Newbie here with a dumb question about locomotive lashups. Sorry if this has been posted before, but I searched several pages and didnt see anything listed. So my son had a few questions, and me too for that matter regarding how locomotives were connected together.
1. Why are some locomotives front facing and others rear facing in the lashup. I'm assuming it has to do with horse power needed for the consists but not sure what benefit a front facing or rear facing locomotive has over the other.
2. With consists that have a locomotive attached to the rear, why do they sometimes have them front facing and at times rear facing? Again I'm assuming it has to do with horse power.
3. What is the benefit if the additional power is added to the front of the train (ie 3 locomotives at the front, 1 locomotive in the rear) compared to more spread out power (ie 2 locomotives in the front, 2 locomotives in the rear), compared to all the locomotives at the front (ie 4 locomotives in front and none in the rear)? I'm assuming it has to do with the consists that's being hauled and the horse power needed to move it.
4. I live in the Pacific Northwest and the bulk of trains that we see are BNSF as that's who owns the track in my area. I was curious to know why sometimes you'll see a BNSF train with additional power from CP, CN, CSX and/or NS? I find it weird that a BNSF train would have another train line's locomotive attached to the consists. The other day I caught 3 NS locomotives hauling a freight consists with no BNSF trains attached at all. I've never seen that before and was curious why the NS was way out of its territory. I thought the NS locomotives would have hauled the consists to another yard where the consists would then be picked up by another line, in this case BNSF as that's the territory it was going to. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks to any information and and answers you can provide.
Trains Northwest
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7z2SF15sZ3pfV_VymvNf9A
ML
Diesel PowerNewbie here with a dumb question about locomotive lashups.
Bear in mind that what you're discussing is better called a "consist", not "lashup" (which refers to mismatched units or 'kludged' arrangements; see the historical meaning of the word). I think there's an implicit semantic analogy between the horses' reins and the MU cabling (or control air on Baldwins) ... but I think your request will be taken more seriously if you do not use the railfan term.
There have been several discussions on this subject, but without a functional forum-search you're unlikely to find them easily. Yet another good reason to avoid thread drift is that some of the discussion may be in posts with a completely different title in the thread list, making it essentially on the moon to newbies looking for information in the great mass of older postings.
Usually you'd want the cab leading in front (easier to use the controls; the diesel engine exhaust is behind you in confined spaces and tunnels), although the locomotive generally pulls equally well in either direction. When using two units in general freight work it's common to see them coupled 'cabs-out' as this produces the effect of a larger double-cab locomotive. On the other hand, on unit coal trains you often see 'elephant style' (more than one cab facing forward) so that if the lead engine develops a problem the one behind it can be used to run the train normally.
I have seen trailing power with cabs facing either in the direction of movement (easy to move to the 'point' if there is a road failure there, or have all the power facing the same way if pooled) or toward the rear (perhaps to simplify bidirectional movement). I saw a coal train yesterday (BNSF power) that had cabs in on the trailing power (!) - bet other railfans have pictures of this already
See above. Others more knowledgeable about specific operations will say why they prefer one to the other ... or what factors make it a choice vs. an accident. To my knowledge DP power runs equally well in either direction, provided the equipment has been configured to run in forward/reverse appropriately at 'run time'. In tunnels there might be an advantage in keeping the radiators ahead of the engine exhaust.
Less to do with the 'horsepower needed to move it' than with how that horsepower is communicated to the train through the couplers and draft gear. (There are good discussions on this subject in past threads, too.) When the power is divided (either with midtrain or EOT DPU) there is less drawbar stress in the cars ... in fact, at some point in the train (known as a 'node') there will be no drawbar stress at all. Since both couplers and drawgear have a limited (though high) breaking strain, and the likelihood of a break is much greater if shock or slack action is involved, minimizing the peak draft force on any car in a long and heavy train is important.
Since some slack is desirable in starting a long train, it used to be common to find more power on the point than as trailing power, which allows the front part of the train to be started conventionally ('car-by-car') before the trailing power has to start shoving hard. There are good reasons why there will be more power on the 'point' than either midtrain or trailing.
