Calling a diesel whole locomotive a "motor" is not nearly as wrong, because they are an evolution of electric locomotives, and a slang term for those was "motors".

Similarly, "motor" was used to distinguish EMU coaches with traction motors from "trailers".

Yes, I believe "motor" is a legitimate term, but sort of odd sounding. I am not sure if there are limitations to how it is applies or not. I once read that everyone on the CGW RR referred to their diesel locomotives as motors.

The 3-foot-gage Minneapolis, Lyndale & Minnetonka RR was called the "motor line."

I believe the term "engine" is synonymous with "locomotive" as long as the context makes it clear that "engine" is not referring to a prime mover or stationary engine. But I agree that "steam engine" used in referring to a steam locomotive is wrong.

Along these lines, there is a new FLIMSIES report "Train museum in Fort Pierce set to reopen Saturday" about the Florida East Coast's last steam crane and "the company's lone steam locomotive". We talked about the FEC's five remaining 4-6-2's on the recent thread on the Key West Extension. So this is a typical newspaper report that got it's facts wrong. Happens all the time!

Les

Ok, boys an girls, let's calm ourselves down a bit. I've been on both sides of the track, as a reporter (I'm retired now) and as a railroad official (I'm retired from that, too.). In defense of reporters, many of them don't know anything about railroads because they have to know a little about a zillion subjects. Most of them cover meetings, auto accidents, court hearings, little old ladies with cute dogs, etc., etc. On a rare occasion, a reporter is sent out to talk to a railroad official. That official is often reluctant to speak to the media, because it's company policy that everything comes through the public relations department. The PR guys are trained to say a whole lot without revealing much of anything. Newspapers these days don't have the luxury of researchers and rewrite men, so the reporters are on their own. And they don't have time to do a whole lot of research either.

From the perspective of a railroad official, I tried to educate the reporters who came to me. I tried to use the proper terms, I tried to explain the terms, but sometimes that isn't enough. A harried reporter goes back to the office with pages of notes, some of which he can't read because even though I tried to speak slowly, I was going too fast for him to get every word. He's got an editor or a copy editor breathing down his neck to get the story done so he can get to the next one, which may be more important. So they do the best they can. That's all any of us can do.

What Brother Laepple said.

I, too, have been on both sides of conversation. The strangest occasion was being a reporter for the rail magazines during press conferences after the derailment in Baltimore's Howard Street Tunnel in July 2001. I ended up asking questions of the FRA investigators and CSX spokesmen in railroad jargon during a press briefing--which COMPLETELY threw them for a loop, let me tell you--then had "mainstream" media reporters turning to me afterwards to ask ME questions! Only one or two true investigative reporters really stuck around to pick my brains for anything more than superficial questions, though. Then both the CSX spokesman and one of the FRA guys came to me separately and said, "Look, it's obvious you know the railroads and the industry. Don't waste their time asking us technical questions they'll never understand; we'll talk with you separately in rail jargon as we get the info."

One other factor involved is that as rail specialists we see almost every last story on the subject, whereas the average media consumer might run into a story about old trains, a rail station preserved, a new shortline, etc. once in a decade. In addition, even a perfectly knowledgeable reporter (Dan Cupper wrote on railroads for the Harrisburg, Pa. Patriot News and later became a NS employee and rail editor; Jim Wrinn came from the Hickory, NC office of the Charlotte Observer; Don Phillips was with UPI and the Washington Post, etc.) has almost no control over the headlines. The divide is about as great as that between the car shop mechanics and the excursion train crew--you can do a perfect restoration job on the car interior, and along come the banjo singalong guys, the corny PA announcer, or the "train robbers." Most of my editors are perfectly nice guys, but every last one I've wanted to strangle at some point for a corny title or headline or a botched editing job. And finally, commercial news reporting is and always will be about attracting more eyeballs by whatever means necessary--"feel-good" stories, artificial excitement, kittens and puppies, "inspirational" stories, etc.

Would you rather they not consider you worthy of any coverage at all?

And once in a great while you'll write something good and the copy editor, who thinks they know better than you will make some lame correction. If that doesn't happen, the copy editor will give the story some foolish headline.

I would add to this the fact that most railroad officials know full well that if the story comes out garbled or insanely dumb, no matter how hard they try to explain things thoroughly to the reporter, that the official, not the reporter, will suffer the wrath of Railroad Headquarters.

Why take the risk?

A local reporter in Southern California tried to make it look like the spokesperson for a preservation group was "hiding something". After hearing about this, I commented to a fellow member, "Sounds like a real life Rita Skeeter". He knew exactly what I meant: In the Harry Potter books, Rita Skeeter is an obnoxious scandal-monger for the Daily Prophet, the Wizard world journal.