.

Sheldon : ... in this, the rest of the world see the US constantly reinventing the wheel for themselves - where others have already been.

Quote from: atlanticcentral on April 15, 2007, 11:51:11 AM
I will now ask the question I have resisted up to now. If the UK is so wounderful, why are you here?

I am here to bring you this message - over 50 years a US citizen.

Could we please get to a consensus on "Railway or Railroad"?

Regards

The consensus on Rail Road, Railroad or Railway is yes, that was settled with my first post, you are the only one not happy with that.

You should understand by now that I don't care a wit what Europeans think, I leaned years ago not to alter my behavor from what I believe based on what others think, here or abroad.

"go along to get along" is a failed concept that has done the world great harm.

Sheldon

Stewart,
Bless your heart.
I taught a class on English epistimology for three years. 
Ich kann eine kleine Deutsch sprechen.
Quite frankly I don't think that the Queen's English is any better than how Americans speak English. 
Gene

Note: the English teacher of the slayer's class at Virginia Tech' is clearly English, and she makes no compromises to "American" per se in her speech! That is how it is taught there: our local High School in Phoenix is the same staffing and discipline.

"Cornishman" Gene :   So, speaking epistimologically can we say - "it may be Railway, and then again, it may be Railroad."

"Queen's English" is a bit of a nonsense that everyone hangs a hat on. Accents are always with us, and are more colloquial (viz. Cornish - "Grocal" = outsider.) than regular speech, they tend to over emphasize the vowel and consonant sounds (viz "R").

Where I see the difference is in the lack of discipline over vowel sounds and the enunciation of certain consonants where in the US "Winner" & "Winter" come out the same; "Latin" is slain by scholars and wordsmiths.

The most original English spoken in the US is understood to be on the islands off the Carolinas - and that is from the 17th/18thC. West Country English sailors.

The point being, that we should be understood when we speak, and knowledge of the widest possible vocabulary, properly pronounced to the rules of vowel sounds and the consonants that discern the word from another, is what is needed. Calling it American, I think is a weak excuse - when it was taught in school as English.

Quote from: atlanticcentral on April 15, 2007, 12:54:06 PM
You should understand by now that I don't care a wit what Europeans think, I learned years ago not to alter my behavor from what I believe based on what others think, here or abroad.

"go along to get along" is a failed concept that has done the world great harm.
Sheldon

.... Europeans of different languages live cheek by jowl, where French was once the language of diplomacy, and George Bernard Shaw left his estate to the development of Esperanto as the International Language; now the World is moving in a consensus to English, not American English but English English. More Dutch now speak English than Dutch. (and pity, there are less than 300 true Cornish Language speakers)

I see this as a natural evolution of the world becoming a more universal experience for all mankind.

There needs to be reciprocity not isolationism, English is a rich language of both "Railway" and "Railroad": I am English, and I speak the English, where every adjective is not reduced to "Cool".

Regards

Quote from: Seasaltchap on April 15, 2007, 12:40:51 PM

Quote from: atlanticcentral on April 15, 2007, 11:51:11 AM
My yawn was simply an expression of what I have been saying all along about Europe, no malice, just indifference.

Sheldon : ... in this, the rest of the world see the US constantly reinventing the wheel for themselves - where others have already been.

Are you kidding? This IS the GREATEST country in the world! Are you willing to challenge that old chap? You want to make generalizations about America and Americans? I heard that in the U.K, your smiley faces have bad teeth ;D

I'm sure your teeth are just fine Stewert; being Americanized and all. I just made up a new word; got a problem with that? ;)