4. I live in the Pacific Northwest and the bulk of trains that we see are BNSF as that's who owns the track in my area. I was curious to know why sometimes you'll see a BNSF train with additional power from CP, CN, CSX and/or NS? I find it weird that a BNSF train would have another train line's locomotive attached to the consists.
See previous posts on pooled equipment, leased equipment, etc., as well as 'run-through arrangements'. We had a good one recently, regarding how this power is paid for (the assumption being that a unit is billed as producing its peak horsepower continually during the "offroad" time, with no discount for lower levels of usage or when parked). If you can get to the Forum search engine, there was a good discussion of pure leased power if you search on "Citirail".
GDRMCo"Again I'm assuming it has to do with horse power." Curious to know why you think this....(in regards to direction locomotive is facing)
In an episode of Buck Henry and Mel Brooks' "James Bond" spoof "Get Smart", Maxwell Smart is guarding the young and beautiful but naive Contessa. A KAOS agent (it took me years to realize that the word for disorganization is "chaos") enters the room and holds them at gunpoint. A CONTROL agent steps out from behind the curtains and pulls a gun on the KAOS man. This continues as KAOS and CONTROL agents appear out of nowhere and each points a gun on the next guy.
This forms a Conga line of spies, one pointing a gun at the next. The Contessa asks Max, "What happens now?" Max replies with his expertise on spy "tradecraft", "Nothing happens. This is what 'we in the business' call a stand-off. We just walk out of here . . ." after which we hear "blam-blam-blam" of gunfire and see the line of spies down on the ground. "Of course, it takes just ONE idiot!"
It is great that we have people with expert knowledge to respond to a new person's question, but it might take just one harsh response to discourage a newcomer.
Both the words "lashup" and "consist" are used to describe the coupling of multiple locomotive units using the multiple-unit (MU) connections and controls to effect a single locomotive operated by a single set of controls. Yes, lashup is more of a railfan term whereas consist is more official railroad nomenclature, but there must have been a railroad employee calling it a "lashup" before being slapped with a hat on the side of his head as the Skipper did to Gilligan.
Yes, lashup is probably more descriptive of the older practice of mix-and-match of different models or unit or even units of different manufacturers; these mongrel sled teams are more rare today with the increased sameness of Class 1 motive-power pools and locomotive assignments. Also, even though the word "lashup" got used, even on the print page of Trains Magazine, railfans in-the-know are more inclined to use the word "consist."
There is one aspect to distributed power not brought up. Yes, distributed power is easier on the couplers and favored if you have a long train on a steep grade requiring many locomotive units. But distributed power either requires specialized equipment for the remote control of trailing units by radio link. That radio link can also cut out if the train enters a tunnel, so the engine driver needs to anticipate this. Or, extra crews are needed to operate the locomotives, as with a "helper district" where another consist pushes on the rear of the train.
Furthermore, distributed power may require more switching in making up a train to locate the locomotive units that way. On the flat land and with shorter trains, it is simpler to lash up, er I mean, form a consist of locomotive units at the head end.
I have one question for our panel of experts. My wife and I were watching a long train of tank cars pass the Water Plank Road crossing of the CP in Elm Grove, Wisconsin near Milwaukee. I took some pictures, and my wife said, "I know you like to watch trains, let's wait for the caboose to go by."
I was going to say, "Honey, modern trains no longer have a caboose" but for you guys who have been married a long time, I kept that thought private. Sure enough, this train had a "caboose" in the form of a trailing locomotive, facing to lead the train were the train to change directions.
Is this a common practice to allow a reverse move of this long unit train? Or maybe that locomotive was just added to the train for "deadheading"?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote the following(in part):
[snipped]:"...I have one question for our panel of experts. My wife and I were watching a long train of tank cars pass the Water Plank Road crossing of the CP in Elm Grove, Wisconsin near Milwaukee. I took some pictures, and my wife said, "I know you like to watch trains, let's wait for the caboose to go by."
I was going to say, "Honey, modern trains no longer have a caboose" but for you guys who have been married a long time, I kept that thought private. Sure enough, this train had a "caboose" in the form of a trailing locomotive, facing to lead the train were the train to change directions..."
