OK, that's all good. I'm running double headers in nscale DC and some pairs work better than others. It's great that I can just choose and likely be prototypical! Back to real life, and some basic stuff: maybe you guys could expand a little on how the control system works on an MU setup? Right nowadays , I'm guessing you just press some buttons and call in whatever bits of the powertrain you think you need, but back in the day? How were multiple diesel engines throttles controlled? Thanks Donald Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Our resident expert has sounded off and so it is. He's right you know! I said with a deep sigh and sharp glance over at the OP. Grin! To answer Mr. Magnolia's question about MU-ing check out the following: http://modeltrains.about.com/od/mmodelrailroadterms/g/Mu-Multiple-Unit-Connections-For-Locomotives.htm . The author does miss the mark as eventually all PA's and other cab units eventually had connections for MU hoses. Many ended up being run elephant style mixed and matched in multiple sets that would bedazzle most hobbyist. And on another train-board there is a very similar discussion on going. An oogle google search will get you there. There's one more and I'll see if I can find it again. Here it is: http://railway-technical.com/us-musp.shtml . This author also misses the mark as he is consisting everything when MU-ing would be correct. Incidentally, Mu-ing your locomotive Lash-up... that sure sounds good to these ears. A+plus, to all who add such to their vocabulary. Does that help.
"Consisting," started with a call we got from a potential candidate running for president. Oop's sorry wrong discussion. I worked for a LHS in Ohio Country and a phone call from a DCC manufacturer was referred to me. Seems I was the stickler for a proper rail vocabulary. None of you would know me as being such a stickler...would you? Grin!!!! I was asked if "Consist" was the correct terminology or would model railroaders mind using it to describe (something I didn't understand at the time) a way to link one locomotive to another. My response was "No" that wouldn't be correct. "Mu-ing a Lash-Up" of Locomotives together would be appropriate. We consist passenger cars as in put the train together in such a way it follows a specific car order as determined per the railroads suits. They you tie in the steam lines, brake lines and today electric lines=Consisting. There was some further discussion on why they wanted to use such and I once again disagreed... with the party on the other end of the phone. At the end I realized the person wasn't interested in railroading on the 1:1 foot scale and could care less. Anyway, no one seems to care (the DGAS committee) and it's to late to change it. Once adopted wrong or right........ it is what it is. Except for those of us who know better. So go have some fun with your consist of passenger cars and MU your Lash-up of diesels or motors anyway you like. In todays computer age a lot of the locomotives uhh...err diesels or motors are actually controlled by computers and like DCC it doesn't much matter how the prime mover does it's job. Or what consist...oop's...lash-up they are in. They just keep pulling. Does that help?
Rick, I don't know about that, there was a long discussion on one of those other forums a few months back about what a collection of diesel locomotives connected together via MU cable was called. There were employees from multiple current railroads, old heads and knowledgable people up and down the industry in that discussion. The only truth that came out is that there's no such thing as a right answer here, but there may be a few wrong ones. Is it a unit, an engine? a motor? is the locomotive an individual unit or all of them connected together as one? It used to refer to the entire set ever only. What does lashup even mean? Some people say that term isn't even valid. That is NOT a term that is unified across the industry. And that's the problem with being a stickler for railroad terms. Each railroad had their own. And it was worse back in the good ole days. Anyway, a little more detail on Roseville. I was referring only to through trains through Roseville and long hauls originating/terminating . It is true that most of the locals, haulers and turns are pure EMD. So, the Rocklin Rocket has been a pair of EMD 4 axles for the last 5 years. Any combination of GP40-2s and GP60s. Just today, on my way back from lunch, I caught what was either that Canyon Crawler (Roseville to Portola and back) or the Redding Turn 2 SD70Ms and 1 SD59MX. A year and a half ago, runs like this were all SD59MX and SD60s(mostly three windows) but with the traffic downturn, they've been using the 70s more and more as they are in better shape. Also, Roseville has specific sets of engines that are semi-captive that will run up the "hill" as "helper" power. These are all C45ACCTEs (ES44AC) so runs over Donner will often have more GE than EMD, but that power is coming back down, not staying with it all the way to the midwest. On a similar note, because of their agreement with the California Air Resources Board, UP keeps their cleanest Exhausting locos in Ca as long as possible and won't let the dirtiest in. So the older AC4400s became quite scarce quite fast while the ET44AC Tier 4 units are based out of Hinkle and run almost exclusively up and down the I5 corridor from West Colton to Hinkle. So trains between Ca and Oregon tend to be Tier4 and therefor GE heavy. Though the Tier 4s do run other places as well. So, the short answer is, there are some broad rules about what units are on a train, but those rules have very little to do with Manufacturer excepting that 1: They only have Tier 4 from GE right now and 2: Their short distance mid-HP units happen to all be EMD.
