— Wesley Greer, Castle Rock, Colo.
A Manifest comes from the Latin word manifestus, meaning “visible,” or “detected in the act.” It went into Middle English (because the Romans occupied England for a while), and in 1432 the word manifestation meant “apparition.” By 1561 it meant “show,” and in 1618 the word manifesto was used to mean “declaration.” In 1706 the word manifest was being used to describe the list of cargoes carried by a ship, and by 1869 its use had been transferred to land use, as an alternate to “waybill.” You can see, therefore, that over the years the use of the word developed. By 1929, its use in the expression “manifest freight” distinguished such trains from other types such as way freights, tank trains, and so on. Presumably the manifest freight had with it (in the caboose) a complete manifest of what was on the train, car by car.
— Andrew Dow
Didn’t the writer misspeak with “Many places have further track restrictions on manifest trains that have a high tons per operative brake, as this train with all loads will have”.
All trains are “manifest trains”, are they not? or else it is “a locomotive on the tracks” or “hopper cars on the tracks” or “a charging rhinoceros on the tracks”? or whatever.
The “manifest”, so I was led to believe, is the description of what’s between the locomotive and the space behind the end of the train, be “the end” a car or another locomotive facing backwards or Santa’s sleigh or a caboose, or whatever.
Wouldn’t a locomotive-facing-backwards at the end be part of the “manifest” of a given train?
How about if it is facing backward and attached to the lead locomotive and providing part of the power? Is it then not part of the manifest?
This has turned into a final exam question.