Just a note Paul: Sometimes, Prudence is the better part of valor. A spoken response/retott? to that kind of remark can land a husband on that 'mystical scale of wifely responses' : somewhere between THAT LOOK, and Homicide.
The important factor to remember is that wives like Elephants...NEVER, EVER FORGET.
Paul,
That unit on the rear end was 99.99% likely to have been a DPU.
Mac
Diesel Locomotives can produce their maximum horsepower and pulling power going forward or backwards. It is because they have an electrical transmission rather than a mechanical transmission like a truck. An electrical motor can produce the same amount of power no matter which way its shaft rotates. Interchange two wires that are feeding power to the motor and you change the rotation. As to the seemingly random way that the locomotives are facing, the crews want the lead locomotive facing forward if at all possible, other than that, they tend to be left the way they were facing at the time they were put together. With repect to whether all the power is on the head-end or split with one or more in the middle or on the rear, that depends on the amount of power allocated and the weight of the train. Too much power on the Head-end can break couplers. Putting locomotives in the middle of the train requires additional time to arrange the cars and the locomotives. Now it seems the first choice is to put the single locomotive on the rear as it is easier than splicing it into the middle. Manned pusher or helper locomotives are no used only in those situations where the additional power is only needed for a few miles, with remote controlled locomotives (DPU) used where there are multiple locations where the extra power is needed and where the extra power would be too much if it was all on the Head-end. As surprising as it may seem, two locomotives split one on the Head-end and one pushing on the rear can move more tonnage than the same two locomotives both pulling from the front.
Looking back over a trifle more than sixty years of interest in railroad operation, I recall that David P. Morgan used the term "lashup" to describe the coupling of two or more locomotives (and, back then, unless an engine was a helper with its own crew all of the engines were coupled together). It is possible that the term is now used in the industry to describe a mixture that is not the best.
Johnny
Thanks for the responses guys, and I appreciate the simple explanation beaulieu. That makes a lot of sense, and yes when I was referring to horse power I was thinking more like truck transmission, as the thought of the electical transmission didn't come across my mind. I have to keep telling myself that the locomotives are diesel/electric and not just pure diesel power. LOL Thank you for putting that into perspective.
So now to clear up the confusion on "lashup," and "consists." From what I'm gathering they mean the same thing and its referring to multiple engines being coupled together. One being a proper term and the other being a slang term. Correct me if I'm wrong. Before this my understainding (again a newb) was that "lashup" referred to multiple locomotives being coupled together and the "consists" referred to the rolling stock or the freight cars etc. I've also seen the term "manifest" used. Is that soley referring to the rolling stock or is that referring to the entire train (locomotives and rolling stock)?
As indicated above, the term "lashup" has derogatory connotations and was used in Trains Magazine in the Morgan era specifically to describe mismatched units from different builders, as opposed to matched sets of EMD or Alco A and B units which had been usual in the earlier days of diesel operation.
While consist is used to describe a set of locomotives, it can also be used to describe the vehicles in a train, particularly a passenger train which will normally have the same set of cars every day.
The term "manifest" refers to a list, such as the list of passengers on an aircraft. My understanding was that a manifest freight train was a through train with a predetermined load that would be given priority over slower trains that would collect vehicles from sidings along the way depending on demand.
That's my understanding, anyway.
M636C
M636C The term "manifest" refers to a list, such as the list of passengers on an aircraft. My understanding was that a manifest freight train was a through train with a predetermined load that would be given priority over slower trains that would collect vehicles from sidings along the way depending on demand. That's my understanding, anyway. M636C
Manifest - in todays freight railroading describes a 'general purpose' freight train that hauls many different kinds of cars, with many different commodities for many different customers - the manifest train. Manifest trains are normally scheduled to service specific customer commitments, they will generally be of a lesser priority than Intermodal (trailers & containers) trains, but generally of higher priority than single commodity trains, which may or may not actually be unit trains.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In the Pacific Northwest the term consist is simply a list. The engine or "power" consist is a list of the units that make up the engine. Train consist is an ordered list of the cars. In the late 1960's they were from caboose forward. Today at least some roads probably do it the other way.