True. For my own part, I do not remember hearing, (in person or on radio), "lash-up". Some folks call diesels "locomotives", which is a carryover from steam days. But others refer to steamers as engines, which they are. Diesels are engines, but not locomotives, as unlike steam there is no locomotion visible. Yet when some railroads dieselized, they referred to their engines as "motors". (The CGW an excellent example.) The Milwaukee Road always referred to their electrics as "motors." Some of the terminology discrepancies became a bit more standardized as railroads joined together in issuing "Consolidated Codes"- otherwise known as rule books.
Donald, I'm going to focus on locomotives connected with a Train Line MU cable, not DPU's. Without getting into too much detail, the Train Line MU cable has 27 wires in the cable. I'm not going to give specific wire numbers, but two of the wires control direction (Forward and Reverse) Four of the wires control the valves in the diesel engine governor and three of the wires are used for dynamic braking. On Locomotives each throttle notch is a preset diesel engine RPM speed and these speeds are controlled by valves in the diesel engine governor. Newer locomotives have electronic governor control, but it's still the same concept. On the cab wall there is a switch that is known as the isolation switch. For any locomotive you do not want to respond to the lead locomotive, you simply place the isolation switch in the isolate or the start/stop position. So when the throttle is placed in the second throttle notch, voltage is placed on one of the valve wires in the Train Line MU cable and all units in the consist respond, to that RPM setting. As the throttle is increased, different combinations of valve wires are energized and all the locomotives respond to the RPM request. Dynamic braking is a little different as you vary the voltage on one of the wires used for dynamic braking in the Train Line MU cable. I hope this answers your question about the prototype?
In one of his EMD articles, Preston Cook used term "bozo lash-up" to describe some of the "consists" that the E-L would put together -specifically a pair of SD45's plus a random F-unit. Prior to the arrival of the SD45, typical road freight power was a quartet of F-units - 6,000 hp and 16 axles. Although the output of two SD45's far exceeded 6,000 hp, apparently the 16 axle requirement remained in force (at least initially) so an F-unit would be tacked on the bring the axle count up to 16. The problem with that arrangement occurred on grades in low grip situations (wet or icy rails). The SD45 had a superior wheel-slip control system, so the F-unit would start to slip well before the SD45's ran into trouble. The result was that power would have to be reduced until the F-unit regained traction, hopefully before the train stalled. If the scenario repeated itself, a crew member would have to go back and cut out the F-unit, which then became dead weight.
I think the outcome of the discussion was that Lash-up was a term of art coined by Trains Magazine and the like. Not anything actual railroaders used.
Well, regardless, I disagree. As I noted, it's a carryover from steam days. There is zero visible locomotion involved with a diesel. I can't recall hearing railroaders; be they family (Several of whom where roundhouse men), friends, casually met trackside; reference diesel power as other than motors, diesels and engines.
What is "locomotion" but the means, or act, of movement? No matter what fuel is driving it, if motion is involved, it's locomotion.
Locomotion as in the visible (external) machinery which causes wheels to turn. That's what they were referencing, way back when steam began powering railways.
