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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Well, again coming from a complete train newb and not knowning the full functions of a locomotive; my guess is that depending on how the locomotive was designed, some locomotives will provide more horse power running forward as compared to backward. Then again they could run the same horse power in either direction. Again I don’t know (hence the question) but my initial thought tells me that a locomotive would provide more horse power going in a forward direction. Of course we all know what happens when one assumes. LOL
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” g
[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’ [^o)] : somewhere between THAT LOOK, and Homicide.[sigh]
The important factor to remember is that wives like Elephants…NEVER, EVER FORGET. [:-^]
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.
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.
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.
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.
The term “engine” is a carryover from the use of steam locomotives, when the word locomotive and the word engine were interchangeable since the locomotive was just an engine. The documents (train orders, timetables) were were written in the steam era and were not altered when diesel locomotives took over. I am surprised that this would still be the case 60 years later but some traditions continue long after they were appropriate.
I graduated from university in 1971 as a mechanical engineer and started work with a railway where my title was “Assistant Locomotive Engineer”. There were two grades in my position and we worked for the Locomotive Engineer. These titles dated back to the steam era. An “engineer” (without “locomotive”) was responsible for contruction and maintenance of the track.
Following a derailment, an engineer and a locomotive engineer would both go out to the site and try to blame the other for the problem.
The guys who drove the locomotives were called “drivers” or sometimes “enginemen” but never called engineers. Driver was the official term. I had to interview the driver following an incident.
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…”
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.
Random placement. Some prefer facing “backwards” so if a loaded train has an engine failure the rear unit on an empty is facing “forward” for the loaded train and can be borrowed.
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 th
[:D]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.