Also last time I looked at GCOR the word engine is defined as whatever moves the train and locomotive is not. That makes engine the proper term for the power consist. Locomotive is generally understood the mean the same as engine, but "power" was the usual working slang term as in "put the power to the house". Train orders always refered to "engine xxxx" and I suspect track warrants still do.
If you hear someone talking about a locomotive lashup you can figure they are a railfan or a foamer. If he says engine, power, or power consist you can figure they are a working railroader.
As I remarked a few posts back, a certain well-thought-of man wrote of "lashups" many years ago--but it has now been quite some time since I have seen the term used in my favorite magazine about the best (to me) form of transportation.
PNWRMNM Also last time I looked at GCOR the word engine is defined as whatever moves the train and locomotive is not. That makes engine the proper term for the power consist. Locomotive is generally understood the mean the same as engine, but "power" was the usual working slang term as in "put the power to the house". Train orders always refered to "engine xxxx" and I suspect track warrants still do. Mac
Its nice to know that I'm not the only one that's confused by train terminology. LOL I guess for me its determining what a "railfan" term is as to what the proper term is for something. Not that it really matters but to some I'm sure it does.
When you look at the rules, the definitions apply to how the word is used in the rules (which may or may not have anything to do with how the word is used outside the rules).
An engine is one or more units propelled by any form of energy operated from a single control, used in train or yard service.
The key to this it is the collection of units under a single control. If the units have multiple people controlling them then they are engines (plural) and each set of units under a single control is considered a separate engine. Doesn't matter which way they are facing or type or model.
A train is defined as an engine or engines coupled, with or without cars (displaying markers and or authorized to occupy the main track, depending o the rule book and era). So a train can have multiple sets of units, each set under single single control.
Since the rules define a train as "An engine..." the train is addressed in authorities and directives as "Engine xxxxx..."
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Lead engine is almost always facing forward. Forward is determined by the letter "F" painted on the side at one end of the engine (Federal law). The rest of the units can be positioned randomly or there may be a pattern. On some trains the second unit is facing forwards so if there is a problem with the lead unit they can move the 2nd unit to the lead and go on. Sometimes the last unit is facing forwards so the consist is double ended, it can be placed on a train going back the other way without having to be turned or reconfigured.
Actually depends on the power of the engines, the weight of the train, the distribution of the weight in the train and the grades the train will be traveling over. The train can't exceed the strength of the drawbars so the number and placement of the DPU's has to be figured based on the tonnage of the train.
The railroads account for the power with "horsepower hours" (hphrs). If a 4000 hp NS engine is on the BNSF for 50 hours, the BNSF owes the NS 200,000 hphrs. If a 4000 hp BNSF engine is on the NS for 50 hours then the NS owes the BNSF 200,000 hphrs. Every month the railroads balance out how manhphrs they owe or are owed (in the above example it would be a wash between the NS and BNSF). To balance out the hphrs, a railroad may put engines into a service or allocatre sets to a service. If the BNSF and NS offer a train between Atlanta and Seattle, they might split the engines based on mileage or running time. If the train pair spends 100 hours on the BNSF and 50 hours on the NS, then there would be 2 BNSF engines for each NS engine pulling the train or 2 BNSF sets of power for every NS set of power. If one railroad gets out of balance with another, the hphr debtor road might give the owed road engines to pay back the hphrs. If the NS owed the BNSF 1 million hphrs they could give the BNSF 5 4000 hp engines for about 2 days to pay back the debt (5 engines x 4000 hp x 50 hours = 1,000,000 hphrs).
