Locomotive lashup restrictions imposed after unknown incident

[Anonymous]

When railroaders talk amongst themselves, the word "consist" doesn't come up all that often - you'll just hear us talk about "my engines" or "bunch of" engines or the like.

CSX rules say that we can use up to 15 engines when moving them without cars, 12 engines when moving cars, and 8 engines when on and industrial spur or track.

CSX timetables may impose more rules based on local conditions. For example, we can have up to 24 powered axles in our "bunch of engines," and if the engine is an AC-traction-motor unit, then it counts as 9 axles (so, for example using 6-axle road power, you could have 2 AC units and one DC unit running - 9+9+6 =24); and all other units would have to be "isolated" or "off-line" or "dead" depending on your terminology.

I covered this in an earlier post on another topic, but one reason you get huge consists is just the way traffic works in New England. We get lots of loads coming in from the west, and mostly trash of some kind (garbage, scrap, recycling) and empties going to the west. The westbound trains are lighter and require fewer engines, so trains can go west with fewer engines, leaving some at an eastern terminal. Also, for tax reasons, fuel is cheaper in Boston than in New York, so some engines get sent east to get gassed up and for no other reason. Finally, Boston has a service center, so engines are repaired over the course of a week and are ready by the weekend.

The upshot of all this is that, on Sunday, you may see a train with 10 or more engines on it, ferrying the surplus engines back west (most of them offline) and 2 miles of empty cars, and sometimes even a separate light-engine moves of at least 8 engines and no cars. The way we operate and operational volume dictate why we would have up to a dozen engines at once, when most of them are not powered.

Sorry to ramble - I hate a grammar/terminology flamewar. Even I mis-spel - I've just been on duty 11.5 hours!

[chicagorails]

i have yet to see more than 8 engines together. there are no trains that heavy anyway. if there were they would break the couplers!!!

[ValorStorm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

VS - isn't MRL part of BNSF now? Would this be a relocation of some units?

It was certainly a power equalization move. I should have written in my journal how many units were MRL (if any). The Spokane-Laurel was definitely a BNSF train.

As for the issue of MRL being part of BNSF, you're remembering that the MRL mainline is actually still owned by BNSF, and is on long-term lease. It does get confusing, much like when I get up in the middle of the night, still half asleep, dreaming it's 1972, and who's that bald guy in the mirror?

[JSGreen]

On a related note, when using mid- or end- train power, how is the control accomplished? Being a techno-geek, I can imagine all sorts of radio control links, [:p] but I often find the actual solution to be much simpler than my imagination creates.[:I] And, are there special engineer qualifications required for folks to "Drive" such a consist/lash-up/power set?

[BigJim]

My opinion of where the term lashup came from is the old stagecoach days. A "Hostler" (does that word sound familiar?) would lashup a new team of horses at the stagecoach stop.

Hey, it might not be right, but it sounds good, eh?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

QUOTE: Originally posted by james saunders

Downunder, its fairly common practice for it to be nicknamed a 'lashup' even some of the publications here, call it a 'lashup', But both lashup and and Consist is used.

"Lashup" is used by fans wishing to appear "hip' and the magazines they read.

"Consist" is used by railroaders.

Old Timer

The term, "lashup" may indeed be primarily a fan term as opposed to the equivalent term, "consist," used by most railroaders, although I doubt that it is a hard and fast rule. I have heard both used many times. Railroading is full of lingo, and it varies from road to road. Also, I would not conclude that the term, "lashup" is invalid just because railroaders typically don't use it. Obviously the term, lashup comes from all of the hose and M.U. connections made laboriously by hand as if stitching fabric. I would suggest that the term, "lashup" is applied to highlight the concept of M.U. operation, whereas the term, "consist" is the more basic term used day to day by railroaders who take the M.U. concept for granted, and only want to reference the locomotive composition.

It would be interesting to find the origin of the term, "lashup." Although it may be mostly used by fans, I doubt that they originated it. I wouldn't be surprised if the term originated with EMD in the earlier era when the M.U. concept was more novel.

Your contention that the term, "lashup" is used for the purpose of trying to be hip seems over the top. It implies that the only ones who are hip are the railroad employees, and all the fans are merely novice wanabees. But it cuts both ways. The fact is that there are fans, historians, and hobbyists, who do research and accumulate knowledge in certain areas that far exceed the depth of knowledge of many railroaders in the same area of railroad expertise. With all due respect.

[Mookie]

VS - isn't MRL part of BNSF now? Would this be a relocation of some units?

