Locomotive lashup restrictions imposed after unknown incident

[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!

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[lhtalbot]

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

Larry

[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.

[Anonymous]

Canadian National in the old days placed a limit on engines of 24 motorized axles or 4 three axles units 6 four axle units under power any more would be dead or idling and along for the ride. The reason given was the draw bars and couplers could and would kick out sideways under heavy braking and pulling load derailing the engines. My guess that different locomotives GM, EMD, would load up or brake differently causing excessive forces.
The main reason I can think of for there not being 10 or more engines coupled is the newer power does not require them to do a job.

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mrb37211

Why are locomotives running when in a consist but not contributing to pulling the train?

We simply gathered up engines between Christmas and New years , cold weather means they stay running, albeit not all on line .

[railfancwb]

Why are locomotives running when in a consist but not contributing to pulling the train?

[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

[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).

[Randy Stahl]

Remember what I said about buff force that exceeds 250,000 lbs. I wouldn't try it !
I've moved dead engines ( not with the dead engine feature cut in ) in consists of 24 locomotives with little problem. I don't think I would want to try it with a freight train though.

[Anonymous]

I have been under the impression that railroads restrict the number of units on the headend due to excessive horsepower snapping a coupler knucker if the brakes were not totally released through out the train, along with the excessive weight of mulitpe units in excess of six exceeding bridge live load restricions.
As far as the independent brakes goes, they apply braking forces on the head end only that in itself should not snap a train, wheres as the automatic brake applied at speed in full emergency has the capability of laying a train out all over the ground.

[spbed]

Boy are you lucky to live only 75 monutes from train heaven. The 14 loco or more lashup I saw was in the Cajon pass on the upper most (UPRR only) track. [:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deadeyebobinsocal

For Gabe, Randy and all others:

I raised the question about long lash-ups, because I live 75 mins from Cajon Pass, (in Southern California). While there one day, I was photographing trains. A stranger standing several yards away commented to his friend that "You'll never see anymore 10 locomotive lash ups here again". I didn't hear what came before that remark, or after it, but I was stunned to learn of that situation. Prior to that fateful day, you could go there and see Santa fe Yellow Bonnet engines in strings of 10, fairly routinely. As I thought about it, I couldn't remember seeing any 10 unit lash ups for a very long time. In recent times, the most you'll see now are 8-9 units together and there may be a dash 9 as the lead unit. I have been laboring under the impression that something had happened in the railroad world to limit the number of locomotives that could be physically connected together. Having not seen a 10 unit lash up in a very long time, I had to assume the stranger was alluding to an event that occurred causing a ruling or practice that outlawed the 10 unit locomotive practices. There may be nothing whatsoever to limit long lashups, but we don't see them any more and there was never an explanation to account for the absense of that condition. Randy Stahl, has commented that it's all about horsepower and that is the determining factor. I'll have to accept that as gospel because I certainly am in no position to know differently. Thanks for your responses

[spbed]

Look into my web site then the California March 2006 gallery & you will see a UPRR train with at least 14 engines in the consist. I have seen BNSF trains on the FT. Madison webcam with more then 10 engines from time to time as well.[:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deadeyebobinsocal

for Randy Stahl:

There was a ruling some time back prohibiting locomotive lashups from exceeding ten units in one single segment. Prior to that time, railroads were routinely running lashups to answer horsepower needs, regardless of the number. Do you know of the event that changed that freedom and imposed the limitation of nine units maximum in a single lashup?

[Mookie]

And to add to this discussion - we saw 5 just the other day. But as they passed by, only 2 were actually doing the work. The rest were just along for the ride. There was a mix of very new and some old (9's and 70's)

Mookie

[samfp1943]

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.

jeaton and Old Timer, This makes you wonder if the BNSF has unearthed a couple of old cars that had been hiden away in a building somewhere with a supply of old Frisco coonskins?[}:)][}:)][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[rrandb]

It is not unusual to see large "consists" (lash-ups for the railfans) of Hi HP late model power in KC but these are power moves at the head of manifest or intermodal freights. While all are usually running (heat from above radiators) they are probably not on line. No smoke from all the manifolds when they start rolling.

[Anonymous]

BIGJIM

Thanks BIGJIM, for getting me dialed in on an answer to a question that's been nagging at me for a long time. I've never been inside an actual locomotive in person. so it's difficult to visualize how the functional problems are established. I didn't have a clue as to how the brake system works in a "consist" configuration, (as you're sitting in the seat trying to make it release). I think I have a much greater understanding of why I don't see any 10 unit locomotive consists any longer. Your thorough explanation is most appreciated and I thank you. Take care.

[BigJim]

As the youngster said it has more to do with braking effort than anything. RRs would already have a limit to the equivalent number of powered axles on line in power and even less powered axles in dynamic brake. Those units might be idling, but only so many are online.

As for the brakes, the more units in the consist the longer it takes to apply the independent brake if they are all MU'ed. The time seems to increase expotentially as each unit is added. This is also true for releasing the brake. It takes forever to get the brakes to release. This is not good when trying to switch cars, doubling over tracks and such. Anything over three units with the independent brakes cut in is a pain in the butt to move around.

The really big deal about having all of the brakes cut in is all of the braking force that they attain. There is enough there to buckle a train.

[Anonymous]

OLD TIMER

Well Bub, it probably doesn't matter one tiny iota, whether they're glued, blued screwed or tattooed together, you knew exactly what was being put on the table. Since I never worked for any railroad, it's possible that I wouldn't know bowline on a bite vs a turkey knot, or anything else in perfect diction or terminology. You can call them anything that blows your skirt up, I could care less. I was asking a question to seek an answer. your contribution didn't raise any flags of respect on this end. It's also very possible that I'm older than you are. Thanks for your fine help, if you have any questions about the police business, I have about forty years of that to draw on.