cefinkjrWhen the GG1 still roamed PRR / PC (east of Harrisburg, of course), they were always called motors and one did not politely refer to their operators as engineers; they were motormen, thank you very much.
On the other hand, when the Metroliners came in, the people who ran them were "engineers", definitely not 'motormen', according to Al Eelman, who certainly would know.
The word "motor" was adopted by railroad men to distinguish non-steam power from"locomotives" which meant steam. Lots of railroads. I don't recall this on the B&M, however, they simply said "diesel."
"Stay on board, I'll run this diesel over to the North Station throat, so you won't have to walk so far." After a trip on GP7 1567 or 1568 on the freight from Portsmouth, NH to Sommerville yard, around 2AM.
When the GG1 still roamed PRR / PC (east of Harrisburg, of course), they were always called motors and one did not politely refer to their operators as engineers; they were motormen, thank you very much. I don't recall NYC electric crews caring what they were called although, again, their charges were motors.
ChuckAllen, TX
I would guess that the use of the term "motor" on Burlington and CGW may have come from their use of motor cars on branches and some mainline locals. After all, CGW was EMC's first customer.
"Motor" is still used by some I work with. I think it was more of a regional/specific railroad term, like "waycar" for caboose.
Off hand, two that come to mind where "motor" was popular were the CB&Q and CGW. On the CGW, their rule book (1954) used "motor" in train orders instead of "engine." Example: "Motor 97 run extra A to Z."
Jeff
carnej1 cefinkjr All this quibbling about "lashup", "consist", "manifest", and I don't know what other essentially slang terms put me in mind of the New York Central's Rules of the Operating Department that I had to memorize nearly 50 years ago. According to that 'little red book' (which I still have): An engine is "A unit propelled by any form of energy ..." and A train is "An engine, ... with or without cars, displaying markers." Clearly then, a mule with a lantern tied to it's tail is a train. I have also read older stories written by career railroaders were they refer to Diesel electric locomotives as "Motors";a term which railfans usually reserve only for electric motive power. I am under the impression that that particular slang term for locomotive has fallen out of favor in the industry...
cefinkjr All this quibbling about "lashup", "consist", "manifest", and I don't know what other essentially slang terms put me in mind of the New York Central's Rules of the Operating Department that I had to memorize nearly 50 years ago. According to that 'little red book' (which I still have): An engine is "A unit propelled by any form of energy ..." and A train is "An engine, ... with or without cars, displaying markers." Clearly then, a mule with a lantern tied to it's tail is a train.
All this quibbling about "lashup", "consist", "manifest", and I don't know what other essentially slang terms put me in mind of the New York Central's Rules of the Operating Department that I had to memorize nearly 50 years ago. According to that 'little red book' (which I still have):
Clearly then, a mule with a lantern tied to it's tail is a train.
I have also read older stories written by career railroaders were they refer to Diesel electric locomotives as "Motors";a term which railfans usually reserve only for electric motive power. I am under the impression that that particular slang term for locomotive has fallen out of favor in the industry...
Johnny
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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!"
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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!
Dehusman & Chipstrains - Thanks for the explanation. That helps a lot.
Trains Northwest
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7z2SF15sZ3pfV_VymvNf9A
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.
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.
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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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..."
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.