[ValorStorm]

21Apr1998 Journal entry:
"After 1:00 in the morning last night my scanner was all abuzz with an inquiry as to the number of units in the locomotive consist of a departing MRL eastbound. I thot I heard the crew radio back, "20." I put a jacket on and went outside. Sure enough, at 1:40 in the morning the 'Spokane-Laurel' went thru Clinton with 20 units on the point, none D.I.T. Not all on line tho."

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by james saunders

Downunder, its fairly common practice for it to be nicknamed a 'lashup' even some of the publications here, call it a 'lashup', But both lashup and and Consist is used.

"Lashup" is used by fans wishing to appear "hip' and the magazines they read.

"Consist" is used by railroaders.

Old Timer

[ValorStorm]

11Aug1997 Journal entry:
"5:45 PM. An eastbound just went by with 13 units on the point!"

(I lived in Clinton Montana, with the MRL 3rd Sub right out my living-room window)

[james saunders]

I have seen an 8 unit consist a few weeks back, when i was travelling into town...
Only two were running, the rest were being transferred.

[Anonymous]

The most I've ever seen was a 7 unit consist, but only the first three locomotives were on line. The other 4 were idling, being taken to the yard where they would work that week.

[chad thomas]

Do you have to ask? [;)] Of course we do. Help yourself. [8D]

[Anonymous]

ANYONE GOT POPCORN

[james saunders]

Downunder, its fairly common practice for it to be nicknamed a 'lashup' even some of the publications here, call it a 'lashup', But both lashup and and Consist is used.

[Anonymous]

Great explanation youngengineer, the brake release problem has surfaced several times in this thread and been beautifully covered by the people who have the best knowledge on the subject. A few days ago, I was very naive about railroad "speak", and that problem hasn't been totally eliminated but my knowledge has been greatly enhanced by some very fine efforts found on this forum. I started this thread because I was never able to fill in the reason why I no longer saw 10 unit Santa Fe consists, mostly GP's, straining up the Cajon Pass. I can now conclude that the reason for their absense can be laid at the feet of the 4000 hp locomotives. Their presense has definitely altered the look of rail traffic through the pass. I wasn't totally grasping the horsepower issue(I never worked in railroading) but the flow of explanations has narrowed the possibilities to the point where it emerges as the prime candidate. The momentum might keep this thread alive awhile longer, but I wanted to jump in here and express my thanks to all those poured serious effort into developing the information that appeared here. I have to conclude that there never was any "incident" that changed how the Santa fe was making up their consists. Thanks to everyone who took the time to add their input to this thread.

[youngengineer]

The limit on mu'ing units together is 10, power axles or rather rated power axles, and dynamic axles is a different topic altogether. When one mu's locomotives, we are talking about tying them together electrically, and by locomotive and brake pipe air. there are 4 air hoses and 1 electrical connection to make. When mu'ing locomotives together running the air through all of them is not practical, so you can put more than 10 locomotives on the point but only the head ten can be mu'ed the rest are treated like box cars.

Now since we have said that, why would you ot want to run the locomtive like a boxcar, number one and probably the only relevant reason when you would make a reduction in automatic air, the breaks would set up, you would not be able to actuate the air off so the brakes would set and possibly slide the wheels. Not a real big deal if it happens to a boxcar, but a locomotive much bigger deal as it is more costly to replace the wheelset.

I have skimmed over some of the issues but the biggest issue they I know of is the fact that air runs like crap through more than 4 or 5 locomives, causing some problems with setting and releasing air in switching, and also the fact that the retarding force on the train when using locomotive brakes can become very large very quickly with lost of locomotives and therefore causing severe buff forces on the cars i.e. cars being pushed off the track due to large in train forces.

just my 2 cents,

[silicon212]

I've seen consists of 12 units here on the UP Phoenix Line before, but in that case 4 of them were running DIC.

[Anonymous]

"So is that like throwing a switch? I've never seen one go that far, although they can be thrown best like a frisbee."

Doesn't the executioner throw the switch for the electric chair (or several executioners, so that no one will know which one actually fried the guy)? What's the record for distance in this instance?

Old Timer

[stmtrolleyguy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Deadeyebobinsocal -

How does your company la***hem up? Do you use string? Duct tape? Baling wire?

Most railroads couple up units together to make consists. I've been around, and I've never seen a railroad "lash up" units together. I've heard about it a lot, though.

Old Timer

So is that like throwing a switch? I've never seen one go that far, although they can be thrown best like a frisbee.

