Gentlemen: Feel the “Love!”
So I did a search on “lashup” to see what I got.
Merriam-Webster describes it as "something hastily put together or improvised. That might be where Pinkipank was headed with his article. First known use (although probably not as a rail related term) is listed as 1898.
Similarly, the Oxford dictionary defines it as “A makeshift, improvised structure or arrangement.” It lists it as a British term
The Urban Dictionary list a lash up as “A lashup is a method of setting something up, usually to be tested in a quick, and usually “less proper” way. Instead of enclosing all the parts of things etc, parts are merely hardwired together in a way that they will work, if only temporarily.
see jerry-rig.”
And the Free Dictionary has this: "1. (General Engineering)
a. Also called: hook-up a temporary connection of equipment for experimental or emergency use
b. (as modifier):
Chicago people always used “L” as an abreviation for elevated. New Yorkers generally used “el.” But South Brooklyn people simply referred to “the train” from the days when the four lines were on the surface and used steam power.
I can kind of see where “lashup” comes from. Especially when you have to lace up the MU hoses, chains, and such.
Now I am wondering about the origin of the term “lite”. As in “lite power” or “running lite”. And every time I have seen it written down, it is always lite, and not light. Probably due to having one fewer letter.
Pennsy Power: Steam and Electric Locomotives of the Pennsylvania Railroad 1900-1957 by Alvin F. Staufer (1962)
“Another lesson in diesel flexibility concerns itself with hooking up units of dissimilar make and/or horsepower. For many years, PRR practice kept all similar units together, but they mix ‘em up today and you’re likely to see almost any conceivable combination running together. It’s a boon to a big road with many different types of units on the roster. This practice has been dubbed a lash-up by railroaders, because of the extra wiring necessary to achieve control over dissimilar locomotives.”
Which was put together by none other than a…HOSTLER.
The origin of “lite”? I suspect “lite” is to “light” as “MTY” is to “empty”. Just a form of shorthand.
But what about the origin of light?
It probably came from “Let There Be Light!”
Can anything that weighs as much as a Locomotive (Steam, Gas, Diesel, Electric) be considered to be LIGHT?
Could a single Locomotive be considered to be am "consist’? [:-^]
Brings back to mind the old argument of a Caboose,( in the singular).
Which would seem to make a multiple then, Cabeese. [:-,]
Many years ago, I saw something to the effect that the “L” in the Chicago L is simply the abbreviation of “Loop.” Consider that downtown the L forms a loop.
I think it has more to do with ELevated.
Maybe I’m just presuming here, but I always thought the term “lite” was more a reference to the weight of the load the engine was hauling, rather that to the engine itself. As for “caboose/Cabeese”, it reminds me of a comedy routine (George Carlin, I think; maybe Norm Crosby). If the plural of INDEX is INDICES, then why isn’t the plural of KLEENEX KLEENICES?
Yeah, like real railroaders are known to always use the proper terms to describe things. Give me a break.
I think it is nonsense to believe that lashup was a term invented by railfans, whereas real railroaders always use the proper term, consist.
That explanation sounds like it was made up by railfans.
It’s funny that in an industry full of terms that are slang or out dated, “triple valve” comes to mind, that this particular piece of slang is so opposed. I wonder if it’s because it was made popular in the rail fan/model railroad press?
I had a conductor use the term once about a year ago. I quickly told him that some would label him a foamer if he used the term.
Jeff
If a railroader around here uses the term lashup, we know he is a railfan.
He’s among friends, so that’s OK.
Around here it’s the same thing with F.R.E.D. If someone calls it a FRED, we know he’s a railfan. They’re normally called EOTs or markers.
I call the plush version of an EOT I made to use at shows “FRED” because “Fred” is more personable than “EOT” or “marker.” This one smiles instead of flashes (flashes a smile?)
It is, after all a Flashing Rear End Device. Ours are “dumb.” They just hang on the coupler and flash…
The kids don’t know the difference (and neither do the parents). Besides, there’s candy inside the door where the charging cord is stored on the real deal.
I have a lot more grief with the folks who refer to our baggage cars (used as “open air” cars, with all the doors open and secured with gates) as “cattle cars…”
No, you don’t get a break. As others have said, when someone walks up to you and mentions the word LASHUP referring to locomotives, you know they have been reading too many railfan magazines. The use of the term lashup in referring to a locomotive consist may have been coined by someone years ago at TRAINS magazine.
TRIPLE VALVE is still used today by employees because that is what a control valve on a freight car was first called. The term has just stuck around.
I have never had anyone that I have worked with call an end-of-train device anything other than an EOT. FRED is just another railfan tipoff.
I suspect FRED had it’s roots on the railroad in the mid 1980s when they were rolled out on most roads. F did not stand for “flashing”… Not everybody was happy with the advent of EOTs. I did hear it used and it NOT adopted by mgt and quickly died out - except in the railfan world.
NS had their own thing going on before the rest of the industry caught up - which would explain why you never hear “FRED” on NS.
Actually the term lashup does sound like it is trying to be too detailed. It goes without saying that the consist is “lashed up” in M.U. Maybe the term was originally meant to refer to engines in M.U. versus “double heading” early diesels that were not equipped to M.U.