Locomotive lashup restrictions imposed after unknown incident

[Anonymous]

I don't know much about current locomotives, but back in the day, the engine speed was controlled by a governor. The governor had four solenoids that were energized in various combinations by the amount of voltage applied to that circuit. Starting with 74 volts maximum, as you began to string together more and more units with MU jumpers of various condition between them, you started to get voltage drop. After 8 or 9 units there was a good chance that you wouldn't get enough voltage to the trailing units to get the engine up to the desired speed.

As for anyone who objects to the term "lash-up", they need a little more misery in their lives to give themselves something real to be concerned about. Yeah, I've never heard the term used on the four railroads I spent 36 years working for, but the book of rules always defined it as a "locomotive", regardless of how many units it was made up of, yet whenever you reported a train move or dispatched power from the pad, most people called it a "consist". No matter which term you use, I think we all know what you're talking about.

[lhtalbot]

Most railroads lash up with "genuine Saskatchewan seal skin bindings" as pioneered by CN & CP.

Larry

[caldreamer]

I remember 10 SP SD45's pulling a train over the Sierra Nevada mountains, but they were distributed 4-5 up front, 2-3 2/3 the way back in the train and the rest pushing. I would imagine that 36000 HP pulling a 100-125 car train would rip it apart.

[ajmiller]

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

I started reading this thread slowly, one post at a time. With each passing post, I wondered how many more would go by before someone would bust on Deadeye for repeatedly using the term "lash up" instead of "consist". It's really no surprise that Old Timer would show up to throw a bucket of cold water on the new guy.

[Anonymous]

It would have been nice to read this thread without the smart-a** remarks. People who have knowledge could have supplied some education to those of us with less without the putdowns. But I guess that's OK, because I'll probably not read any more forums if I have to put up with such jerkiness.

[Anonymous]

VERY INTERESTING INPUTS AND OUTPUTS. I SEE BY THE ABOVE YOU KNOW I AM READING THIS ARTICLE. IT WAS MOST ENLIGHTNING. I SAW SOME COAL DRAGS BY THE BNSF WHEN ON VACATION "OUT WEST" IN 1897 THE ONE I REMEMBER HAD 3 BIG UNITS DRAGING ABOUT 200 OF THE NEW ALUMINUM HOPPERS. MOST IMPRESSIVE.
REDCABOOSE11

[Anonymous]

CPR is prohibits running more than 8 units in a consist, regardless of whether they are on-line, isolated, or dead. Apparently this is because the AEI readers on the CPR system are calibrated to recognized no more than 8 locomotives to a train and exceeding that limit causes the system to crash. As to why the limit was set at eight, I have heard varyious reasons of which the most likely seems to be that the combined weight of locomotive consists exceeding eight units was believed to a contributing factor in multiple incidents including several rolled rails and and least one serious derailment.
There are limits for a consist's number of driving axles and dynamic braking force as well, but with today's high horsepower units they are usually reached long before the 8-unit maximum.

[broncoman]

Would the current lack of lashups also be due in part to how long and how slow an AC powered unit can go vs a DC traction motored unit? Someone one correct me but wouldn't 4 or so AC4400s be able to take a train that required 10 SD40s before not just based on horsepower but also because they can handle prolonged slower speeds.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller

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

I started reading this thread slowly, one post at a time. With each passing post, I wondered how many more would go by before someone would bust on Deadeye for repeatedly using the term "lash up" instead of "consist". It's really no surprise that Old Timer would show up to throw a bucket of cold water on the new guy.

Here's the thing about it, guys:

If you want to ask a question of railroaders, ask it in terms railroaders use. If you have a question about terminology, ask somebody. We'll give you a straight answer.

If you want to appear "hip" to other railfans, use terms that railfans use.

Deadeye, I see you have 40 years in the law enforcement business. Congratulations. I've got you beat by three years in the railroad business.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

CGW once ran 12 F units in a consist to pull 276 cars. Train handling skillls had to be very good to start a train w/o breaking a coupler.

[Anonymous]

OLDTIMER

You keep stepping in it ol buddy..."Hip"....doesn't quite address the problem. You're a little bit too self righteous to see through the haze. If you don't work in a certain occupation, you're never exposed to any of the language or terminology, hip or otherwise. I'm sure with all your worldly experience, you can give everybody here a few lines of chapter and verse on airline operations...do you know how to ask a question on a Commercial Air Line Pilots website...or maybe your big financier in your part of the woods and we can all benefit from a disertation on how to invest our capital. How's your vocabulary on archictectural matters, can you speak about the engineering aspects of building design...could we hear you speak a little about anything at all, so we can all get a clear understanding of how expert you are on matters of which you know nothing about. You could really reinforce your standing on this site and have every one groveling with envy by your demonstration of using the correct expressions and technical terms for something you've never been exposed to. For some one with your mastery of the language, it shouldn't be a problem. When you wake up and smell the roses, you'll need to take a step back and ask yourself if you really are as uninformed as you make yourself out to be.

[ValorStorm]

But before we start vilifying "Old Timer" please note that he's an old timer on the forums as well. We do not want him scared off. He's another valuable information source on the forum.

He wasn't calling deadeyebobinsocal "stupid." We always welcome the newbies to the forum, and occasionally we correct their nomenclature. Old Timer tried humor. It didn't work. Meanwhile I'm enjoying a good education about big consists. Let's continue.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KOWENG110

I wish use of the slang word "lashup" would die out. The proper term is "consist" whether you're a pro or a railfan.
Bear

I am finding this thread most informative, and more than a little bit amusing!

The notion of Americans becoming pedantic about 'slang', and didactic and passionate about proper usage of the English Language is always going to be fun, particularly in the context of a website that is devoted to people's leisure activities and hobbies.

Keep it coming!

[eihndrsn]

I come here to be informed about my hobby not to be lectured on what is humour, which "Old Timer's" comments aren't, they are sarcasm. I don't often post as I read to increase my knowledge not to be lectured by sarcastic old asses.

[Mookie]

Ohmigosh! Now this thread has deteriorated to smacking each other around.

Is it the summer sun?

First we "Staggered" through the coal and utilities until everyone came to the posting with a small hand gun and brass knuckles. Now we are starting over here.

You say TomAto and I say Tomahto.....so what!

I grew up in a railroader's family - I say things like boards for signals, everything was coupled, not lashed or consisted. I have had a difficult time converting from 1940's lingo to 2006 lingo.

The point is: I now know a GP28 from an SD70MAC. I can tell a GP from an SD. I can identify most of the locomotives now used by BNSF. I learned about dynamic brakes and how coal is dumped. Didn't learn this at home - learned it on the forum. From people that maybe don't use the best grammer and at times I needed a lot of imagination to understand what they were trying to say.

Everyone contributes to this forum no matter where they were born or what their profession. Everyone can ask a question or submit an opinion. We can't be rigid to the point of not having anyone want to even post "good morning" for fear of someone saying "it ain't morning here!"

It's hot; it's humid. As the new generation sez: Chill!

Mook!

[rrandb]

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

[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

[waltersrails]

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

[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.

[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).

[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]

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).

[UPJohn]

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

[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."

[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)

[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

[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.

[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,

[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.

[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.