(Sorry about the o.t. comment but I couldn't resist. The lexicon can just be too rich to pass up sometimes)

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Old Timer

I have heard the Class 1 railroads have started to use raw hide, but each railroad uses the skin of a different animal.

On the west coast, though, they use hemp because they're all vegetarians. [:D]

I think there's a place for a little sarcastic humor here once in awhile. (See lines above)

deadeyebobinsocal, chill out. You're pretty new here, and we've already got a full allotment of confrontational, short-fused, thin-skinned posters.

How about: "Hey, Old Timer, I'm new here and didn't know that 'lashup' is railfan slang and the proper term is 'consist.' I'm here only a couple of days and already I've learned a few new things. Golly, I appreciate that."

[UPJohn]

Wasn't there a rule that said no more than 16 powered axles. I thought I remembered reading that somewhere

[spbed]

Here is a link from another forum where a railfan saw a UPRR 11 engine consist all running just the other day[:D]

http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13784

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

I have read before that 9 units is the practicle limit of the MU equiptment, is that true?
In all the years I have been railfanning Cajon I have never seen more then 9 on line, although I have seen 9 with 2 helpers on the point for a total of 11 but that was rare. As the 4000+ HP units started to dominate the consists shrank. These days it's rare to see more then 4 units on the BNSF, not counting helpers. I was up ther from Friday till sunday and did see a UP train on the cutoff with 7 units (includeing 2 SP) but it was dark and I didn't get pictures. It was as short train and I doubt more then a couple were on line. I recently got a Cabride on a UP on this line and the engineer actually took one of the 4 units off line because we had too much power (it's easier to leave it in run 8 then fiddle with the throttle to keep speed under the limit, we still maintained within 2 mph of the limit).

[Anonymous]

I am on this forum because it is informitive. I have learned a couple of things on this thread. thanks for the info. If some of you want to get into a pissing match, go over to the OGR forum. Lots of guys over there just waiting to take you on. That is one reason i am over here. Thanks again to all of you who make knowledgeable contributions to this forum.
doug

[spbed]

H'mmm quite interesting comments as if you look into my web site then the Southern California gallery Marach/April 06 then look into the pix from Silverwood (Cajon pass) you will see a UPRR 9 engine consist right before your eyes & behind the 9th engine was at least 8 or 9 more making it a 17 or 18 engine lash up. [:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

I have read before that 9 units is the practicle limit of the MU equiptment, is that true?
In all the years I have been railfanning Cajon I have never seen more then 9 on line, although I have seen 9 with 2 helpers on the point for a total of 11 but that was rare. As the 4000+ HP units started to dominate the consists shrank. These days it's rare to see more then 4 units on the BNSF, not counting helpers. I was up ther from Friday till sunday and did see a UP train on the cutoff with 7 units (includeing 2 SP) but it was dark and I didn't get pictures. It was as short train and I doubt more then a couple were on line. I recently got a Cabride on a UP on this line and the engineer actually took one of the 4 units off line because we had too much power (it's easier to leave it in run 8 then fiddle with the throttle to keep speed under the limit, we still maintained within 2 mph of the limit).

[jacko73]

Often grammar on all forums is lacking... so what? Spelling is often atrocious. So what? Terminology? Seems to me there is a way to correct our perhaps improper usage with some finesse, but if it isn't spot on, so what? I have never seen such excellent information as provided by the knowledgable members of this board, but we can't be jumping on one another because we don't like their use of terminology. Semantics, my friends. I've heard the term "lashup" for 37 years now and never gave it a second thought. I, as well as you, understand what is meant. But I'd sure be afraid to use it now, lest it offend someone. Live and learn.

[waltersrails]

in my ns timetable it says a restriction of 12 6 axel locos

[Anonymous]

I took many dozens of pictures of Cajon and Tehachapi between 1988 and 2000, in the happy days when people coming from far away to take pictures of US trains was considered eccentric, perhaps puzzling, but not abnormal or threatening. Among them are one or two10-locomotive consists, primarily SF/BNSF. The locomotives are mostly smaller units, up to SD-40-2, some 4-axle units too, and the trains were intermodals. There were no double-stack trains at that time on Tehachapi.

What was really exciting was the first time I saw 10-loco power, mostly ex-BN SD-45s, on coal trains in Price Canyon, Utah Railway, but this was in two sections, 4 in front, 6 in-train. My wife and I went back there often too.

We don't go back any more (we don't want to be arrested).

Swiss visitor

[rrandb]

Keep it up and the Kindergarden Cop will be back.[:-,]