The L word

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

The L word was used on Page 18 of the June issue of Trains Magazine to describe a locomotive consist.- Once in the caption and once in the article- So is this a real word in the railroad industry? Or is it just a slang term? Rich

2

Its a CONSIST, period

3

[Y]

4

What is the “L” word here? Light engine?..all units on line in movement. Consist one engine pulling others dead or alive but not on line. Locomotive? There’s where vagary steps in. A steam double header would be two locomotives but several diesels would be units if all working from one throttle but two separate locomotive sets if not and had separate and different engineer and fireman. All this was usually minutely defined in the books of rules of the operating departments or in the local vernacular depending on year and railroad.

5

Please, for us uninitiated … what is under discussion here?

6

Lashups. Yes when describing horses and wagons/carriages. Beloved as a slangy term for locomotive consists. But no, not really an acceptable synonym for consists.

I think of the L word to describe MUed locomotives the same way I think of ‘single-expansion Mallet’ to describe a simple articulated: it’s understood what you mean, but there are more accepted ways of saying it.

7

Not train related, but “lashup” used to be a World War Two era Marine slang term for one’s particular unit, as in “What’s your lashup?”

But this IS train related: The Marine utility cover (the Army would call it a fatigue cap) was copied directly from a railroad engineer’s cap. And it’s lasted from then 'till now, from green herringbone twill to green sateen to jungle camoflage to “digital” camoflage.

OK, back to the unspeakable “L” word.

8

Thanks, Overmod.

9

So where did the term lashup come from? I know that it has been used a lot for a long time. There are plenty of things that have more than one name.

10

It refers to a draft-animal team, like the horses of a coach-and-four, or one of those twenty-mule teams for borax wagons. The harness lashes the horses together so they all pull the load.

I don’t recall the term being applied to multiple-headed steam locomotives as much as to MUed diesels, perhaps invoking the sense of all the engines pulling together in response to commands from the ‘reins’, or perhaps ‘harnessed’ in part by the MU cabling.

Some things have more than one name, but some of the names aren’t quite as well-accepted as others. Locomotive vs. ‘train engine’, for example.

11

Not sure where, or how, “Lashup,” originated, but, as Overmod indicated, it is rather imprecise.

There are plenty of things that have more than one name. Usually, one is the term used by professionals describing something they use (or have to deal with) in their business. Others are slopped on from outside by people who are unclear of how the professionals go about their business.

In this case, the professionals I know would never use the term, “Lashup,” for a doubleheader (two locomotives, two crews) or a consist (two or more units MUed, one crew.)

Chuck

12

But when did the term “lashup” begin to be applied to diesel locomotive operating in M.U.?

I agree that multiple steam locomotives are not ever called lashups. They are referred to as double header, triple header as you say. Althouth I have never heard that header term applied to more than three steamers.

I think “engine” is a perfectly acceptable term for locomotive. I seem to recall that C&NW referred to a consist of locomotives connected up for M.U. as the “engine.” But don’t quote me on that.

I agree that “train engine” is wrong. That sounds like something the news media would say.

I hear a lot of people pronounce locomotive as loco-moi-tive.

Look at all the terms there were for caboose. And a lot of thos

13

It is funny that this tread was started today. I was going to bring it up just a couple days ago in relation to the “Those Train Guys” thread as an example, and cite this thread that I recall from many moons ago (that would be many months for all you professionals):

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/68590.aspx?sort=ASC&pi332=1

14

Actually this topic has come up more than a few times. I didn’t even remember that thread although I replied a few times.

15

Now that we have that settled, I’m going to put on my bib overallls and drive my lashup to its destination; I just hope the steering wheel isn’t sticky, as it makes it hard to swerve at all those pedestrians and vehicles.

16

[:-,] Uhh - consider this title from a feature article by a “railroad professional” in Trains a few years back:

“Lash 'em up! - running diesels of different makes together”
by Pinkepank, Jerry A., Trains, December 1968, pg. 44

  • Paul North.
17

I don’t want to take this thread astray, but it’s kind of funny that the expression “The L word” among some onboard service personnel in passenger service, is a certain 4-letter obscenity that we have always hated to use: “LATE”.

18

I actually thought this thread was going to be about the Chicago Transit Authority.

19

I have heard professional railroaders refer to a locomotive consist consisting of several different makes or models of locomotives as a “dog’s breakfast.”

20

Randy, I thought the same thing. Discussion of Chicago transit frequently seems to evolve into "Is it the ‘L’ or is it the ‘EL’.