Locomotive lashup restrictions imposed after unknown incident

[Anonymous]

ANYONE GOT POPCORN

[chad thomas]

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

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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]

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."

[Mookie]

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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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!!!

[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!