Talk:Rolling stock

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

Example of usage

See London Underground rolling stock and Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock for examples of usage -- both powered and unpowered railway vehicles. Kahuzi 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another important but largely undiscussed dimension to this subject... and that is the spelling (or presentation) of the word. Yes, it should be ONE word; the opinion of those worthy intellectuals who compile dictionaries notwithstanding. The word is well-defined in this Wikipedia article, but it is also misspelt. Rollingstock is to rail operations as Feedstock is to industry and Livestock is to farming, whereas 'Rolling stock' is analogous to 'bouncing bomb' or 'Cuban missile' or 'fast jet' or 'falling snow'. Used together, the two separate words mean something else again entirely (and even have a meaning within the world of finance and investing). Any quick internet search will readily indicate the confusion that exists around how to present this word (this very article itself serves to illustrate the confusion), and this is so generally misunderstood that most who use the word, including the language intellectuals, fail to comprehend the matter and inevitably resort to some vaguely-considered personal opinion. Neither is rollingstock a compound word requiring to be hyphenated, and yet even this option can be seen in one's internet search. Throttleer (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I have fixed the rubbish about rolling stock referring only to unpowered vehicles in the UK - this is completely wrong. Locomotives and multiple units are both are powered and both are referred to by everyone in the rail industry as rolling stock. They are just distinct subsets. I don't mean to be rude but the guy who is arguing that they are not clearly knows nothing about the industry its terminology or usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.172.13 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990 edition), which defines "rolling-stock" to include locomotives. Kahuzi 10:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but rolling stock does not include locomotives see these links which refer to locomotives and rolling stock [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. G-Man * 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Let's be very clear. Here is the Compact Oxford Dictionary entry [6]. The full OED entry is better because it provides clear examples, going back into the nineteenth century, for the use of the term "rolling stock" to include all the assets of a railway company which move (as opposed to those that are fixed) but I can't provide a link because it's a subscription service. None of the web sites quoted above give a clear definition, and whilst some users of the term may have fallen into the habit of using "rolling stock" in a way that excludes locomotives this is clearly not, and never has been, the generally understood meaning of the term. The suggestion that the definition includes some powered rail vehicles (e.g. multiple units), and not others, is just illogical. I shall revert now. Kahuzi 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly not its meaning today, which is relevant to a modern encyclopedia article. G-Man * 20:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it then, if you are right, that the ROSCOs, (British Rolling Stock Leasing Companies), lease locomotives as well as other rolling stock? Kahuzi 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably for the sake of brevity. G-Man * 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kahuzi, the term, at least some of the time, is used to include all moving assets of a railway (hence the term "rolling stock"). G-Man, I'd make a couple of points. First Wikipedia articles should cover the historical as well as present use of terms. Second, Wikipedia is international, and the term "rolling stock" is used to include locos in some countries. Finally, "rolling stock" is used inclusively on several heritage railways I am part of, for example the Ffestiniog Railway. A compromise might be to note in the article that this term does not have a universally agreed meaning. For example, we could say "Rolling stock is a collective term used to describe the vehicles which move on a railway. It usually includes the locomotives, and railroad cars, coaches and wagons, though sometimes only refers to non-locomotive stock" or something similar. Gwernol 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the definition used by Network Rail. See this document [7]. ] which refers specifically to Traction and Rolling Stock suggesting that traction (i.e locomotives) are not considered to be rolling stock. That said if there is no universally accepted meaning of the term then this should be said in the article. G-Man * 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that document I think nicely sums up the dual use of the term. Apparently network rails Rolling Stock acceptance process covers both Rolling Stock and Traction Stock. In other words within the same sentence it uses "rolling stock" to refer to both include and exclude locomotives. I think the only reasonable way forward is to note that the term is used in both ways and inconsistently at that... Gwernol 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept Gwernol's suggestion and will amend the article accordingly. Kahuzi 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codes sentence

Does the article really need to include this? "These codes were telegraphese and were analogous to the SMS language of today." It troubles me a bit because it seems to be explaining something which is too general to need explaining here. If you have this sentence here then surely you could add it to many other articles which include some form of short code or abbreviation; further, into this sentence you could add lots of other things, in addition to SMS, to which this is analogous. It feels to me like it's over-explaining this and concentrating on just one example, and I think it should perhaps not be here. What do you think? Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Rolling stock

Cyberbot II has detected links on Rolling stock which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/rolling-stock-market-4380892.html
Triggered by \bmarketsandmarkets\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam. Deleted.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]