Same is true with caboose. Some RR's called them 'hacks' or 'crummies' or 'cabin cars' to name a few. Furthermore, I don't think the plural of caboose has ever been agreed upon. Is it cabeese or cabooses?
Looks like we've all taken turn to sound off. Thanks for the come back. We all sound like a bunch of model railroaders/railfans. Stickler? LOL Good one. Yes, each railroad and the Rails did have unusal variances and deviations in terminology. Get to to know them....! Model Railroading and Toy Train Enthusiast are a sub-culture onto their own. Do I dare say with a different vocabulary. Looking back at the posts above and not wanting to single out anyone person. BUT! Gosh YoHo and of course everyone tuned in here, You got to know I think highly of you and many others here on TB. No we aren't always on the same side of an assortment of issues. That doesn't mean I don't like you. In my defense: Although I don't really need one. Allow me to share the following. Ever hear the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You resurrected an old but worthless discussion, to make the same point they concluded with. Just because someone of some authority jumps up and says it is, doesn't mean it is. We've seen a lot of that in the media of late. I know what I'd like to say right about now but I will leave that for you to discern. Then you have the issue of fine folk telling other folk what they want to hear. I'm not one of those. And, you have those who take their authority from hear say, or a friend said he read in a book, no it was a magazine, no it was on the internet and that becomes their authority. I don't. I see the Rails as the experts on the subject and I look to them in order to replicate railroading on my layout. They know all to well the conflabs we model railroaders have and are aware of what we call things. After all they've been corrected by us...to many times. One of my family in response to a Foamers (Us) question, "You foamers call it....but we don't." At that point sharing the Rails terminology and/or definition. True, today everyone is wanting to rewrite history, minimize the past and make it look flowery or saying it never happened. With railroading they are doing their best to write new definitions. Like a dog or cat marking it's spot. Ok that wasn't a pleasant way to say that. For example... IE., A locomotive is a diesel when there's no locomotion to be seen on it. Further more the Rails I grew up referred to the stoves as locomotives and the diesels as motors. You can call them what you want but don't mind the snickering that comes from those of us who know better. I personally don't care what you call anything in model railroading. It's to late to change things but I do like to bump you guys every so often just to get you thinking. As a youngster growing up in a family of Rails, my perspective will forever be different then most of you out there. I know what I heard and I will stick with it....in the "Tradition of the Rails," Stickler! LOL That's me!!!!! I will refer to a herd of diseasels (sp intended) as a "Lash Up," as did my family of rails. You won't hear me using "Consist". So, It will be up to each of you reading this to make up your own mind. Exercise your right of choice and then stick with it. Right or wrong. If you hear me snickering or laughing in the background....I just might be. Grin! There do we all feel better now. Gosh, darn, persnickety. Aren't we all. Yes, I'm a rivet counter. Now go run your railroad and have fun playing with your toy trains. Grin!
Oh, I don't disrespect model railroaders or toy train enthusiast. BarstowRick.com is built on the premise that playing with trains is a great hobby and a way to escape the realities of life with a buzz of it's own making. It's your railroad, you make the rules, you set the standard and you decide the vocabulary. In the words of Jim157, "Number one is to have fun." I agree and you can quote me, "It's all about Fun." That's what I'm all about. Have fun!
According to my cardiologist, model railroading is therapeutic also. Just watching a train go around a simple oval of track, over and over and over, tends to lower blood pressure. Okay, I'll go with that but obviously he never took my BP when the *&#*%#@ derailed!
George, You can open our eyes now. We are past the heavy stuff. Take an aspirin and call me in the morning. LOL Inkaneer, Did you take your BP after reading this thread. Mines up! Time to pull into a siding, let the safety valve lift off, drop the fire and clinkers, get a new load of coal, top off the water tender and once again get underway. Have fun! Now where's that King Coal Vinyl, I have hidden in storage.