As a "newbee" it's good to ask questions. All of BNSF power can run in either direction, [Bi-Directional] Each unit has a "SWITCH" that determines the direction the power [engine] will run. BNSF power runs "cab-foward " as primary, and all foward units, [first of consist] will be "cab Forward". All the other units can run whichever way they get placed. The engineer, {me], checks to make sure all units are "lined up for running in the same direction as the lead. The units on the rear of a heavy train are DPU's, [distributed power units] They provide extra power as needed, as well as extra braking. Units from other RR, are sometimes put in a consist, and usually we try to have one of our units in the lead position, more for familiarity. Hope I gave you a little insight
CHIPSTRAINS As a "newbee" it's good to ask questions. All of BNSF power can run in either direction, [Bi-Directional] Each unit has a "SWITCH" that determines the direction the power [engine] will run. BNSF power runs "cab-foward " as primary, and all foward units, [first of consist] will be "cab Forward". All the other units can run whichever way they get placed. The engineer, {me], checks to make sure all units are "lined up for running in the same direction as the lead. The units on the rear of a heavy train are DPU's, [distributed power units] They provide extra power as needed, as well as extra braking. Units from other RR, are sometimes put in a consist, and usually we try to have one of our units in the lead position, more for familiarity. Hope I gave you a little insight
The only real requirement of having the operating company's power in the lead position on a train is if special equipment such as Train Control, ATS and/or Cab Signals are required on a specific operating territory. If the territory(s) have no special requirements then one company's power is as capable of leading a train as another company's power.
My company, in non-Train Control territory, will operate any locomotive in the lead (BNSF, CN, CP, CSX, FEC, KCS, NS, TFM, UP and leasers - we don't care). The operational controls of EMD and GE locomotives are mostly standardized with similar control stands and operational controls, depending on the particular locomotive type.
Engineers are trained on the various differences between the different types of locomotives.
And most of the places I worked at, they only care about how the leader is facing. The rest go as they are. A few trains may have some sort of operational reason to have a trailing engine facing a certain way, but for most trains - the goal is to get them out of the yard as quickly as possible. No time to make things easier for whichever yard the train terminates at. That will be their problem.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Excuse me, but reversing the polarity of the feed to the total motor, ac or dc, will not cause a reversal in rotation. For a dc motor or ac-commutator-motot (think GG1s and MP54s) one reverses the feed to the commutator and armichure with while keeping the the same polarity to the field coil. In other words, reversing the armuture feed with respect to the field-coil feed. In the case of an indcution or hysterises nonsnchronous motor, in a diesel-electric or electric locomotive, or railcar, one reverses the programmed sequence in the control computer.
Dehusman & Chipstrains - Thanks for the explanation. That helps a lot.
CHIPSTRAINSEach unit has a "SWITCH" that determines the direction the power [engine] will run. BNSF power runs "cab-foward " as primary, and all foward units, [first of consist] will be "cab Forward". All the other units can run whichever way they get placed. The engineer, {me], checks to make sure all units are "lined up for running in the same direction as the lead.
The switch you are referring to only controls the headlight and determines which end of the locomotive or the consist of locos will light up when the reverser is thrown. It has absolutely nothing to do with which way the loco will load!
.
Maybe he's thinking about DP engines, there is a switch to set when setting up engines for distributed power, to tell the DP engines which way to load.
Jackflash Maybe he's thinking about DP engines, there is a switch to set when setting up engines for distributed power, to tell the DP engines which way to load.
1. Some else already said this, but the reason is to have cabs facing out to quickly assign locomotives to another train without turning them around.
3. Another reason for locomotives being spread out in a train (called distubitive power) is to maintain air pressure for the brakes throughout the whole train.
4. I lived in Indiana in NS territory and I've seen locomotives from almost all the big railroads out here with BNSF the most often.
A locomotive's hp output would be affected very little (if at all) running in reverse. Locomotives are designed for safety and visibilty, not so much for aerodynamics.
I am curious about the admonishment to not use "the railfan term" if he wants to be taken seriously.
Was I mistaken when I began purchasing Trains Magazine almost 50 years ago, and this is not a railfan publication?
Are we not all here because we are indeed "railfans" (even the railroad employees that participate)?
It's like the case with the vintage "The Far Side Cartoon."
There is a trio of pot-bellied bears that have happened upon a hunting rifle left on the forest floor. Possibly these bears had surprised the hunter who ran off leaving that rifle behind.
One bear is scolding another bear on the use of correct technical phraseology: "Thunder stick? Did I hear you call this a thunder stick? That, my friend, is a Remington bolt-action thirty-ought-six!"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.